putzdown

This is a great article, and I've never seen the problem explained better. The solution doesn't make sense, though, and this is almost but not quite obvious in the article by virtue of how well it has stated the problem. The problem with basic income is that it provides people with cash but does not change the underlying supply-demand system. To get the lokal (the room) to work you needed more than cash: you needed a desire for teens to be happy and engaged, the will to help them get there, a sense of what might help them, leadership to set it up, attract them, and keep it going, and then, yes, money to pay rent. If all you provide is the money, you will get people spending more money on the usual things the economy "sees": phones, video games, amusing t-shirts. What you have around the lokal in the story is actually not merely basic income fed into the existing economy: you actually have a separate economy. The separate economy works differently because it sees differently, it has different demands, different desires. The society as a whole (as embodied here by the government, thankfully—though not all governments are predictably good-willed in this way) wants the teens to thrive, to provide for them, to pay for them, to guide them with modest leadership. Though individuals, and the regular markets, cannot think about the teenagers—they don't have the bandwidth, they don't have the time, they have diffusion of responsibility, etc—the society can pool its interests and act upon its collective interest through the market. This may not be the only way to "cut across" the market, to do collectively what no set of individuals will do, but it's one way. So we definitely want to solve the problem: we want to organize, lead, preserve, and fund things that are of collective value but that the market cannot see. Giving individuals a basic income, however, doesn't accomplish that. I wish it did, but it doesn't. It puts the money into the usual demand centers—individuals needing to pay rent and transportation costs and go on dates and so forth—that live within the "blind" economy.

One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just doesn't flow. If Zitron's argument were as solid as he keeps saying it is, you would read it and understand it and see that it is solid. He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. But no. He jumps. He leaps. He circles back. If the situation were really "Gosh why can't you see it?!"-clear, his explanation of the situation would be clear. It isn't, because it isn't.

This is a super-useful article, and there are many cases where the cost of buying, owning, and selling a home is higher than that of renting. But sometimes ownership costs less than renting, and often—generally when you stay long enough—it can cost a lot less. One place in this article that hints why is when he says that in 2011 his mortgage was $2,329.92, whereas now 15 years later it's $2,440.48. That is a tiny crawl upward, nowhere near the rate of inflation. If he'd been paying $2,329.92 monthly in rent in 2011, he'd now be paying about $4,100. Inflation hits renters much harder than homeowners. Appreciation (a form of inflation) tends to help homeowners more than hurt them. Nerdwallet's rent vs buy calculator is quite sophisticated and can help you reason about your own situation. https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/calculators/rent-vs-buy...

You know, anyone can say things. Rants are cheap. What we need, though, is critical thinking. Not just, “Look, three stars are in alignment; it’s the constellation Triangulum.” This article expresses many opinions. It draws lines between stars. But many other lines could be drawn. Maybe we should believe this analysis because it sounds passionate? “He uses cuss words! He must be invested! He talks about CEOs! He must be an insider!” No. Anyone can point out obvious, insignificant data and rant about it. We need facts and logical arguments, not rants. Less of this.

The moves from “the subscription model for AI isn’t working given these parameters” to “a subscription model for AI can never work” to “the model was deliberately deceptive” to “it’s a fucking ripoff” is not logical. AI companies are feeling the need to get hold of spiraling costs by increasing prices and limitations. Inference hasn’t gotten cheap enough fast enough, and for some reason they feel they can’t wait longer. That doesn’t mean a subscription service can’t work: only that it will be expensive, maybe vastly so, and will need tiers based on usage with some fluidity for users to move between tiers in a given month. The model is something like HP’s “instant ink” service. Sure, there’s a question whether the moves companies are making now are worth the cost in the eyes of customers. But that’s a question of economics and timing, not a fundamental blow to monthly subscriptions as a model. The article doesn’t deal with these considerations fairly. It’s too much in the direction of a rant, with conspiracy theories thrown in.

Thank you. But the Y test still seems sufficient. Every criterion will have false positives and negatives. With the Y test the false negative (you present as a woman but have a Y chromosome) is rare and the vast majority of cases are handled well. If you have this condition you must compete against men (given the Y chromosome test rule) or not compete. If you’re dying to be in the Olympics as a woman but have the Y chromosome, you’re just out of luck. Not everyone can be a concert pianist either. No rule makes things wonderful for 100% of humans. The Y test gets very close.

Why is checking for a Y chromosome not sufficient? This does not seem to me like an arbitrary definition. What am I missing?

