jsbg

Are you saying the reason people don't like pair programming is because it's considered more expensive than it's worth?

Everyone inherently knows this, that's why they reach out to others when stuck on a bug (see also rubber-ducking). But why is it so hard to convince individuals and organizations of the benefits of pair programming?

That was a scene in The Office. The salesmen phone the cheaper competitor's customer service while on a sales call to let them see how long they would wait on hold if they needed support.

That said, I had an experience recently where the chatbot replaced the phone tree that led to a human and it was very helpful.

Why would you spend your time and effort building a house that earns you $50k when for the same time and effort you could build a house that earns you $150k?

Luxury housing is exempt from rent-control laws in places where those exist.

How many 9s does lyft guarantee?

Do you have a complete list because thats literally what trump is doing.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-gra...

Yeah, because he was guarding them against the current administration abusing the Justice Department to go after them. Same reason he pardoned Fauci and others.

Are pre-emptive pardons a common thing for American presidents to do?

https://www.axios.com/2025/09/06/biden-pardon-autopen-concer...

that's why no one every buys TVs

Yet, it creates zero value.

Then why do people give them money?

edit: the funeral home published this

previous comment: could have been programmed as `Time.now - 1.day` to be published if no action was taken on the day of

according to chatgpt, 25% of people die of cancer in canada; presumably dying of cancer is a lot worse than MAID so one might expect this number to grow beyond 5% unless there are just that many people that object to it for themselves on philosophical grounds

which means almost all real numbers are transcendental

Definable numbers like 2, pi, or Chaitin's constant [0] are countable. The reals are only uncountable because of numbers we can't even talk about.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant

wild to comment this

Gun game has been an official game mode is CS for a long time

This official version differs quite a bit from the original gun game though and it is not as fun.

the theory of comparative advantage

It's not a theory. Firms trade internationally because it's cheaper, not because they "believe" in free markets.

But government (society) can take a longer term view than a company that is influenced by pricing signals

Private markets routinely make multi-decade bets; entire industries (mining, energy, infrastructure, biotech) work on 20–100 year horizons. Risk and time are already priced in.

Free market works in theory because you assume complete information

Free markets don’t "assume" anything; they function through decentralized price signals. And even with imperfect information, dispersed actors still aggregate and react to knowledge far better than any central planner can.

I'm not really into celebrities

I don't understand how that factors in. It said my score was 34/40 but really it was 34/35. The rest I didn't know and I selected that I didn't know them.

Isn't this priced into the product? I don't see how this contradicts comparative advantage.

There are huge advantages

What are they?

Really. If obsessive zoning and building regulations didn't artificially restrict the supply then there would be no reason for anyone to "invest" in houses.

Doesn't biological age normally go down with weight loss? Is it just a corollary of the off-label effects of the drug?

The long-term systemic effects of these drugs are still largely unknown.

The long term effects of obesity are very well known though and unlikely to be better than any still unknown negative effect semaglutide might have.

how does $500 (likely from your tax-free HSA) compare to the taxes you would pay in a monopsony system?

In the US you have to be worried about taking an ambulance or visiting the ER may cost you thousands for nothing.

No you don't. For one, if you are insured that is not a possibility. And 100% of the people I know who are not insured save more money than insurance would cost them given their incomes are higher and taxes lower than Germany. They choose to accept the risk because they are relatively young and healthy. All of them could cut down on luxuries and pay for insurance if they wanted to.

I once took an ambulance to the wrong ER, not understanding that I had to go to one that took my insurance. When the hospital found out my insurance wasn't going to pay, they lowered the bill by 90% and it was completely manageable.

Meanwhile in Canada I have family members that have to wait nerve-racking months for life-saving procedures or even imaging. In the US, I've had a few MRIs the same week the nurse practitioner ordered them for things that were absolutely not urgent.

All things being equal, a single-payer system would likely solve many more problems than it would cause.

That has not been the case at all in the countries that did go that route. The US system has serious issues but I would take it over Canada's any day.

in the best case you'll invent a new drink but I doubt it'll be very good; start with a very small amount instead of using the same proportions as with chartreuse and you may get somewhere interesting, like a gin sazerac kind of drink

my favorite cocktail these days is the bijou, which you can think of as a negroni with green chartreuse instead of campari, and with orange bitters—you wouldn't think chartreuse and italian vermouth would make a good drink but it's fantastic

bonus if garnished with a green olive

The only new part is a different explanation for why resting makes it more juicy.

Even that is not new. I've known this for long enough that I don't remember where I learned it.

try reducing a sauce and you'll see how much energy it takes to actually evaporate "not a trivial amount"

No it doesn't. According to chatgpt about 9x as many people have lived since 1825 as there were then and the world gdp is 157x as much as it was then.