morby

People always mention the direct foreign aid but fail to mention all the other money flows. They receive many times more money each year in private investment and open trade agreements. I believe the figure is close to 90-100 billion USD each year going to Israel from the US. This doesn’t include the free movement of Americans to Israel for tourism, owning a second home, etc.

Not true. Israel has a reputation for being exceedingly intrusive and aggresssive with US personnel. Just go watch intel community interviews online.

This isn’t being realistic. The major benefit of these is peer review. You aren’t going to have enough people to peer review the work of a massively open and public publication system.

On top of that the chance of finding something as you suggest becomes that much more difficult. Smaller findings get published now in a more controlled scenario and get lost in the stream.

Major journals are a net positive for surfacing important science.

“You could always make an argument” and people did. And I would say this isn’t a surprising finding but it is important. Assessing direct impact almost always is because it makes realities more plain.

Healthcare isn’t a sector of the economy? Since when?

If you hate the way they pay immigrants look at the laws of the country don’t hear the immigrants. Doing the latter is the mark of ignorance.

I wouldn’t say linear algebra is a necessity to being a computer scientist. At least, not the full linear algebra content. Knowing matrix math is enough.

You seem very confused by this in your comments. Did you read the article? The Swiss government was found to be out of line with its own policies and laws.

Since when is the legal system was outside of democracy?

It’s a multi generational issue. It’s not a question of fair when the repercussions for not addressing it are massive. Younger generations know this. It’s too bad older generations did nothing to address the issues they saw in front of them. They were too selfish

I also think it’s preposterous to put climate change at their feet

I can see people using AI for setting up simple solutions. But AI, as it currently is, is dependent on human innovation to be able to generate results. Any novel problem will need human minds. On top of this AI is currently horrendous at coding things with complexity. Maybe some higher complexity solutions can get done with high cognitive tax in human prompt input, but there are serious diminishing returns on that. AI still needs major breakthroughs to get to that point. And when it does it might very well have outpaced humans in a multitude of academic fields. Including the ones listed by Jensen Huang (the sciences).

That rules quote does not apply in the slightest. Perhaps I was glib about it, but I replied directly to the message at hand. He questioned the validity of studying a (massive) historical event (it “changes nothing”, much like studying a lot of history). You continue the exact same line of reasoning (“isn’t going to change modern sociopolitics very much”, though I find the use of “very much” an interesting use of words in this case). That there is nothing to gain. You make two assumptions a) that if there was a second gunman that they couldn’t possibly be put to justice and b) there is no historical value to knowing the truth or understanding the truth that would come to light had a potential third actor that was tied. For example say the Soviet Union somehow was toed (I’m not saying they are) there is an incredible value to knowing that it is fact. And if the FBI was involved? You thinking the FBI reputation is tarnished now is opinion, the effect could even have legal repercussions to people still alive and to regulating agencies. You don’t know , but if you have some “war game” about the impact I would love to see it. But the biggest of all is understanding the history of our country and world history. Historians don’t pretend that knowing more about the military maneuvers of Alexander will effect us today even though his battles have been studied to death. But when we contradict that denial of understanding some truth of our own history we are told, “doesn’t matter”, there’s no modern sociopolitical gain.

Your opinion on JFK as a president is moot. The fact he could not continue being president is what changed the world. LBJ succeeded him and the rest is “history”. It doesn’t need to play out in todays politics but as I said, why study history at all if the only point is to gain insight into how it effects us directly today??

Well why study history at all? Nothing in it has any more impact on us, no? Why try to determine who murdered a person even if it was decades later and the killer might be alive? It doesn’t matter anymore right?

I’m not in the conspiracy theorist crowd, but the “doesn’t matter anymore” crowd is disappointing.

It’s an amazing bit of history. Leaders of major powers have regularly been assassinated in history. Here the leader of a globally hegemonic nation was assassinated on camera.

