thadd

Exceptionally interesting.

Also, First HN article I've also seen on Drudge. Worlds collide.

It still makes me excited about the future of neural networks :)

Good read. Not sure if I agree with everything, but fascinating.

Everyone is always fine spending other people's money

I agree the ads suck.

Banning things rarely makes things better.

There's not enough tech workers, everyone learn tech!!

There's too many tech workers, we're all screwed!!

Yawn.

Probably not a dumb hypothesis, but this author turns this into a lament about the changes in publishing. Next.

Just found what I'm going to do today

I deleted my facebook a year or so ago.

I still talk to all the people I wanted to talk to when I had a facebook.

Obviously not for everyone, but I enjoy it.

Well this looks quite nice. Bookmarked for later. Thank you!

*Interesting that this seems to be an opposition party thing. I'd love to see Republicans still singing this tune if they get the Presidency back, but we'll see.

I don't disagree, there are some very beneficial regulations, I should have made myself more clear.

Very good point on commerce relative to raising the quality of life around the world.

I don't know why so many people give the state the benefit of the doubt when they mistrust corporations so much. I'm inclined to mistrust both, but at least a corporation has to compete to survive. The state has a monopoly, that's one of the reasons it is so dangerous. Never forget that most of the worst atrocities ever committed in human history were done by governments. Hitler was an elected official and all that.

The goal has got to be to keep as much power for the individual as possible. The is in part done by keeping the state out of most contacts between two parties.

I understand your point, but I think you're being too abstract. End of the day, someone is being taxed (fined by the government) more than another, simply because they are wealthier. That doesn't sit right with me.

As far as growth being stronger with higher tax rates, I assume you're talking about post ww2 era? If so, then I think that was probably more to do with the fact that the rest of the world was destroyed rather than due to our tax code.

It's discriminatory. It doesn't treat people fairly under the law.

But it also really bothers me that it's just so arbitrary. I can't imagine the arrogance necessary to think that you know how much to tax a certain segment of society relative to another.

You want to see a "fairer America" fueled by a discriminatory taxation policy. I hope this irony does not escape you.

If your goal is truly to see fewer people living in harsh poverty conditions, an absolutely noble goal, let the free market be. Capitalism will (and has, see the extreme poverty figures) bring far more people out of poverty than any bureaucrat could ever hope to.

Not entirely related, but progressive taxation schemes make me extremely uncomfortable. It's a shame so many people want to continue even farther down the rabbit hole.

Inflation- the secret tax

I forget the context, but I saw someone (a writer for the National Review, I think) say this to someone:

You must be one of those people that think that airplanes fly not because physicists and engineers found a way to propel steel through the air, but because the FAA allows them to.

This reminds me of that.

I've found the best is a combination of being social and spending a good amount of time reading. If you're looking for books, take a look at The Great Books of the Western World.

This seems like it's pursuing skin-deep diversity. Diversity of thought is much more interesting to me, and probably much more apt to drive profits than this.

I see this frequently as well. A difference of opinion is equivalent to a declaration of war to some people.

Existing service has problems, many of which can be attributed to heavy regulation.

New service is introduced and is preferred by consumers.

Existing service wants more regulation to kill new service.

Sounds about right.

Government guaranteed loans driving a bubble?!

Good God, this man may be on to something.

My only problem is that the planet is over 4 billion years old and as this shows, we've been collecting climate data for a little over 100 years. The natural skeptic in me isn't ok with establishing a trend based on 1/40,000,000 of the available data, the sample size is simply too small. Am I completely off-base with this?

Take a look at The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

This article makes me feel like Yossarian