kmkemp

It's all a policy choice, though. The USA could, for example, increase property taxes on non-primary homes and offset investor losses by adding an incentive to sell non-primary residences for some length of time (say, 2 years). The problem isn't that the solution is a mystery. It's that we barely live in a democracy and the people that own multiple homes have more power than the young-ish (median first time home buyer is up to 40 years old now) population that doesn't vote in large (enough) numbers to offset the power imbalance.

That seems to be the sentiment based on our founding origins or if you talk to an individual, but the fact is that we imprison more people per capita than anyone else. It's hard for me to believe that all of the criminals just live in the USA.

Generally speaking, low unemployment leads to the Fed raising rates, the anticipation of which, hurts stock prices.

Similar story here. I've been remote for 9 years. I don't live that far from a minor tech hub, but it would still be an hour commute each way.

Housing here is below the national average, so there is a huge savings there. I've only put maybe 10k miles on my 2007 Corolla in the last 5 years, so I pay much less in gas/maintenance/replacing vehicles. I can have delicious, healthy food every day for half the cost. If I need someone to come to my house for repairs (or other reasons), I don't need to take a day off or miss hardly any work time. I don't have to be mad when they don't show up (maybe a little). My daughter can attend a great school that requires pickup, because being away from my PC for 30 minutes every day in the afternoon is just not a big deal. If I want to take a break and get in a quick jog in the middle of the day, it costs almost nothing in lost time; I just walk outside and start running.

I don't know what sort of raise I would have to get to convince me to give all of that up. I think I've settled on 40%, which is untenable without relocation.

I think the experience just isn't mainstream enough. I think there are a lot of people that would drop $200-$300 to get a beat sabre experience if they were aware of the option. Is there any reason it should be less compelling than the "Wii as exercise" craze, for example?

Any solution here is just an arms race. The better AI's get at generating text, the more impossible the job of identifying if an AI was responsible for writing a given text sample.

Yes.

Paylocity | Remote in USA | Full Time | www.paylocity.com Hiring: Senior Software Engineer + others We're looking to add an SSE to our team whose focus is adding features to our Benefits product. Besides working with talented individuals, some aspects that I think are potentially appealing about working at Paylocity are:

  * remote culture from day 1
  * partial salary transparency
  * flex work schedules (4x10 on my team)
  * pay ($84,487 - $182,372/yr for this position)
  * RSU (awarded yearly ~50k, 4 year full vesting in increments of 3 months)
  * ESPP
  * 30% growth YOY
  * all standard benefits, 401k with 4% match on 8% contribution
  * strong diversity & inclusion culture

Paylocity | Remote in USA | Full Time | www.paylocity.com Hiring: Senior Software Engineer + others

We're looking to add an SSE to our team whose focus is adding features to our Benefits product. Besides working with talented individuals, some aspects that I think are potentially appealing about working at Paylocity are:

  * remote culture from day 1
  * partial salary transparency
  * flex work schedules (4x10 on my team)
  * pay ($84,487 - $182,372/yr for this position)
  * RSU (awarded yearly ~50k, 4 year full vesting in increments of 3 months)
  * ESPP
  * 30% growth YOY
  * all standard benefits, 401k with 4% match on 8% contribution
  * strong diversity & inclusion culture

Other teams are also hiring for a variety of positions if the level isn't appropriate for you.

I put a 20% downpayment on my house and it involved a wire transfer that was scheduled for days in the future that required my physical presence at a centralized authority (bank). With Bitcoin, that process takes less than an hour, with very little "fee", and doesn't involve any of the "trust", which was represented in my example by time delays, scheduling, and traveling.

It would mostly be for primaries, where the field is wider, but don't discount how ranked choice voting could lead to more than 2 viable parties.

If the government wanted to help people do taxes more easily, they would just simplify taxes. Lobbies (from TurbTax and competitors) are standing in the way.

It seems likely to me that the cap will just be expanded at some point, but that is likely tens of years away and its expansion will likely be equal to or less than the replacement value of lost coins.

The reduction of a technical problem to a word problem is the application of years of accumulated knowledge, including, in many cases, Computer Science concepts.

I understand the attitude that this isn't a new phenomenon, but degrees can't be ignored. The labor force participation rate has been consistently falling for a long time (at least 20 years) in the USA (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-parti...). I'd argue that the data there still doesn't cover the full force of what's been going on: career positions have typically been replaced with a gig economy.

It's not hard to see that the scope of automation could increase in areas that would more drastically affect employment in the short to mid term than the other developments we've seen in the last 20 years. Either full long-haul automation or almost full automation with remote intervention could be a reality in the very near future, but almost certainly will be in 10 years. Call centers will be almost completely automated. Factories are automated to a much higher degree than they have been in the past. Every industry is solving problems with software that increase efficiency of workers (ie, fewer workers needed) and that trend is accelerating.

