Gabriel_Martin

Do please divulge, I'm at my heaviest, but have started jogging backwards to try to limit the damage as I get used to it again. What're your tips?

I find monetary alarmism so lazy and yet I always feel compelled to comment.

I’ve never heard a compelling argument to explain just how a monetary system in which all monetized debt becomes privately held wealth, can be framed as debt being a “scary, unsustainable thing” as if it’s household debt. At least this article frames it as a relationship with investors, but it still doesn’t cut to the meat of the issue, to me at least.

Writing debt in an out of existence seems way more conceptually scary than it is dangerous in reality, at least for an economy where households spend on average about 5,000 dollars a month.

It seems a much more important topic is monetary hegemony, than some certain debt to GDP ratio, but I never seem to see those concepts mentioned.

Wouldn't be gaming without a healthy dose of gatekeeping ;)

To me, it seems there are two sides to your point, one about trust, and the other about dollar value in context to growing federal debt. As for the trust, I think part of where things go beyond trust comes from a sort of self-reinforcing economic strength.

When the average monthly expenses for an American household add up to about $5,500, certain industries (like transportation (16.8 percent of those expenses), or food (12.8 percent) will always view the American economy as a leading market to operate in. At a macro level, it would seem that many businesses making this similar judgement call would create a dynamic that goes beyond trust.

Regarding the buying power of pensions point, I believe there are cost of living adjustment laws for buying power which require Army or Social Security pensions to react to USD's changing buying power over time.

It's interesting to me how visceral of a reaction the ideas that underpin this article create in so many different individuals' comments I've read in threads like this, despite economics and monetary policy typically being so boring.

One of the fascinating threads to pull within it is the origin of debt and credit creation. It raises some fun questions (some of which are just more random offshoots related to my interests than monetary policy or economic theory):

1) Did all private wealth held in USD originate as monetized federal debt at one point?

2) If banking systems didn't have access to fraction reserve systems, would they be effective tools for debt/wealth creation?

3) Is debt creation the same was wealth creation? How can labor and commodities even be effectively monetized without fluid systems of debt creation?

4) If the lowly game of poker was once used as way to build ad-hoc credit and wealth, before more sophisticated financial systems were more commonplace, how rigidly should we look at debt creation at all, federal or otherwise? Perhaps more gamified and ad-hoc systems would create a higher baseline of wealth globally? [1]

So many interesting questions.

1: MIT 15.S50 Poker Theory and Analysis, IAP 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZZ4y5GfdOU

I could see

    max-width: 75ch;
    margin: 0 auto;

on the center element being effective

Reducing the max character length per line would yield a huge readability improvement :) Interesting tool!

I just assumed that was the case, it made using it a lot funnier, and more interesting to poke and prod.

That seemingly isn't as clear to the many companies and households who move to carbon-free technologies with the goal of decreasing energy costs, thus increasing profit/utility/quality of life by simply investing in energy efficiency.

Your HN account is probably older than many of those kids the church covered up the abuse of. But sure, she's the asshole for making you think about it.

Seeing the "less art needs to exist" perspective is certainly a first time for me on this topic.

The other reply is correct, I'm referencing the Nazi's brand of rhetoric.

Today's rhetoric has the charming variety of "exactly the same" to "distinctly similar". Blood libel, for example being exactly the same as what Qanon believer espouse, and reactionary rhetoric about drag performers being distinctly similar to "degenerate art". A 1500 person poll had 50% of Republicans believing in a pedophile cult among democrat Elites[1]. 25% identify as believing in Qanon, which is literally blood libel [2].

So no, not using it in a positive sense, at all.

1: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... 2: https://www.prri.org/research/the-persistence-of-qanon-in-th...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

What point are you making here exactly?

Every other day I hear a reactionary takes on behaviors that would have been called "sexual bolshevism" at the time. Scary times.

Or both, depending on how readable it is

“Mocking online misbehavior” is pretty generous.

I'd venture there's a certain political spotlight which the NC legislature consistently inserts it's self into, that could create a sticking point for some high level C-suite executive at Apple.

I did, for a Frontend role. Was fun, but now I'm seeking UX design roles and they're a bit rarer here! All good :)

The lyrics "It started out with a kiss, How did it up like this?" come to mind

So you're telling me there's a chance!

