ByteJockey

> Since when did this become a partisan issue?

Right around the 70s iirc. That's roughly when the modern progressive wing of the democratic party started to coalesce, and they've always had a big focus on it.

Though it's a little weird how much heat it generates given that it's only a "top 5" issue for about 6% of people. [0] If that few people people even bring it up on polls, I'd expect any attempts to create drama out of it to fall flat much more than they do.

[0] https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/AP-NORC-Decemb...

Your argument means that this is not a violation of the first amendment.

It's not an argument about free speech. The first amendment and free speech are different things.

English is one of the easiest languages to become "understandable" in. Presumably because of how many people invaded England historically. When another culture invades, some of the language rules are adopted, but they are universally the simpler rules, and the more advanced rules aren't integrated.

Spoken English, with it's reliance on word order, lack of genders, relative lack of verb conjugations and noun declensions make it ridiculously easy to be understood in comparison to other languages. You won't be Shakespeare, but you will be able to communicate.

Written English, admittedly, is much harder (mostly because of the early standardization), but enough natives also have trouble spelling enough words that you can still be understood.

I think that would be for someone with a net worth of $100k, not someone with a $100k/year salary.

That first line (the one that starts with ">") is indicating that they are quoting someone else. It is not their statement.

How much is that per food item (the example you were responding to was $.05/item)?

> I heard rumors long ago that Arch has occasional stability problems caused by updates. Is that still true these days?

Been using arch for ~5 years. Maybe once a year something goes funky and I have to check the news page to see if any manual interventions are required.

They give you the exact command to run most (all?) of the time.

Gaming was always the one thing that kept the more tech-savvy on windows boxes. I know it kept me there for a long time as a teenager.

If that can be broken, I don't think 10% is infeasible. Though I think Microsoft would have to really screw up to lose their status as the "default" OS.

> Within a week, tens of thousands of SEO specialists will be on the case, reverse-engineering the magic and figuring out how to get their crappy sites back to the top of the rankings.

An algorithm could punish things inherent to SEO optimized sites (ads and tracking). Removing the ability to passively generate money without providing useful content is the key.

Of the top of my head, a system like the following would be a pretty good start:

Scale of 0 to 100 (closer to 100 being higher up on the results).

You are penalized for the following:

- subtract 10 points for any ad, using ublock origin's list as a good starting point (this stacks, it's 10 points off for each link)

- subtract 100 points for google tag manager

- subtract 100 points for the facebook like button

- ... etc for each of the major tracking scripts

This would obviously need to be updated as ad-tech evolves, but it would cut out 90% of the current SEO spam.

Can google do this? No, they have a conflict of interest around placing ads. Somebody else, however, can absolutely do this.

> If nothing else happens taxes increase by 100%, and people need to acquire more USD which drives the value of the currency up.

Oh definitely. I did not mean to imply that taxation in USD does not have a modulating effect (and if I came across that way, I apologize). I'm just trying to say that you can have some pretty wide swings even with that.

> but there is a reason you don’t see huge swings without the government printing money.

You don't generally see it, no. Mostly because other countries use the dollar as a store of wealth, and they don't want to tank the value that they've squirreled away. I'm bringing it up as a hypothetical with the same likelihood as a 50 + 1 attack on bitcoin.

China, for example, seems to hold ~2 trillion in USD (~60% of 3.5% trillion total reserves).[0] I assume most of this is held as digital assets, as there's only ~2 trillion physical dollars in circulation.[1] Dumping that much on the market would cause some pretty wacky inflation (as well as destroy China's stability). In a similar vein a 50 + 1 attack on bitcoin would allow an actor to give themselves all of the bitcoins, but would also destroy the value of those bitcoins because nobody is going to trust the network after that.

Both of these attacks are really only useful if you value hurting other actors more than you value your own resources/your own sense of self-preservation.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-exchange_reserves_of_C... [1]: https://www.uscurrency.gov/life-cycle/data/circulation

> That’s less significant than you might think as US GDP is almost 1/4 of global GDP and foreign countries don’t keep that many USD on hand. Aka even in global terms US GDP is vast.

Sure, but the value of the dollar (like everything else) is in how easy it is to get (supply). The US GDP is not a measure of the supply of dollars on the market, it is a measure of how often those dollars are exchanged.

> Bitcoin has significantly more vulnerabilities than just a 51% attack or a crash as nodes need to be connected to the internet and therefore can at least in theory be hacked.

