90 karma · joined September 14, 2011
How's Shopify's platform performing these days?
The average man spends nowhere near 90 minutes a day on 'attire and grooming.'
Most people don't work out an hour a day either.
Laundry? No way that's 2 hours per week.
Most people don't cook every meal either. And making a sandwich or pouring a bowl of cereal sure as hell don't take 30 minutes.
Here are some actual statistics that weren't randomly pulled out of my ass and subsequently upvoted on Hacker News:
https://priceonomics.com/how-young-adults-spend-their-time-2...
Here are some statistics: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ADqQNf...
A couple key points: - More people in the US are struck each year by lightning than are killed by police. (373)
- Of the 1,491 persons that died from police use of force from 2009-2012: 915 (61.4%) were white males 481 (32.2%) were black males 48 (3.2%) were males of other races 28 (1.9%) were white females 15 (1.1%) were black females 4 (0.2%) were females of other races
- Of the 56,259 homicides from 2009-2012, 19,000 (33.8%) were killings of black males. Comparisons by types of homicides of black males: 481 (2.5%) were the result of police use of force 152 (0.8%) were the result of a negligent accident homicides (i.e., child playing with a gun) 648 (3.4%) were the result of a justifiable homicides by private citizens acting in self-defense 17,719 (93.3%) were criminal homicides (murders)
More blacks are killed in justifiable self-defense scenarios than are killed by police. And overwhelmingly more are killed in homicides, mainly by other blacks.
Also note: According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks. (Whites are being lumped in with Hispanics here.)
It's fairly clear that there isn't an epidemic of wide scale police violence against blacks. Instead, a few incidents have been blasted onto social media, and uncritical leftists have picked them up and ran with them. I see Black Lives Matter more as an expression of intergroup competition and aggression against traditionally white power structures. Other leftist groups take the same approach, e.g. with feminist fabrications about mass rapes on college campuses - college campuses are in fact among the safest places in the world, but feminists treat them as though they're some Mad Max-esque raping dystopia by claiming nonsense like 1 in 4 college girls get raped. They're mysteriously silent about places where real mass raping occurs, such as Africa and the Middle East.
I could go on, but suffice to say, I believe we're in a period of mass hallucination and hysteria, with entire movements justifying their existence on statistically nonsensical claims. This has happened many times throughout history, and it's leaned to both the right and left axes of the political spectrum. This time the wind just happens to be blowing to the left.
I've spoken to a number of developers who work in DC, and they pretty much tell the same story: huge tech companies/consulting firms who want to lock in a long-term contract use unnecessarily complex technologies and solutions (I'm looking at you, Java EE) that create big legacy codebases which are very difficult to switch away from, ensuring that the contractor has a job forever. Furthermore, once they've got the government agency 'by the balls' (AKA, the contractor has built a complex, poorly documented monster which only it can understand), it can charge a ridiculous amount of money for maintenance and new feature development.
I'm a bit of a newb though - how do I install this?
Want to shock the average person who considers himself an 'intellectual' or 'politically enlightened?' Say something inegalitarian (whether it's true or not doesn't really matter in terms of the emotional impact it will cause) about a population group other than southern whites.
Other fun hot topics include eugenics/dysgenics and the cultural attitudes and government policies that drive population quality, the concept of population quality itself, immigration and whether it should be restricted, whether the 2-parent family unit is important to society's long-run health and how feminism played a role in its decline, etc.
Unless I'm wrong somehow, I could see this becoming especially problematic as bitcoin becomes more popular and the daily transaction volume grows. How does the bitcoin foundation/community plan to tackle this issue?
China doesn't have that kind of baggage associated with its history and on top of that it's ambitious to establish itself as a superpower. Thus, Chinese people are far more welcoming of genetic engineering and it won't surprise me at all if China is the first country to implement it on a widescale basis. Then, like you said, competitive pressures will virtually guarantee that the rest of the world will follow its lead.
Suppose:
a) Human intelligence is heritable.
b) Less intelligent humans are more fertile than their brighter peers.
c) The breeding of the less intelligent is subsidized by society over a long period of time.
What are the long term consequences going to be? I'd bet Peter Thiel has secretly considered this among his theories of why innovation has slowed, but wouldn't dare say so in public.