To add to that. The author details how this new detail subsequently alters the version of events. Namely it suggests that the bullet that hit JFK in the back and hit Connally were two different bullets and that they could not have been fired at that rate (the rate suggested by the video evidence) with the weapon used by Oswald

I would probably add some major points to this synopsis. The bullet was believed to have been on Connally’s stretcher. It is the “magic bullet”. The pristine bullet that was supposed to have hit JFK and Connally both. The assumption here is that it did not penetrate through JFK. That it came from the wound in his back. This would upend the investigative findings that the bullet in this back was responsible for the neck wound and the injury to the governor. It’s a rather drastic change to the record.

Aren’t regular expressions the abstraction to state machines? They all get converted to a DFA or NFA, no?

I would be comfortable calling HTML and SQL both DSLs. Given the scope of their use.

The vast majority of those countries have large inequality gaps. The only ones that don’t are listed under countries that have higher rates of home ownership

I’m not even about to begin to touch the notion that home ownership, which has been a staple of human history since time immemorial, is not important. That strikes me as a comment waayyy to deep in the kool aid

I’m not entirely sure your point here maybe you can explain

Market is a term that can be used to describe “an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted”

You can absolutely refer to the US economic market or African market and the participants there in. If not I would love a reference to explain otherwise.

Of course different kinds of labor receive varying compensation and these things depend on the level of skill and demand. This isn’t a question of whether everyone should be paid equally. It’s a question of how to resolve growing income disparities between top earners and low earners, specifically asymmetric income growth. Top earner income is rising at amazing rates while low earners are seeing meager increases. This has been ongoing for decades. There is an entire discussion on it here so I don’t think there needs to be any more elaboration.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/1...

https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/

Even with more conservative approaches, wage growth of lower earners is far outpaced by top earners.

https://www.aei.org/articles/have-wages-stagnated-for-decade....

Regards your edit. I don’t have magical numbers to give you. I’m curious if you think that makes me wrong. But what I would like to see is a ratio where workers can buy a home, have a family, have some level of leisure, and be able to afford healthy food. That is not a reality today for people directly participating in the worlds largest market.

And also one that confers some sense of fairness. Tell me how this is at all fair to workers?

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

So now we’ve moved to comparing CEOs in different industries? Your own post compares executives to workers and workers to African workers. The post here talks about CEOs making vast additional sums while workers are getting pinched. Why are we suddenly comparing CEOs in healthcare to CEOs in other markets?

In fact it’s incredibly ironic considering the same people being addressed here, I.e. executives are major contributors to the exploitation of workers in the developing world. It’s the general population that has to learn about then address these issues and nothing would change if executives were left to their devices.

What’s arbitrary is your choice of argument. You completely reject my point with a hand wave and make this a comparison between developed and under developed/developing nations Your point of saying the question is between if someone makes too much is obtuse and, honestly, naiive because the concern is does someone make too much in light of the environment they exist in. If the money they make in their market outpaces and outstrips those of others involved in the same market to an unreasonable extent then that is a problem. It means the market is not being fairly compensatory to those who contribute. This is seen in stagnant wage growth across sectors. This is seen in younger generations inability to purchase homes But let’s make this about how people on America make more than people in Africa as though such a reductive and myopic straw man addresses the real issue at hand here. No one here. No one. Is saying people in Africa should be poor or not earning a wage that is compensatory to wha they contribute to the world economy. Blood diamonds, cocoa, fishing, etc etc. but your pretending this isn’t a well discussed issue is neglectful of reality

You’re comparing workers in two vastly different markets to workers in the same market. In the US, wages for one class of employee have exploded as wages for the rest have stagnated.

I think this is inaccurate. Complaints about CEO wages are made from positions that perceive their pay has stagnated and is therefore not compensatory. The facts about wage growth bare this out to be true. When you have executives and C suites making money have over foot but you have no movement in common employee wages you will see comparisons being drawn. Those comparisons will then lead to derision.

Well to offer the other side. What if they don’t know you have these things readily available?

I generally agree. A lot of contradictory statements and I would only add to that. I feel like people tend to pigeonhole each region in the US, the US itself, and indeed any other country into what “people act like”. There might be a common thread that is statistical but it’s not monolithic in any sense. Micro cultures exist and interplay with the macro culture especially in a networked world.

Northern European countries are, I believe, generally considered low context countries. High context countries include Japan, India, several Middle Eastern countries, France etc