What's the story with the Avro C102 (per law 20)? What's the connection with "A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately"? I'm intrigued.

This is an area that could really use good research, but this study looks badly designed and completely dismissible. I hope it’s true that video game playing has some mental health benefits, and I wouldn’t be surprised. You’re not going to determine whether it does by asking a bunch of people how they feel about Mario and Yoshi.

A vibecoded (but programmer-supervised and not sloppy) retirement savings forecaster similar to what you see financial advisors using, but you're in control. Could be useful? Feedback please.

No. This perspective is wrong in both directions: (1) it is bad medicine and, (2) the medicine doesn't treat the disease. If we could successfully ban bad ideas (assuming that "we" could agree on what they are) then perhaps we should. If the damage incurred by the banning of ideas were sufficiently small, perhaps we should. But both of these are false. Banning does not work. And it brings harm. Note that the keepers of "correct speech" doing the banning today (eg in Biden's day) can quickly become the ones being banned another day (eg Trump's). It's true that drowning the truth through volume is a severe problem, especially in a populace that doesn't care to seek out truth, to find needles in haystacks. But again, banning doesn't resolve this problem. The real solution is develop a populace that cares about, seeks out, and with some skill identifies the truth. That may not be an achievable solution, and in the best case it's not going to happen quickly. But it is the only solution. All of the supply-based solutions (controlling speech itself, rather than training good listeners) run afoul of this same problem, that you cannot really limit the supply, and to the extent you can, so can your opponents.

You may have given up too early. For me the key part of this story is that she made a personal connection willing to guide her through and to overlook technicalities (like not having enough experience). The fact that she then reached a different person who was a jerk is a matter of chance. I’d you find a way to keep making these personal connections, she’ll get a job eventually. Also: it sounds like you’re very supportive and invested: good on you. She’s not alone.

This is very well said. It's horrifying, but very well said and very true. Sometimes the situation is just plain bleak. I have been unemployed for more than a year twice; I've been unemployed or underemployed for about 5 years in total. This despite accomplishing great things while employed and being well-regarded at past jobs. For me, each time the cloud has eventually passed and new work has come along, but that doesn't help until it actually happens.

@phoenixhaber, you're in a very dark place, no doubt about it, and it sounds like you've been there a long time. I've been in that dark place and I feel for you. Let me just assure you that dark times do give way, eventually, to light. If you need a rational basis for that claim, think of it as regression toward the mean: extremes, good or bad, move toward the non-extreme. Things will get better.

In the meantime, your task is to separate from the darkness and let it be on the outside, not the inside. It's bad enough when it's on the outside: that is, in the world around you or even in your own body. When it's on the inside—not just the body but the mind—then it destroys. Push the darkness out of the mind and into the outside world. That's pretty abstract advice but it's the best I know, and if it makes sense to you, I hope it helps.

I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?

I know that folks are just having fun with this, but it embodies one of the things I dislike about D&D, one of the reasons I simply ignore most of the “rules.” At heart a role playing game happens in the imagination of the players. You can play RPGs entirely in those terms, with no real rules and very few numbers, just storytelling and imagination. On the other hand there are of course many tabletop games that do rely on structure, rules, and numbers, but these tend to limit the scope of what may happen in the game by virtue of having limited elements and rules. You cannot earn a trillion coins in Powergrid, there simply isn’t the time or resources. What is so strange about D&D is that it tries somehow to join these two models of gameplay: the subjective/imaginative and the objective/numeric. When it works, it’s fine (though, as I said, I personally tend to find the imaginative, storytelling part for more compelling than the objective, more tabletop-like part). This railgun embodies some sort of weird distortion in the whole affair. No: of course peasants cannot throw a pole however many thousands feet in a matter of seconds. If the rules somehow imply they can, the rules are dumb. Even if you accept the rules, use your imagination: what will happen to peasant hands and heads with an object passing that rapidly along them? What would happen to peasant skin if it tried to pull a pole with the kind of forces we’re talking about? I truly don’t understand how D&D players think. No disrespect: I’m not saying anyone is dumb. I’m saying that I can’t picture how I would be thinking about a game, or rules, or a line of peasants, such that I would consider for a moment the idea that they might propel a pole in railgun fashion. It’s… kinda funny… kinda. But the fact anyone pursues the joke more than two seconds, much less actually attempts this play with real DMs, is unfathomable to me. I don’t understand how you would be trying to merge the domain of rules with the domain of imagination in order to get yourself into this knot. Does that makes sense at all?

