jgeada

And stop allowing people who view their house(s) as an investment from being able to veto any and all building. While that incentive is present, there will be massive hurdles to being able to build the amount of housing that is necessary.

No sure I see that any different than the typical American behemoth truck/SUV blocking all lines of sight to everything other than a 12 wheeler. And to top it off, they can't take a corner and so they all seem to slam their brakes and cause a traffic jam at any interesting corner.

All to transport one person by themselves from home to office and back.

Curating ideas requires experience and taste. Can you really develop that without looking at code? Compare Steve Jobs vs Joni Ive curating as a prime example of how taste without practical experience and context can lead things astray. And the worst of it is that it can take a while for the problem to be easily noticeable.

"Apple" is a generic name, that does not actually really express anything particularly specific.

Eating apple, cooking apple, cider apple, pig feed?

Granny Smith, Honeycrisp, Red Delicious? All apples, wildly different, all common. Even within the more commercially available variants there are significant differences: https://www.jessicagavin.com/types-of-apples/

Heck, just for cooking apples there are huge number of different varieties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_apple

Yea, "apple" as an idea doesn't really express anything concrete without lots more context.

And without more context, Apple may even mean something that isn't even a fruit, but still popular: www.apple.com

Ideas are a dime a dozen. All of us have half a dozen of what appear to be good ideas every. Execution matters, testing and sanity checking matters, actual engagement with users and iteration matters.

Sure, we're reducing the cost of idea -> prototype to near zero (well, as long as tokens are free or nearly free), but that just means we now have mountains of throw away code, within which there may a gem or two.

Nothing yet has replaced the curating of ideas that good teams do as a matter of course.

Maybe the problem is structural: there is an absurd amount of power to be gained by seniority in both houses. To a voter there is a significant advantage to choosing an incumbent as their power increase with seniority.

What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure?

We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.

That is exactly the point: this burden should be placed on the software and its controls, not on the humans.

Aviation learned this the hard way, that automation should be adapted to how humans actually work and not on how we wish we worked.

Any set of rules that makes humans responsible and starts with "don't anthropomorphize <whatever>" is a broken set of rules.

Humans will anthropomorphize anything and everything. Dolls, soccer balls with a crude drawing of a face on it, rocks, craters on the moon, …

As a species, we're unable to not anthropomorphize things we interact with, it is just how're we're made.

Except in this case the middleman added thousands of dollars to the cost without adding anything of value: not curation, not discovery, nothing. Without this middleman acquiring an expired domain would have been whatever the nominal registrar cost (somewhere between $10 to $100 or so per year for a domain)

Useful middlemen do serve a role and add value. A parasitic middleman just extracts value without adding any value anything in return.

What risk? They contributed nothing, they have performed no function. Their only claim on it is having been first on the dictionary attack and laid claim to a bunch of useful letter combinations without providing any value or service.

If they didn't do any of this that combination of letters doesn't disappear, it just goes back to being available from the primary registrars.

The squatters are just vacuuming up some of the profit off people that would/could use that combination of letters to actually provide a service.

I don't view middle man parasitic behavior as valuable, and see no market value performed here other than extraction.

Prediction markets and all the market manipulation are the symptom, not the cause. Our society used to have real consequences for breaching public trust, but with our mere decades old "money is speech" legal system, there have not been any consequences for moneyed interest in quite a while. And as long as there are no consequences, they keep trying more and more egregious violations of public trust to establish where the new red line (if any) actually are.

Don't think I've ever read a properly produced ebook. Page breaks fall wherever and formatting is dictated more by my size/border/etc choices than by whomever "produced" then book.

Nevertheless automatic typesetting and formatting have existed for decades! TeX and LaTeX are ancient and produce better looking results than any book I've ever read on any of my ereaders, and those aren't the only tools in this space.

Whatever people are paying for such "production" seems wasted.

If that is true, of which I remain highly skeptical, then it implies that books are wildly inefficient to produce.

What on earth are all the middlemen between book being authored and it being sold to a customer that add so much overhead that the cost of printing and logistics disappears in the noise???

