HN user
This made me put "sign up on gun.io" on my to-do list. Very cool talk, very sympathetic guy (+1 for rapid fire info,+10 for making a stand for hacker aesthetics and fun in hacking)
Gov't is already so cheap that we (US) have fluoride in our water, that was planned to be cheap dental care =(.
To understand you correctly, do you think the fluoride is a bad thing? IIRC fluoridated water is amongst the best bang for the buck you can do for healthy teeth, with no downside that I'm aware of (?)
People think taxes are evil but for dome reason will accept warlords?
This concept implies that it's possible to discover all possible scope before starting a project, which is almost always not the case on any project of relevant scale. This is waterfall.
Difference would be that the team defines their own scope. But I see your point
The notion of "you'll get the rest of the money when the project is done" is toxic and dangerous, and implies that you can know what done means before you even start, and it's an objective and finite finish line you are approaching.
This one I concede fully
We need to unify this with actually hitting deadlines/making it economically viable, at least until basic income is a working model.
Maybe tie it so that every stage has a payout (20% ln start, 80% on finish or sth like it). First stage ist planning the project, in two stages: first has a fixed compensation based on headcount/"salary". This stage roughly estimates the scope and sets the upper and lower limit of budget. Based on this budget, the second stage does detailed planning, setting out as many sub stages as possible. This second planning stage is added on top of those stages, the total budget is divided between all stages and the first payout is done.
Like this, good planning is rewarded (teams with more stages get more frequent payouts) and there is still some pressure to deliver (payout) but even more to do good work (every stage depends on the previous ones to be doable quickly)
Damn good read
... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that.
This is not sufficient to explain to people why there are no rich conspirators hiding wealth. Mind you, I mostly agree with you. But I personally feel we need to have as simple as possible, verifiable, non debated arguments before we are allowed to think of things as silly.
... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that, since I assume he is aware of $clear_refutation
Otherwise we either delude yourselves or dismiss others
You can use the Barcode to tie things together... smart pantries and stock monitoring depends on standardised(ideally free) access to identifiers for the goods
This sentiment is so bizarre from a European perspective. So the only thing that stops people from getting an education willy nilly is student debt? Or American engineers are all better in some respects than German engineers because of their debt?
I very much feel by this study...
I grew up with television, books, audio stories=>constant stimulation. I brought books to class to read when it got boring...some teachers let me get away with it(guess who were my favourites).I still crave it and am only slowly learning to relax nowadays. It actually makes interaction with non "hyperstimulated" people hard, because I either steamroll them, interrogate them (because I am interested and give them my full, hungry attention) or zone out because nothing is happening. "Vibing" and hanging out is not easy for me.
I always blamed it on being minimally autistic(not diagnosed and don't want to be insensitive, but some non neuronormative things are there i think)
It is not unthinkable that the NSA has faked the moon landing and pictures of earth with photoshop / film equipment. You havent been above earth, so how do you know? I think you should be less arrogant at the prospect of somebody having a different opinion than you.
No. Their ignorance is not as important as my knowledge. I didn't go to space, but I can see ships going beyond the horizon and I did do the experiment of two sticks in the ground as a teenager
So how do you ensure that sciencists stay careful and try to be objective, how do you have any objectivity in allocation of funds etc. without some metric? I hate the publish or perish system, but that is due to wrong metrics. If (purely pulling this out of my as, probably a horrible idea) a flimsy study counted negatively to your index and a faulty one outright wrecked it (with complete ruin if you do not redo/retract), that would probably skew the metric optimisation to more carefully thought out, substantial research
It's not only a question of getting enough power IN but also of getting the "consumed" power(waste heat) OUT
As I pointed out above, the status quo is actually pretty good.
For you. And me. But we are not the majority. The majority does not benefit from automation, globalisation etc. as much as you and me.
And it doesn't matter if in absolute terms we are all better of(for which citation would be needed, specifically for the lowest income bracket), it matters that the benefits of this new age are not spread around to those bearing the costs as efficiently as necessary.
