markharper

Notably a core plot device in the French Home Alone style film Deadly Games (aka Dial Code Santa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Games_(film)

one correction: neoclassical economics, not neoliberal economics

He fundamentally does not understand how markets work. I am a software engineer.

I can assure you that the Harvard and Yale educated professor that's written textbooks on the subject knows how markets work. He might be heterodox in his adherence to marxist economics, but he fully understands the orthodox position, almost certainly in more detail than you or I ever will.

My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez).

A couple things. Chavez is of a different category from the other three just on the amount of death under the other regimes. The question of the results of socialism and capitalism is complex. It's worth reading both historical and economically focused works to get a more nuanced view than the one that you've laid out. For a few suggestions:

On historical critiques of the US-centric perspective:

The Jakarta Method, Vincent Bevins

The Darker Nations, Vijay Prashad

A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn

Economic works:

Competing Economic Theories, Richard Wolff

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, David Harvey

There are more authors (Kliman, Moseley, Shaikh, etc.), but these two would be a good start.

These are works with particular perspectives and should be read as such. If you want competing ideological works, read a standard history book and Hayek, Mises, Friedman, etc.

I'd second the other response's recommendation of Richard Wolff's work. He's a marxist and democratic socialist, so read his work understanding his perspective in relation to your own, whatever that might be. That being said, I found his book Competing Economic Theories on neoliberalism, keynsianism, and marxism to be very fair to all sides.

Claiming that something is right because it exists as it is under the current system without further justification is equally, if not more short sighted. It's where "plainspeaking" and begging the question combine into a kind of catnip for people that want reinforcement for their impulse towards the status quo. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but I've read one of his recent books and it was full of this sort of thing.

What would be the benefit over electron?

There's also option 4:

- Increase worker pay and benefits

That sounds similar to the incremental lambda calculus described in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0658 There's an implementation for DOM updates in Purescript (https://blog.functorial.com/posts/2018-04-08-Incrementally-I...), but I haven't come across a similar approach in Javascript yet.

Almost, that will set the foundation for fully using the DOM APIs. The host bindings proposal mentioned at the end of the article should close the gap.

There is nothing fake about the news coverage that CNN provides. It cannot be honestly or rationally equated with the fake news phenomenon that we saw on Facebook during the election.

Also, 538 was the most accurate model during the election. They were the only ones fighting against the narrative that it was a sure win for HC.

Cutting out sugar to the level described in the article and expecting a long list of health benefits is just as extreme as diets from the low fat craze were 20-30 years ago. It amazes me that this kind of misinformation continues to thrive.