Phiwise_

>Wait, TikTok doesn't allow you to change the volume?

Just a guess from Youtube's shorts not having it. I've never used it.

>the words "by someone elected" don't belong in your question [about power derived from elections].

Do they not belong because they are untrue, or perhaps because they make your taking exception to their argument incoherent? Nah, it must be that everyone who disagrees with you on the internet has no brain in bad faith.

I think both redirect to the video, no? At least I think they used to.

Plus adjust the volume! Really speaks to the modern state Google's in that they took out their own functionality to more closely clone TikTok, I assume. Paul Graham's got an old quote about what it indicated about Microsoft when they decided to clone Google's business, and it comes to mind every time I see those terrible and vertical thumbnails.

I'm not sure I can support throwing out review boards because they look improprietous by conducting reviews. Seems a little backwards.

It's good to hear that's what you wanted to do, but I think a case can be made that your comment does not read that way.

That's more than a bit of a word salad so I'm just going to leave this for you to read: https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/65fec8...

>What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff... appoints everyone on it?

Would you rather someone unelected by the citizens decide who sits on the citizen review board?

You mean the time that I read and memorized long ago had an inflation of 14%? You have read the title of this post, right? And you're aware that 18 > 14? If I assume you are, you are just making another vibes-based assertion. Would you rather I didn't?

Yeah the moderation is absolutely atrocious these days. I got flagged for quoting the IMF a few weeks ago lmao.

>> CPI is designed to make the government look good, hence the article. >The CPI is run by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: ... https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/history.htm

You do notice that your link to back up disagreeing with the assertion of potential government bias is to a .gov domain, surely?

>If these facts are so right, why do they sound false to me?

Again, this appeal to the vibe you're getting right now is not compelling to anyone who actually cares about economics.

>But, further down the February results, you can see that record numbers of people report hearing negative news stories about prices, way way way higher than in 1980! Which is totally crazy if you were here in 1980!

If you had taken a moment to consider the data presented in the article instead of dismissing it out of hand because it offends your sensibilities, you would realize it states that it obviously implies it is not crazy to hear more news about inflation nowadays than in the 1980s, because it shows inflation is worse nowadays than in the 1980s. Feel free keep raving about how you get a much better vibe from the economy today despite the info if that's what matters more to you, though.

>Beware any election-year stories that just happen to elicit a deep sense of things being astray. Larry Summers in particular has a long track record of playing complex angles in his public policy views. The technical argument in the paper is totally separate from the headline here. The headline is what matters. ... The null hypothesis is that the inflation wave came and went. You won't find a credible economist that can prove otherwise.

This is an almost deceptively bad characterization of Summers' data. Your comment implies Summers said inflation is still rising, when his proposed adjusted CPI also says inflation "came and went", as it is also just as far below its peak as the inflation of the official CPI is below its own. The difference is just that Summers' peaked later (plus higher, like the headline does mention) because of his inclusion of interest; while offical increase was declining his continued to rise just because during the increase of rates that increase offset the decrease in the increase of prices. Once rates stopped increasing this naturally also stopped, and his proposed inflation has been falling faster than official inflation did in order to close with it since [1].

Thus, no ultimate difference in failure to reject your null hypothesis.

[1] https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/65fec8...

It's more than just interest: 2022 just might have been the worst non-recession year in (modern, meaning years with acceptable stats) US economic history. Every tranche of net worth FRED tracks fell off a cliff that year, declining in (CPI, so we don't even need this competing metric to come to these conclusions) real terms by more than they did even during the 2020 recession [1], with the rich almost always losing more in absolute terms and the poor almost always losing more relative to their losses in 2020 [2]. If you look closely, you'll even notice that some of the rich lost more during these supposed business-as-usual days than they did during the 2008 meltdown of their moneymaking sector.

It's been pretty shocking to watch this happen, see the months roll on, and still hear basically no wideapread discussion on it in proportion to what has actually happened. We're coming up on two years of just not having an average of ~9% of our wealth we all worked hard to make from recovering from an economic equivalent of universal house arrest any more, and the best one can get a mainstream platform for is something like "possible cost of living concerns". Sure 2008 was worse for specifically the working class, but the working class are also much more sensitive to small changes in prosperity because they're not even in the same order of magnitude of diminishing returns (not to mention that it's pretty much as big a drop for them as the 2001 recession, which was also a quite painful time historically and was certainly seen as a moderate travesty before the perspective of 2008). How long can this dissatisfaction go on without starting a serious effort for acknowledgement and recovery?