For anyone curious about how psychiatry is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies, read the book "Mad in America" by Robert Whitaker. He looks at studies of the long-term outcomes for schizophrenia patients who are treated with drugs versus those who aren't given drugs. What he finds is that schizophrenics who never take psychiatric drugs have overwhelmingly better long-term outcomes than those that do.
This isn't a mere selection effect either; the studies track cohorts of people who were given the same prognosis (bad, medium, or good) at the beginning of their course of treatment. In each cohort except for the most severe, individuals who were treated with drugs experienced some short-term relief but fared far worse than the non-drug subgroup over the long run.
The psychiatry establishment has a long and ugly history of suppressing alternative treatments which emphasize little/no drug use. There is a massive vested financial interest in the status quo treatment of keeping schizophrenics on drugs for as long as possible. In my opinion it's the most criminal act being perpetrated today on a systemic basis by a supposedly respectable profession. Forget about Wall Street blowing up the economy with collateralized debt obligations or politicians underfunding pension obligations to the tune of billions of dollars; psychiatrists are literally preying on the brains of the mentally ill in direct contradiction to the evidence of which treatments work best, all so they can line their pockets with money.
One concrete example: a study by the World Health Organization found that schizophrenics in the US and other developed countries fared much worse than schizophrenics throughout the developing world. What's the common thread among treatment of schizophrenics in the developed world vs those in the developing world? Drug use.
This issue strikes near to me since I had a run-in with a psychiatrist when I was much younger due to anxiety issues/mild psychotic symptoms which have since been resolved with age and quitting a job which I hated. He kept pressuring me to take drugs, but when I showed him the aforementioned study his response to me was astounding: "Well, I haven't personally seen that in people I've treated." His entire basis of selecting a course of action was anecdotal data!
http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html - That's another great resource on the sham science underlying psychology/psychiatry. Paul has written a number of them, and they're quite informative.
This doesn't invalidate the idea of eugenics. You can still modify the average of a trait over time in a given population in spite of any mean-regressing tendencies. It just happens a bit more slowly.
Offering him a job under false pretenses and then prosecuting him creates a big disincentive for any future hackers to a) talk to government officials who approach under seemingly benevolent circumstances and b) even want to work for the government at all if it pulls scummy moves like this.
I personally take Charlie Munger's approach of going long a US equity index with most of my money and then using leftover funds to exploit what I perceive as structural mispricings in different asset classes/financial markets that I think will correct themselves in the short/medium term. Bitcoins, for example, have been a fun ride since I bought some at the start of 2013.
See this study on day traders for more info:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/Day%20Traders/...
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-true-story-of-the-tinder-war-o...
As awkward as it is to say, stories like this make me averse to hiring or working with unknown women in the tech world and I suspect the same is true of other male developers. If I'm ever in a position to do so, if I were to hire a woman I would have to know for a fact that she is very cool and wouldn't cause a shit-storm over some trumped up sexual harassment allegations.
I don't have any a priori objections to working with women, but the potential ability of a 'sexism' lawsuit to sap a startup of its two most valuable assets (time and money) lowers their desirability as prospective employees.
I'm also baffled as to how this brogrammer meme came about. Developers/males in the tech world are some of the nerdiest and nicest people I know. They're the diametric opposite of 'bros' who wear backwards baseball caps and act obnoxious in public.
After a certain point this becomes unsustainable and bad things start to happen, ranging from total political & economic collapse (Germany in the 1920s) to hyperinflation (Zimbabwe) to, in the best of the worst case scenarios, a large default/restructuring and subsequent downgrading of a country's debt to junk status (Argentina in the 2000s).
As F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and numerous other economists have written, government spending tends to be more inefficient than the free market because the government isn't constrained by profits and losses, which are society's way of indicating whether a company is producing goods and services that are valuable and desired. Of course, there are some goods and services that only the government can provide well, and the current left-right political divide is largely a debate over the point at which government taxation and spending becomes undesirable and inefficient. However, it's undeniable that at a certain level (almost certainly a level below our current level of spending in my opinion) each marginal dollar the government sucks out of the economy is used less efficiently than it would have been used if it remained in private hands.
The site was always liberal, but it used to represent a sort of rational leftism. In recent years it's churned out increasingly deranged and self-parodying social justice warrior-esque articles, to the point where Marx himself would call them a bunch of dirty commies.
In other words, Larry Summers was probably right. Then again, he was fired shortly afterwards for daring to express disagreement with one of the popular ideologies of our era.