sb52191

People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem.

What about the American rich extracting wealth overseas? Vacations, real estate, yachts constructed in foreign countries, investing in companies in other countries, etc.

I think you're asserting more money leaves the US economy because an average person comes to the US (legally or illegally) and sends a portion of their paycheck back home, but I'd bet American born citizens spend/send far more money out of the country...

Counter argument: Every crypto coin is, more or less, the same. Sure there's some underlying difference in how they work (proof of stake vs proof of work) but they don't do anything wildly different.

AI companies, on the other hand, ARE fairly different in the products they're offering. So while it can make sense to talk about the crypto world as a whole when on a thread about an individual coin, that makes less sense when discussing individual AI companies IMO.

I think you might be surprised at the distribution in wealth even within schools. Only an anecdote but I went to a public high school in somewhat of an inner city, and there was a stark contrast in financial well being across my classmates and myself. The kids from upper middle class families were the ones in AP classes and who went on to great universities, while the more median student likely came from a household that were much closer to the poverty line.

If performance had come with a financial bonus, I'd guess 90% of the recipients wouldn't notice any difference in their lives/outcomes. Maybe even a higher percentage than that.

I can think of one: If they can improve AI such that it doesn't cite fictional case study, poor people might get actual/better representation in court. The majority of court cases aren't particularly novel or unique (driving without a license, speeding, public intoxication etc). If we can train AI to do a better job than overworked public defenders, we might actually take a step in the right direction towards giving poor people a fighting chance in court.

I think the question is what are the tangible benefits people would actually pay for?

Social media companies have the incentive to figure out how to make more money from their product. I think the fact that none of them have really proposed any pro-tier that is adopted by a majority of users shows that most people aren't really willing to pay for anything they provide.

I think it depends on use cases and advancements in our understanding of time's effect on the DNA captured.

I.e. I could imagine that in the not too distant future, we know that DNA in air (exposed to sunlight) degrades at a certain percentage over time, and therefore could be used to determine if a person was near a given location recently. Sort of like carbon dating.

You could imagine law enforcement using this as a tool to find suspects: Drive around with a device that constantly captures air and checks it for the DNA of a suspect (which could have been found at the scene via other, more traditional methods) and then allows them to narrow down a persons location.

Society? People who want their fellow citizens to work toward greater goods collectively?

It's your job in interviews to accurately describe your abilities and talents. It's the company's job to determine if that's the right fit for them.

If they sent you an offer, I'd just assume I don't have a clear enough picture on what they will expect of me and when, and just trust that they did their due diligence in my evaluation.

Of course, if it doesn't work out, you had three offers so you'll likely be able to get a new job no problem.

You're completely missing the point of the person's comment...

The top comment is asking why girl's perform better, and yet and under-represented in top tier jobs. The comment you replied to responds that they think it's because of having child and choosing not to go back to work.

At no point are they taking a stance on whether or not raising a child is as important as working a job...

Two things that I'd need explained to trust this take: "Often, the data are in the hands of Democrat politicians and bureaucrats who refuse to make it available."

1) The Georgia SOS in charge of elections is a Republican, so why would it benefit him to work against the Republican Nominee

2) If the data is being held by Democrats who refuse to make it available, what "data" did The Epoch Times analyze that showed votes being removed?

In my experience, stuff like this often boils down to people's lack of understanding of systems or practices and they read into "anomalies" that might look weird to an uneducated outsider, but for someone that knows what they're talking about, isn't sinister...

Depends on the country. In the US (as I understand it) a key component to being charge with a monopoly is you have to show that consumers/users are negatively impacted.

Philosophically I don't know whether or not I agree that's best, but it's the way it is currently.

Admittedly I haven't read tons of scientific research on this topic, but whenever the topic of diet/exercise comes up, I often find the way the question is researched to be lacking.

The article mentioned the participants could exercise however they wanted and "many chose to walk". I don't understand why walking is considered exercise. I understand it burns more calories than sitting still, but it doesn't elevate your heart rate nor push your muscles to grow/develop in any real way, and it feels like trying to "cheat" your way into exercise.

Also, this bit was really interesting to me: "Those burning about 3,000 calories a week showed changes now in their bodies’ levels of leptin, an appetite hormone that can reduce appetite. These alterations suggested that exercise had increased the exercisers’ sensitivity to the hormone, enabling them to better regulate their desire to eat." I would bet that those who burned the most amount of calories weren't just walking farther than the others, but instead their choice of exercise was just more intense.

I've always heard that running isn't a great way to lose weight because it just makes you want to eat more, but that hasn't been my experience. After running somewhere between 3.5-5 miles, my appetite is gone for at least a few hours after the run. I have no desire to snack, and while I might eat slightly more at dinner, the overall calories for my day don't change too significantly.

What do you mean by this? What unrelated causes are people dying from that aren't exacerbated by COVID?

I've heard this argument before but it's never made sense to me. If you have AIDS, it's not the AIDS that kills you, it's the fact that AIDS weakened your immune system to the point that something else can kill you. But to say that AIDS wasn't paramount to killing the victim is just wrong. Seems to me like COVID is a similar situation...

"or more like always had it AMD it just now surfaces due to the mental stress put on you by having covid"

FWIW I found this study while trying to find the original study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

Although this study is on people in Korea, it would be better if it was done on Americans to make it a better comparison.