This is why people vote for brexit, trump, afd etc. And no, those don't have the answers either. But they offer convenient scapegoats and changes with "tangible" effect in favour of their voting base.
Politicians on the left and the right are united in their elitism and their own bubbles of what is "important", and they have become disconnected from their populace so much that they can't even coral them effectively any more.
Because it probably won't happen. Just like the idea that "charity will step in", history gives us evidence against it
Pros and Cons to universal income
Some criticism: > Pros
- homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
- small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
Cons
- it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
- the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
- cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
- the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
- may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think
Socialism and Communism has always been led by intellectuals. Marx was hardly a member of the proletariat for example.
It was led, but one of the official foci was "Arbeiter bilde dich", "worker teach yourself". Basically, a goal of the saner strands of the left is to make what we call "intellectual" right now the new baseline. And with good reason. The only way to make a political system like democracy work is to build a good education system to get "mündige bürger", emancipated citizens. And originally workers thought for their education(it is telling that https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeiterbildung exists only in German), recognising it as a tool that the upper classes used as an advantage. But for decades an anti-intellectualism has developed, reinforced by the "get a good career" educational goals(and if you want to be conspiratory, also a shift against critical political education pushed by those in power. I don't believe in that though, I just think in the well meaning pursuit of a "good education to get a job" in what is just too little time and with too little resources luxuries like politics get cut as collateral) . And elitists on the left,center and right, who think they were born smarter than everyone else didn't help either, thinking they need to "lead the masses" or that they can decide acceptable options.
As before, one of the real goals should be to fight together to ensure everyone reaches the level of education that allows them to participate in an informed political process.
Don't know how much that applies here, but there is no inherent moral or egalitarian negative to a "harem" (or "unicorn" arrangements if I remember my polyamory lingo correctly) if everyone involved is actively and consciously consenting. But Gandhi is probably not in that camp
Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon)
One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.
The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.
I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear).
One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money.
A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point(and also Musk again finding a way to maximally exploit government subsidies for clean tech.)
The tesla car itself could count as well, but felt less "design driven" imo. If this fails, everyone will call it obviously due to bad tech. If it succeeds, I'd say it was because the tech was barely sufficient to keep up with the excellent luster.
On a side note, I wonder whether or not the heavy government subsidies will be forgotten in the lore of clean tech, just like silicon valley seems to have forgotten the complete and utter reliance on government funding in it's infancy(or possibly even today)
We could make a new word for people who manage each other mutually, coexisteling in their operations without blind hierarchy...we could call it mumanagement
"Why the West rules for now" has an interesting take on this
How do you make capital?
Probs to github for the disclosure. And congratulations to gitlab for probably getting a nice boost in on premise support contracts:)
Like smoke a weed, workout, work at a burger joint as a burger flipper and date my daughter's best friend.
Smart way to get your kids to find you a job. I like it
If I have to guess, the primary organ used in prediction of the future, especially catastrophes
Tar is just bundling into a single file AFAIK. There is a slight benefit depending on your compression tool to tar and then compress, because (AFAIK again)some tools compress files individually and then write them into a hierarchical file(I guess this is what xz does as well, since it's searchable?). If you tar first, these tools will work better, since they encode patterns found in all files instead if doing it per file(which means e.g. if there is a header once per file, that will get compressed in the tar.comorpress, not in the . compress)
I am that person. Coming from an electrical engineering/Low Level programming background
HTML is a Markup language. I get those.
CSS is stylesheets and in my opinion very straightforward. The hard part is making designs that are functional and beautiful and making it cross browser compatible, but CSS has very few warts if the "wtf" variety
JavaScript and it's ecosystem is disgusting for me. It's not hard, I can write stuff in it, it's ugly. I just don't want to touch it if I can avoid it. Pure personal preference. Typescript and elm help me to minimise the work I have to do in that mindspace. Maybe vue aims at similar clientele with less taste for statically typed/functional programming
Indeed, just finished the book "Cod" which gives some fascinating details for one example of new England (and also "nonslaving" European countries) indirectly profiting of the slave trade