We can always say "this time isn't different". History tends to repeat itself. My point is: the trend is already there to see and the evidence suggests that it may accelerate very soon.

Opting out would then require trusting an organization who is incentivized to collect data to not collect it. That can't be the solution.

Idea: since abstractions like functions exist in order to help you prevent bugs in sufficiently complex systems being manipulated iteratively, is the problem not that testing for correctness is bad form, but that the assignment wasn't sufficiently realistic for them to need the abstractions?

"seeking political power through control of institutions" seems entirely subjective. Why is someone on the far left running for office doing this moreso than a libertarian?

Odd, that's not my impression. Seems like the center (on both sides) and non-libertarian right want to see him in jail.

Chrome's primary competition wasn't FireFox as they've never been anything close to a market leader. My post was about what features led to Chrome gaining such high market share, and their default privacy settings were superior to some other browsers.

That's fine also, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. If lax laws have allowed monopolies to take hold, then the job of the government is to protect consumers by creating a free market - and that may mean breaking companies up. In the case that the monopoly is natural or sufficiently hard to prevent, the government should either take over the industry and run it as a non-profit or intervene in such a way that creates a free market.

For non-technical users: faster pages, account syncing, google name recognition and default searching. For technical users: V8, dev tools, better privacy, evergreen, frequent updates, tabs as processes, fast implementations of new specifications. There were many reasons that Chrome rapidly gained market share.

Making anonymous trades is a legitimate use case, even if we understand that it would be an attractive option for black markets.

A correction - bitcoin is not anonymous enough to enable any of the use cases you mentioned. But that misses the points - tools can't be blamed for secondary use cases - do you blame physical dollars for enabling child porn?

As far as our carbon budget, how we choose to create energy and how much energy something uses are unrelated concepts. If people pay a proper price for energy that reflects its scarcity and externalities, then there is no problem. In a world where we use 100% renewable energy sources, would you complain about bitcoin mining? In any case, one could argue that the amount of energy required to secure the bitcoin network is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of energy that (for example) the USA uses to secure the value of the dollar. If we then factor in the pretty obvious benefits of a decentralized currency, it seems like a great idea if the downsides can be properly addressed.

Why do you believe that corporations employ lobbyists? Why do you believe that corporations make campaign contributions? We can imagine that Congress could be composed of members spanning the normal human gamut of morality and then adjust the viable window to account for the system. Given that money is a primary factor in campaigns on this scale, fundraising is important enough that members of Congress spend almost half of their time raising money for their re-election. If someone can get you elected by funding your campaign, they can also fund your opponents instead at any moment. Now, there are probably some members who stand strong in the face of that pressure - and they are more likely to lose than someone who caves - so over time, those members lose their spots. Therefore, the window of morality, I would argue, will naturally get skewed towards those "willing to appease corporations who donate to their campaign". In some cases, that means that laws are written with input from lobbyists (and maybe labor unions as well) and in other cases that will mean that lobbyists literally write the bills themselves (which are still subject to alterations during the process of course). Unfortunately, the system skews Congress over time towards the latter. There isn't a conspiracy theory here - just a math problem and the human condition.

Corporations write trade deals. Corporations literally write laws (by proxy) in many cases. Corporations control the media. Corporations pay trusted 3rd parties to promote whatever agenda helps their bottom line. Corporations aren't evil - they're just (by definition) self-interested entities who have decided that government has a high ROI. Those are all actually very inconvenient for me since power is a zero sum game and I'm on the other end of the equation.

1. Corporations typically "invest" in multiple candidates - I wouldn't be surprised if they funded both Clinton and Trump. 2. Amazon owns a major publication that directly influences voters. 3. Amazon employs lobbyists who actively work to change laws that will help Amazon's bottom line. 4. Amazon and other tech giants absolutely have the power and profit incentive to heavily influence voters for or against particular candidates. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we ended up with two candidates in the general election who are extremely friendly to large corporations.

Amazon elects politicians in a more substantial way than voters do.

Sure, but internet is a basic necessity at this point regardless of if you choose to stream content.

While I get that that's more money than a lot of people have to spend, all of those combined are cheaper than a typical non-basic cable or satellite plan even today - after they know they need to compete with streaming services. It's a lot cheaper (especially adjusted for inflation) than those services were 10 years ago. So anyone that could afford content then is probably able to afford it now, but they have better options - so they might choose not to.

Unfortunately, the "new" keyword can override functionality.