The issue is also one of agency: the public has absolutely no agency in this. There is nothing an ordinary member of the public can do to avoid having their data exposed, there is nothing they can do to cause corporations to have more robust security models nor to cause actual consequences for all the executives that chose profit over security at every possible decision point.

To the public this becomes like the risk of being hit by lightning or being in a car accident, just background noise we avoid thinking about as much as possible. It is just the cost of living in this economy.

There are presentations that you actually present to an audience, to which this point is valid.

But lots of presentations, including this one I think, are merely used as a means of conveying information (yeah, not my favorite way of doing so, but being a contrarian doesn't do anybody's career any good), and those are indeed intended to be read and need to have explicitly all the information that you otherwise would be speaking and addressing.

If you have a fixed profit margin, the way to make more absolute money is to allow your costs to increase. Insurance companies have zero reason to negotiate prices down.

Inflation has made prices higher, but people's purchasing power has been decreasing all this time. Salaries, benefits etc have all not been keeping up with inflation for decades. It is why young people are marrying later, not able to afford to buy property etc. All the gains the economy has made over the past handful of decades have been captured by a small percentage of the population.

| - Have leaders skilled in whatever their direct reports are doing. Use them as coaches normally and as spare workers in times of high demand.

I think this is the biggest hurdle for US style management produced from the MBA cookie factories. Their only skill sets are MBA speak, assigning blame, taking credit and granting themselves the largest bonuses possible while telling all the actual workers generating value that "due to current financial conditions, your raise is limited to 2%"

Not the "West", obsessive single minded individualism is a US characteristic. All other western nations (read: Europe) realize that there is significant value to society and that to achieve things we need to work as a group.

Well, those committed the only crime that matters in the US: they stole from the rich.

And don't forget retroactive claw backs on any profits taken; otherwise they'd make sure the assets to be seized are of absolutely no value (and canonically, negative value: all the environmental disaster and other collateral damage is offloaded to the public)

I think their problem is that very few countries have refinery capacity to deal with crude oil, which is what these ships contain. So the crew have limited choices. It is a "someone else's problem", to quote the Hitchhiker's Guide.

This seems like one of those problems that arise when we let rich people and corporations arbitrage for the lowest possible legal consequences, in this case flags of convenience that have no standards.

There is always some poor or corrupt country willing to ignore consequences as long as they can make a buck. The profits are private, but costs and consequences always laid onto the public. Miserable way to run things.

Big scale fraud like this always has its origin and motive force in the executive suite and board.

However, the consequences are always applied to everyone but the executives and board.

At a previous company we used to joke that most of management was a "problem admiration society":

They'd love to talk about problems, investigate them from all angles, make plans on how to plan to solve the problem, identify who caused it or how to blame for it, quantify how much it costs us or how much money we could make from solving it, everything and anything except actually doing something about it.

It was never about doing the thing.

We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.

We the people are responsible for the government we get.

Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.

All you did was changing the programming language from (say) Python to English. One is designed to be a programming language, with few ambiguities etc. The other is, well, English.

Speed of typing code is not all that different than the speed of typing English, even accounting for the volume expansion of English -> <favorite programming language>. And then, of course, there is the new extra cost of then reading and understanding whatever code the AI wrote.

All empirical evidence shows that single payer systems work better, producing far better outcomes at lower cost, than the US system. In fact, so much better that a single payer system is what Congress has chosen for itself!

But seems some prefer to believe a theoretical argument with no evidence to back it up.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

Markets can remain irrational, or colluding, far longer than you can stay solvent (or even alive).

For example, while the Phoebus cartel only really lasted from 1925 through to 1939, 1000hr incandescent light bulbs remain the standard offering till present day. Profitable market manipulations are sticky.

The whole notion that markets are efficient is just a mathematical construct that has become very dogmatic for people. But if you look into the details, markets are efficient under the assumptions of perfect information and infinite time. Neither of those conditions are present in the real world: we neither have perfect information nor infinite time.