Just as a little friendly feedback, having a dedicated language picker landing page must certainly be hurting any goal you have for your website, unless I suppose that goal is to determine the language your visitors (who don't just bounce) are speaking.

Surely there's a better pattern that doesn't add an immediate barrier to visitors before you get to introduce your value, and lets people navigate to the site immediately.

For people who needed visibility and access to a platform it's actually a quite important tool. I'm not talking about the frivolous uses.

Sorry, it is unclear if this comment is AI generated or not, I can't give you full credit for it.

(No seriously. "The classifier considers the text to be unclear if it is AI-generated.")

I don't know why you'd assume my observations are an attack on him personally, or try to characterize me as cancelling him. Apparently he's somewhat noteworthy? I just shared related information I found interesting and comment worthy.

It feels you'd prefer I stifle my reflection on the petition I found and the thoughts I had? Seems a bit like being cancelled for not limiting my perspective to the proposal and commenting on anything related I'd read upon googling the people in the article.

I find LiDAR scanning through canopies super fascinating, but I ended up going down a different rabbit hole while reading this. I found the petition linked below after a cursory look into the doctor of archeology mentioned within this article. I wonder how this work fits into the aspirations mentioned within it.

To me that petition brought up thoughts about how one might manage projects like this with respect to local population, and if/how efforts like this can aspire to maximize positive impacts for local populations, relating to economic mobility. It also brought up concerns about the worst parts of colonialism/neo-colonialism, namely the looting and suppression of local populations for the economic interests of foreign or state related interests. I wonder how the archeologist in question changed his methodologies (if at all) in response to the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/society-for-american-archaeology-re...

Not that we're debating, but your reply seems a little gish-gallopy. What type of information are you seeking by asking "A composite how exactly"?

Are you asking how what I described is a composite? How I'd create a composite? If I were trying to define sex, I'd try to find the most relevant attributes to human sexual dimorphism, and if and when I encountered exceptions, to me that would imply a spectrum exists and sex is non-binary.

What am I measuring? I'd be trying to find the biological measures relating to sexual dimorphism, and how they consistently they correlated to the other biological measures I listed. I'd also be looking for exceptions, which do certainly exist.

How are you translating it into a continuous variable? I wouldn't be, I imagine that upon seeing that there are exceptions to the attributes I included in my composite, where people in one or more ways fall outside of the two typical morphological/gamete/chromosomal norms, that would be what implies a continuum/spectrum. I'm not translating it, I'd just be seeing nonbinary data, I didn't translate the data to fall outside of a binary pattern or force it into a continuum, it just exists that way. Correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Why are you calling this variable sex? As I said, in my best attempt to create a composite of all traits that could be contained within a definition of sex, that's what it'd be.

Well, this is all based on my perception and feeling, but in this case at least it appeared to be merely at the mention of how this story might relate to nonbinary gender identity. Just my perspective, but you appeared to really jumped at the opportunity to describe their their gender identity as imaginary and liken it to a sexual kink (are kinks imaginary either? IDK). Just seems as if this topic has fallen into the focus of your ire, which I just feel is a bit prejudiced.

For you it's at worst an extremely rare, uncomfortable but minor inconvenience to you. But now you jump at this kinda shitty reactivity towards the topic, which must sorta stink for other HN readers who just try to live their lives, but happen have a nonbinary or trans gender identity. IMO you're just piling on in a needlessly irritable way.

Just an outsiders perspective. Happy holidays and I hope you have a nice rest of your day, fwiw.

Of sex characteristics, I mean if I was attempting to be accurate as possible to what sex is, it'd be some composite of morphology, chromosomes and gamete structures, which would place most humans in two main tranches, but some individuals would fall in between or outside of those two, which sounds a lot like a spectrum to me.

Based on those questionably real experiences relating to your coworker's pronouns and last name, it kinda seems like you decided in advance to now plant your flag on being standoffish and pretty foul towards people who chose not to act as sex they were assigned at birth, by calling their gender identity "imaginary" when the topic comes up. Which is just prejudice I think? Kind of a pick your battles moment really, are you really going to preemptively be irritated at any mention of nonbinary or trans people forever?

Isn't sex a bimodal distribution, and therefor objectively a spectrum?