I wake up every morning and thank God I am not working on or near Microsoft code. There is nothing about this code or anything about this story that is in any way sensible or pleasing. Take a simple, well-solved problem. Forgot all prior solutions. Solve it badly, with bad systems and bad ideas. Write the code in the ugliest, most opaque, most brittle and fragile manner imaginable. Now sit back and enjoy the satisfaction of getting to debug and resolve problems that never should have happened in the first place. The miracle is that Microsoft, built as it is to such a degree on this kind of trashy thinking and trashy source, still makes its annual billions. That right there is the power of incumbents.

Yes, as other commenters have said, this game is a great example of the design error where the tutorial careful prepares the player for not-this-game. There’s another game out there somewhere that the tutorial has made us competent to play. Meanwhile we need a different tutorial for this game.

You’ve drawn a false dichotomy. It is possible both for the existing system to be full of waste and for the process of shining the sun onto “blight” (good word) to raise significant, even catastrophic, security concerns with lasting implications. Bad + bad doesn’t necessarily = good.

Am I wrong in thinking that the visual below “Finally with 5 the self-similarity continues as expected” is wrong? I’m thinking that the second-to-right and rightmost subtrees need to be larger, to have a sequence of four and five nodes respectively in their rightmost branches.

The clickbaity title is misleading. The article does not argue that monkeys have a strong election prediction ability. It merely argues that there is some gentle correlation between monkey gaze behavior and election outcomes. That’s not surprising. Almost any reasonable hypothesized factor—number of letters in candidate’s name, for example—will have some correlation. The title and tone of the article are overblown.

There is one other analysis that would, I suspect, adjust the OP’s conclusions: age. Hypothesis: sitters vs standers, and other measures of the quality of the job (danger, flexibility…) correlate substantially with the age of the worker. As you go from your teens to 20s to 30s and beyond you tend on average to get better jobs. It’s not absolute, but I bet it’s a very strong trend, perhaps stronger than racial factors. That’s a hypothesis I wish this analysis examined.

The main message I take from this story is that a decent quorum of consumers want Apple to offer a smaller phone in each generation. The OP seems not to have minded having to upgrade eventually, just not to a “virtual tablet.” I’ve heard others express the same desire.

I’m missing something. Why would privately propagating an endangered plant be any kind of theft, crime, or immoral action? I get that cutting or tearing off a piece of someone’s plant is wrong, but if the plant has dropped a piece that can be propagated, where is the harm in taking it?

Original site, mentioned by the app, with explanation: https://udm14.com/

It is insane. But it leaves the question: why are companies doing it? They must believe it’s working for them, or they’d change it. God knows companies are motivated to hire good people. Maybe someone in HR or even a technical manager in one of these companies can answer: on what theory are these processes believed to be effective?

It looks to me as if there’s a solution to this problem based on the precompilation of sparse matrices. I’ll explain. If you have a function (or operator) call of the form fn(a, b), and you know that fn might accept 19 types (say) in the “a” place and 57 types in the “b” place, then in effect you have a large 2d matrix of the a types and the b types. (For functions taking a larger number of arguments you have a matrix with larger dimensionality.) The compiler’s problem is to find the matrix cell (indeed the first cell by some ordering) that is non-empty. If all the cells are empty, then you have a compiler error. If at least one cell is non-empty (the function is implemented for this type combination), then you ask “downward” whether the given arguments values can conform to the acceptable types. I know that there’s complexity in this “downward” search, but I’m guessing that the bulk of the time is spent on searching this large matrix. If so, then it’s worth noting that there are good ways of making this kind of sparse matrix search very fast, almost constant time.

So, to make sure I understand, you’re saying that there are no rights, and no one should have any rights. So if a government declares that it can imprison anyone indefinitely for any reason at any time, that’s a good thing. There is no right protecting people’s freedom. Governments can and should be able to do anything they want. Is that it?

It’s not clear to me that either political “side” has the corner on these faults. But even if they did, why not allow audiences to make their own judgments? Universities don’t have to provide auditoriums or catering. They shouldn’t have to provide extra security, if free speech is honored by students. Why can’t listeners simply walk away? I truly don’t understand.

But surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks and his ideas are "not really constructive" and "muddy the water", then the listeners can decide what to do with the ideas, both within their own minds and in conversation afterward. If he's not allowed to speak, then the people preventing the speech are enforcing their own opinions by violence. This behavior actually implies that his ideas are of more merit, because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully.

Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech?