JamesBarney

I'm pro-choice but arguing the government doesn't have the right to limit medical procedures doesn't seem obvious to me.

This won't get you the bonus, it'll just get you possibly sued and/or prison time.

I think a better fix is to just not give to a company what you would regret giving. Don't put in 80 hours a week for months unless you have good reason to think it's going to be worth it and do it with the full knowledge that you might be gambling on the company's generosity.

Also just energy levels. I could recover from an 80 hour pretty quickly at 22, in my late 30s it takes longer.

It depends.

Large enterprise clients would never let you own the IP. But those gigs are usually pretty profitable because they're large and they can afford high rates.

Small clients mostly don't care unless they are planning on selling the software.

And mid sized clients it seems to depend on whether or not they see it as a cost savings measure or competitive advantage. If it's the latter you can usually justify higher rates.

If you don't have any current expensive active costs the marketplace is fine. It's not great if you have a spouse or kids who suffers from a chronic condition that is hard to get covered for, but it's mostly fine for most health catastrophes.

Yeah did the same, and I'm also enjoying the corporate life.

Learned a ton of lessons, the first of which is starting a consulting shop for general development is fools errand. You can kind of make if worth it if you're decent at sales and offshore everything.

If I do it again I'll slice our niche down thinner than prosciutto, something like CRM integrations for real estate agents, and have contracts that allowed us to own the IP.

He did not threaten to kill anyone anymore than anyone saying they hope Trump has a heart attack is threatening to kill him. He made a twitter post in poor taste and apologized.

No but it increases the risk of a suicide attempt and it's lethality. The link between homicide and guns is small and nebulous, the link between guns and suicide is clear and much stronger.

His argument is that demand will drop.

You need to distinguish between the market for houses and the market for housing (which includes rentals). Speculative real estate purchases and home buying incentives have a much larger effect on the market for houses vs the housing market. But the housing market is what drives the cost of leaving home.

With zoning and building codes we've just made it a lot more expensive to build housing. Just building codes probably increase the cost of building an apartment by 1-2% per year, and with zoning added in that could lead to 2-3% appreciation above inflation and wages which over 30 years adds up to quite a bit.

Here's the data you mention.

https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_18-01-12_sharedliving_feature...

You could, either works.

Given low fertility rates, companies that provide daycare should get large tax breaks.

> Regressive taxes take a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from middle-and high-income earners. I agree with this definition, and I'm pretty sure this tax won't fall on low-income earners. It will fall on a combination of devs and owners. (Probably more owners than devs, I doubt we'll see a large reduction in developer salaries)

I also agree it's really bad tax policy.

But later you seem to switch to definition of whether a tax is regressive by comparing owners vs employees but that seems only tangential to whether or not the tax is regressive, which every definition I've seen has more to do with income level relative to the general population, not the 0.1%.

I guess different strokes.

As an employee, before I escalate any issue I always try to do my best to fix it myself first (barring some efficiency gain like it's far easier for someone else to resolve). And as a manager I appreciate reports who do the same.

He explained why a specific solution wouldn't work, but he did not tie that into a request to stop sending him ChatGPT suggestions. Telling them to stop is a key part of that discussion.

I hate that the top voted answer is tattle to the boss. The poster and artists are both adults, and it is tagged communication.

It seems like the first step should just be ignoring it or communicating the issue to them. Something like setup a meeting to go through a couple of examples of the flaws in extreme detail, that the solutions many times lack the context to come up with a great answer, you appreciate they're trying to help you figure out the solution with ChatGPT but it's not necessary because you also have access to ChatGPT and leverage it when you can.

I get the theory, but I've seen the effects of that decision.

The pre-objectivity police StackOverflow was sooo much more useful (2010ish). 85% of the top 1000 questions had incredibly well written and insightful answers to subjective questions. Things like "How do I become a better software engineer?" which is far more useful than "How can I rename a local Git branch?"

For a time these bled out into other smaller stack exchange communities, but many eventually fell to the objectivity police.

I guess it's how you define regressive. Is the following tax regressive or progressive? top 1%: 5% top 2-50%: 20% bottom 50%: 0%

Most FAANG's are fine since their profitable and have access to cash. The real hit is startups, especially smaller or bootstrapped ones which will now have a much higher tax bill.

I don't think it's regressive the average engineers makes far more than the average person. But it is a terrible idea because it strangles new technology companies which hurt growth in the long term.

Imagine the government printed 4.44 trillion dollars and passed twice the total covid stimulus every year. We'd either have massive inflation or the fed would need to jack up interest rates to the 20-40%. Economies don't do well with exploding inflation or sky high interest rates.

If the government borrows and slack remains in the economy, standard economic theory also predicts limited effects on inflation. What about MMT is different?

The two concerns that standard economics seems to have around the government borrowing excess money is higher debt load, and crowding out.

I'm not aware of anyone who is familiar with the situation who think that a 1 state solution is viable. If you can point to any essays or blog posts where someone lays out, how you get the Israelis to agree with it and how you keep the 1 state from devolving into a brutal civil war I'd love to read it.

The 1 state solution turns a Palestinian self determination and Israeli security issues into an existential issue for both sides. This raises the stakes considerably. I can't see it ending in anything but 100's of thousands of dead and a complete meltdown of the middle east.

Not having kids and having less kids is a universal trend that is not unique to America. It's affecting every country in the world, and the US is actually doing better than most at the same level of development.

It's also affecting Bangladesh.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/fertili....

This depends on the chemo dose. Curative chemo doses are worse in the short term. But palliative chemo usually improves quality of life.

After having seen what various auto immune diseases can do to people, I would easily take a 5-10% risk of death for a cure.

If native Americans made up 60% of the population and voted hamas into power the last time they had an election it would have been a much tougher choice for the us to give them voting rights.

I'm not sure what tech weighted diversity means. Number of Asian people? If you're looking at % white people Austin is the whitest city in Texas. SA, Houston, and Dallas all have less white people than New York or San Francisco.

It sounds like your friends aren't interested in diversity but specifically looking for the opposite. People that share a shared cultural heritage and language. Nothing wrong with that, but it's just weird to call that diversity.

One issue with that is we only provide a small portion of their military budget and use a lot of that influence to persuade them to treat the Palestinians better.