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1317969 [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1326338&rn=637

This absolutely reads like a reasoned counterpoint to a dubious claim and totally not at all like an unhinged, partisan knee-jerk rejection of additional information that's bad news for your preferred platform.

If you had read the data before commenting you would have noticed that it is all PPP-adjusted.

This wording is unnecessary, but I agree that Wikipedia is quite harmed by some-to-many of its favored policies and editors. I've recently been turned on to Justapedia, a fork project that seems to want to avoid such petty-baron problems by vastly extending the scope of included information. Hopefully they or some other project crack the code for a reliable, free, easy to update online encyclopedia again.

I'm waiting patiently for the day when I encounter the first European on an American website who understands that Europe sees the American work standard as absurdly high, that on the other hand Americans see the European wealth standard as absurdly low, and uses this information to not derail working conditions discussions with suggestions that violate the premise of sacrificing a third of their income for the last deminishing returns of the European system [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

Did you read more than the first sentence of this comment before replying? I'm up in the air on it but it deserves more discussion and less mental laziness than you're showing here.

>In other words, no operations were affected or compromised here.

How do you know this? Did you check it with the NSA, or Cyber Command, or the CIA, or literally anyone before running your "attack"? Will they confirm this discussion? If you're going to make the claim of truly being on the US side of the Pacific theater, it'd be nice to have a little concrete evidence of such. I don't particularly care what vulns you use at all; what I care about is that you're wise enough with any of them to not push us into the tragedy of the commons for your own short-term gain. (For similar reasons I also do not particularly care what someone who passed beneath the intelligence ceiling for writing in wired magazine has to say about you. This is like a university professor trying to claim an interview in the campus student paper as a citation of their work.)

Almost certainly the latter. Chances are good "allied" states like the US or S.Korea, with their cybersecurity budgets many times larger than either N.Korea or any private firm or group, also already knew about these and many other vulnerabilities, and were saving them for an emergency response in case N.Korea attacks someone in the region; instead this irregular has just burned this part of that puzzle for no gain except making himself into a peacetime media darling for magazines shortsighted enough to fawn over him like Wired. This is also why they say no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Sussman has a great guest lecture that mentions exactly these sorts of issues, and that he found it much easier to verify work he and his grad students did in mathematical physics after developing the "mechanics programming" notation he explains in Structure and Interpretarion of Classical Mechanics and Functional Differential Geometry.

This is indeed a N=1

If you're referring to the sharp drop at the end of the graph, no. It's an artifact of the api change making it much harder to capture comments. We can verify this by how the comments/day rank didn't budge, because it happened on literally every sub simultaneously. If you're referring to the gradual dip from its peak, I have no idea.

A favorite more recent fact about this of mine: You might have heard about reddit's several early influxes from other websites as metaphorical eternal septembers, but did you know they had a literal eternal september just over a year after the release of the official mobile app? Check out the inflection point: https://subredditstats.com/r/teenagers

>In addition: two months to a compiler? Four to a complete chip? All from a team under 15 ppl?

"Because of [Symbolics' automated design] methodology, we were able to do five different revs of the chip on four different technologies, which was pretty amazing [for the time]. ... We took about 10 to 12 man-years to do the Ivory chip, and the only comparable chip contemporaneous to that was the MicroVAX at DEC; I knew some people who worked on that, and their estimate was that it was 70 to 80 man-years to do the MicroVAX. That in a nutshell is the reason that the Symbolics lisp machine was great." -Kalman Reti (2012) https://youtu.be/OBfB2MJw3qg

Non-blub work environments bring sone fantasy-tier goals down to just within possibility by a motivated team of geniuses, which Symbolics had. Reminds me a little of how Alan Kay describes the forgotten art of Starrett erecting the empire state building in under a year: "Gentlemen, this building of yours is going to present unusual problems. Ordinary equipment won't be worth a damn on it. We'll buy and make new stuff, fitted for the job. That's what we do on every big job; it costs less than renting secondhand stuff, and it's more efficient." https://youtu.be/QboI_1WJUlM

>Now what am I supposed to do? Sell my model and take a bath on the used item depreciation to get a worthwhile screen? Buy a second device with pretty much identical performance otherwise? Pay for the screen I should have been able to choose separately and go through the headache of replacing it myself?

How old are you?

Fun fact: Half of all HN posts/ comments were made in the last five years. I'm brand-new to here instead of reddit (no subs grrr), but look old as the hills from this perspective.