That's fair, if we're including implementation vulnerabilities, it does expand the potential problems quite a bit. The post I was responding to was specifically about a 50 + 1 attack. Though if we include these, we should probably also expand physical currencies' problems to include counterfeiting in that case.

That would be true if only the US was using the dollar.

Given the number of countries using the dollar as their reserve currency, value could collapse quite a ways without the US doing anything.

It's not likely, but neither is a 50 + 1 attack on bitcoin given the amount of computing power currently tied up there.

Sure, but basically every currency has some theoretical problem.

Usually it's just about the currency becoming worthless (usually only a problem in government controlled currencies that have loans in foreign currencies), or people just not accepting it anymore.

There's no inherent value in any currency, it's just a useful fiction because it's really hard to go get five goats to trade somebody for a laptop.

Good public transportation systems require a certain level of density to be practical, roughly on par with where European cities are at. This is why places like New York have fairly decent public transportation systems compared to the rest of the country.

You're not wrong, but your plan involves either uprooting people or sending out so many buses that it would create an ecological catastrophe far greater than we have now (assuming you want to cover all of the suburbs mentioned by the op).

Putting a charge through to visa if you damage the car is more reliable than trying to charge a debit card. In the US people without credit cards often have poor credit, often from not paying back debts (or so goes the stigma), and I'm not sure if you can just charge more to a debit card later (it's been a while since I've used one).

Plus, then if you can't pay, it's visa's problem, not theirs.

Those are investments (which carry certain risks).

Gold is traditionally used specifically as a hedge against inflation (though you won't be getting nearly the returns over the long term compared to index funds).

Sometimes the solution is to get a bunch of people who don't know it's impossible in a room and give them a deadline.

I'm not going to hold my breath, but it would be cool if it works here.

> I mostly just disagree with the framing of the question.

Are you talking about non-monetary value here? I covered that in my first post in this thread.

The rest of the read was about monetary value only. Otherwise, which framing would you prefer?

> Lots of tremendously valuable labor is done by people who don't pull down a wage.

Sure. I can believe that.

Is the unspoken claim here that it averages out to more than ~$60k/person?

Given that most smokers/obese people tend to die right around retirement age, we probably aren't leaving much on the table (from a purely economic perspective). Smokers probably aren't missing enough days of work to cancel out the $60k they save the system by smoking (not to mention all the extra taxes they pay).

But there's more value to human beings than their economic value, hence my talk about non-monetary costs. There's very real suffering that happens, and I'm not sure that's something you can put down in a spreadsheet somewhere.

Fair. My point was more that you didn't have to make a non-portable extension just to use lua.

I think if the op was talking about non-monetary costs.

But if we're limiting this to monetary costs only, I believe you're right. I saw a similar study from the UK circa ~2008ish that compared long term smoker/obese/healthy medical costs, and healthy people are indeed the most expensive (mostly because of tremendous end of life care costs).

Edit: I dug around a bit and found the study I was thinking of. It was actually a study on obesity (also not done by the UK), but used (non-obese) smokers as a group for comparison.

Link to article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/

See Table 1 for lifetime medical costs.

Modern vim also has python, perl, ruby, and lua support in addition to vimscript (taking a quick look at the features in my local vim).

Though the neovim community does go pretty heavy towards lua compared to the traditional vim community.

Does this mean that we're training bank employees that "If something looks bad, you might as well do the actual bad thing because the punishment is the same"?

Could this have the effect of actually increasing incidents of bad behavior?

If you need to change the buffer size afterwards.

My understanding is that most implementations of new call malloc under the hood (this may or may not be outdated at this point, I haven't kept up with C++ implementation) and both of these systems introduce a layer of record keeping, so if you're in an extremely memory constrained environment, you may want to use malloc directly.

If you want your code to be noexcept, you need to call malloc and handle the case where it returns null as new can throw (this is UB in theory, but in practice I'm pretty sure everything just aborts) to strip out all the stack-unwinding code.

If you want to avoid the constructor call (for whatever reason).

Outside the US, yes.

Inside the US, the term swapped to refer to social-liberalism rather than classical-liberalism during the great depression.

Possibly dumb answer: If everything else was moving at a constant velocity and we were slowing down, wouldn't the things on the other side of us appear to be accelerating towards us?

My understanding is that basically everything is moving away from us (presumably our reputation precedes us).

> How do you use lisp style macros when you have 500 developers working on a single product?

May I ask what you are doing that requires 500 devs? I've never heard of a project with that many people on it succeeding.

Ultimately everything ends up as machine code, which is untyped.

You make a good argument. Anything that keeps the marketers away does seem like a pretty good feature.