I'm not even sure I believe this anymore. Seeing how many people out there believe masks are BAD for you makes me skeptical that most people will actually get the vaccine...

Option B sounds far more likely to stick around the company for a long period of time, option A sounds more like the type to leave after 1-2 years for something more "attractive".

But then there's nothing stopping American workers from moving to cheaper COL places and still competing for these jobs. And with reduction in salary costs, the product becomes cheaper as well, meaning more people have access to it and (potentially) opening up new opportunities than before.

I'm not saying it's going to be a completely painless process, but I'm far more optimistic about the ultimate end point.

I will gladly take some amount of a pay cut to move out of the Bay Area, but obviously it's very dependent on how much that is. 15% less to live in Lake Tahoe? Yea, I'd probably do that. 50% to live in Seattle? Obviously not.

If people can work remote and don't have to commute, that's quite a bit of time saved that could be used getting involved in your local community. I couldn't disagree more that this would lead to a worse loneliness outcome and not a better one.

This is my experience as well, atleast among younger employees. Presumably the older employees that have kids don't have as much time for hobbies/passions like that.

Because it's hard to drive change if there isn't a "need". Going into the office is the status quo, and there wasn't any real pressing drive to change/innovate there.

Now that companies have been forced to go remote, I think they're seeing some benefits from it, and there's a lot less inertia to fight against.

"I see a slow shift from treating ICs like people with differentiated skillsets to undifferentiated drones. I think that rarely works out for the employee."

I see it as the opposite. If an employer goes from mandating everyone be in office all the time, to allowing ICs to have a choice, doesn't that treat them less like an undifferentiated drone and acknowledge that some people work better WFH and others don't, or that for some projects you might want to be away from the office for extended periods of time?

"I think it’s much more likely that, rather than empowering employees to live rich and fulfilling lives outside of work, a massive shift to remote will drive down wages everywhere to the level of the cheapest locations where talent can be found - so instead of living on an SF salary in Coer d’Alene you’ll be living on a Lagos or Jakarta salary"

I disagree. If companies felt they could readily get the same level of talent outside the US, why wouldn't they do that currently? Just set up their business in a foreign country and recruit internationally? And if they're still hiring domestically, why are you so sure they're going to dramatically reduce salaries? They still have to attract talent. If an employee wants to move from the bay area to Wyoming, and their employer says their pay will be cut 50%, what's to stop them from applying to Twitter or another company allowing full remote with (I'm assuming, I haven't checked) a much more competitive salary?

"while obliterating the distinction between “work life” and “home life”"

I've seen far too many emails sent by people at 11:30 PM and followed up with another email at 6 AM for me to believe this hasn't already happened. Not to mention the self imposed aspect of it (neither of those emails NEEDED to be sent at those times).

I've read a few of these work from home related articles here on HN and I have to say, I'm super surprised by how many people are both vehemently against the idea of remote and generally pessimistic for what it would mean for society.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but my main hobby outside of work is outdoors related. I consistently spend my Friday nights driving 3+ hours to the mountains. The idea of being able to up and move to a mountain town, save the hours I'd be commuting to work AND commuting to the mountains, is so exciting to me. And that's on top of just the happiness I'd get being able to look out my window and see (what I consider) nature vs the cookie cutter buildings of suburbia Silicon Valley. Where are the cyclists, the surfers, the skiiers/snowboarders, dirt bikers, rock climbers, etc etc in these threads? I really can't believe there are that few of us...

But on top of just hobbies, I'd be so excited to see what society could look like in a much more remote world. I think a lot of people would spread out and leave Silicon Valley (but not everyone obviously). I think you'd see more small/medium sized towns pop up across the US that would develop their own uniqueness and character. Traffic deaths would likely go down because people would drive less. Maybe general physical fitness/health would go up because people aren't sitting in their cars and have time to exercise? People working minimum wage jobs would likely have better access to housing as demand spreads and isn't as concentrated. We could see a maaassssive change in the lives of the population, and I'm optimistic it would be for the better.

Note: I'm not saying everyone should be fully remote, or that working remote works for everyone, but the general lack of any real optimism about what life COULD be like in these threads is surprising to me.

Probably because of the Boring Company press about building tunnels under the city.

I still disagree. 30 seconds on padmapper shows 3 houses north of South San Francisco (maybe this also doesn't count as SF but I think it should still fall in that category) https://www.padmapper.com/apartments/san-francisco-ca/4+beds...

That is patently untrue. I live in Silicon Valley, a few miles from one of the big tech giants. I live in a 4 bedroom house (with three roommates) and our collective rent is $4200 a month. Rent is expensive, but $5,000 for a one bedroom is absolutely not the norm.

As someone with very minimal/hobby experience in html, do you have an example/link as to what those practices are?

If the kids we're coming from stable, supportive home environments where learning can take place outside the classroom, you might be right. But those aren't the target students for the program; IMO the student's from rough home lives will almost assuredly benefit from this model.

daredevil sports like free climbing

Pedantic, but this terminology is used incorrectly so often that I have to comment.

Free climbing just means rock climbing using your hands and feet, and not pulling/stepping on gear, to move you higher. Free climbers use ropes in the event they fall. You probably mean free soloing, which is climbing without a rope.