3,166 karma · joined June 8, 2019
Clustering is usually a pretty good sign of doing neither - just because information is free doesn’t mean you shouldn’t synthesize it for yourself.
We’d probably not know about this if Javice just spent 10 minutes thinking, created a small scholarship, bought student contact info to “market” the scholarship, and then used that real data to commit fraud.
Maybe some recipients notice and report something to JPMorgan, but how many 18 year olds are actively reporting spam?
Your knees are significantly more likely to work well into old age if you’re active, but not constantly supporting excess weight. Talk to any orthopedic doctor and they will tell you weight loss makes your lower body joints much healthier in old age. Not to mention the natural increase in activity people experience when they are lighter and walking is less of a chore.
Having healthy lower body joints makes you much less of a fall risk.
Being less of a fall risk extends your lifespan quite a bit once you’re around 60-70.
Being overweight is one of the most objectively bad for you things out there, but it’s a shame we all share (75% of Americans are overweight and way even higher you look at people old enough to be doctors).
The entire point of this article is now that it is something treatable through medical science, people who understand the major health downsides of being overweight are treating themselves.
With right on red, the driver is also looking to where they are going, but legally crossing pedestrians are not there, they are directly in front of the car.
The riskiest thing for a pedestrian is approaching a right on red car from the left, because the driver is simply not looking at you.
This means that there was no innovative technology in them, and they represent a technology path that is significantly less space efficient and less useful vs PVs.
It is also worth noting (especially on a platform that believes in American excellence as much as HN does) that modern PVs really trace their history back to Martin Green, who did most of his work with Australian Japanese and Chinese researchers (since he was in Australia), so funding the projects of American scientists might have not yielded the best results anyway.
So in many ways, you could argue that Carter’s solar focus was symbolically great, but stronger US subsidies would just make the US look like Germany - expensive and inefficient PVs that are increasingly becoming a liability (though bless them and their utility customers for powering through and continuing to install new, more efficient equipment).
BUT my point is that a common trope here is laundering bad behavior through quotes and revered historical figures - it’s something people often pick up when doing forensics in their youth.
I’m fine being told I’m small minded (we all are, significantly more than we’d like to believe), but it feels weird to have it happen on here without people supporting the argument. For example, “How far do you extend the demand for consistency RC_ITR - should we allow the government to install cameras on public land facing our homes? in that case they’re simply capturing photons that exist in public areas.”
That at least would have made me look foolish in a way that requires critical thinking.
First of all, that quote was pulled to insult me - it's specifically a quote about individuals' minds, not ideas. That is in fact the one of the strongest criticisms of Emerson - he grounded idea-based discourse in commentary on the people who hold those ideas. I'd even go so far as to say 'English Traits' is the perfect example of that failure.
Secondly, When a premise is supported only by a quote from an individual, it is completely acceptable to post a separate quote from that individual in response.
Why should I believe Emerson about consistency when (hopefully) all of us here disagree with him about Norsemen?
Maybe it would be flamebait if that was part of an argument, but his entire argument was "Emerson said this thing so it's true" and my argument was "Emerson also said this patently false thing."
I know it feels bad to look at the whole gorey corpus of otherwise really cool historical figures, but encouraging people to believe anything they say without critical analysis is the true anti-curiosity stance.
Thirdly, I agree it's easier to make people from the past look morally bad morally and that is precisely why we should not base our worldview on their quotes alone.
TSA is at the airport lobby and technically only precludes me from entering the airside of an airport, but its purpose is to prevent me from getting on a plane with a gun.
I don't think point of implementation is a strong argument here.
No TSA. No license plate scanners. No fare gates for trains. No locks on doors. No anti-shoplifting tags.
EDIT: Is there some Emerson convention in town? You can look at my comments for some of his other quotes (It's actually not very surprising to me that an Anglo abolitionist who also believed that Anglos were the 'best' race wasn't a big fan of consistency!)
Net saving is:
> equal to the sum of personal saving, undistributed corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, and net government saving. [0]
To break that down further:
Personal Saving is 'Post tax income less consumption'. That looks like this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVE
Undistributed corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments is a measure of how much profit companies made, but did not return to shareholders (with an adjustment to remove the effect of inflation). That looks like this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B057RC1Q027SBEA
Net Government saving is (oversimplified, but basically) the deficit: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TGDEF
GNI is sort of like GDP, but slightly different (treat it like the same for nearly all intents and purposes).
What this chart is basically showing, is that Federal deficits are up, but it's not translating to a higher household savings rate (As was the case during the stimulus period) OR higher retained corporate earnings.
I'd argue that the actual number is an intellectual exercise (i.e. it's relatively meaningless that it is now negative), but it is worth investigating why the Government is running such a large deficit in a hot economy that is not leading to better quality of life (Personal savings is a rough proxy for that).
[0]https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/net-saving#:~:text=A%20mea....
Would you believe that those are actually hydrocarbon emissions that would be eliminated if we took electrification seriously?
https://electrek.co/2022/11/23/caterpillar-demonstrates-firs...
They already have shareholders? And as you point out, if the founder really wanted to, he could have self-funded most of SpaceX (instead of buying X for example).
He's a public company CEO already - he has no qualms about taking SpaceX public.
Wouldn't a start-up competitor need to enter (and then grow) the space in order for this to be a failure like that?
If it's such a potentially lucrative product, then why have the myriad of VC-funded challengers languished?
I think in reality, Mint.com is a classic niche product where a small set of competent users (the kind you see on HN) love it, but most people just don't see a need for it.
The rub, of course, is that most of the cost for something like Starlink is designing, building, and launching the satellites, which shows up in investing cashflows.
Put differently, if the company was actually generating more cash than it consumes on all levels, start the IPO right now and SpaceX will be a $1tn+ company (instead of a $100bn+ company that people expect will one day generate cash and then be a $1tn+ company).
A very important nuance (not disagreeing with you, just sharing my pet thing), is that the stock market outgrows GDP because you aren't investing in the economy as a whole. You are investing in the good parts of the economy that people are excited about (i.e. When you invest in Amazon, you assume that they will continue to take share from mom and pop retailers, even in a flat-GDP scenario). You are also generally assuming that US-HQ companies will gain share globally, not just in the US.
That's why the Internet has been so positively impactful to the S&P 500 - it has really accelerated share shift to large companies (even if it hasn't accelerated GDP) and it has increased the global share of US-based companies.
Never mind the fact that these people rely on those workers to feed them even during the school day (and the jobs are usually bad because one is forced to deal with people who look down on you).
It’s a round about way to counteract the obvious question that comes after these kinds of articles (Isn’t even $20/hr only $40k/year full-time?)
People just need to believe that homeless people are inherently bad in some way. It makes it really hard to discuss solutions, since they’re all “drug addicts who should be in jail.”
I'm sorry for the double reply, but I really ma horrified.
It's amazing how we live in a country where shelter prices have increased by 50% since 2009 (vs. c.40% for all other items), and yet we still desperately hold onto this idea that homeless people are universally immoral drug addicts.
Beyond that point, we are talking about foster kids here. Everyone immediately jumped to homelessness for whatever reason (they seem to be the social scapegoat du jour).
I think it is completely reasonable for the government to fight inequality by giving people who we know are not receiving any support from their parents a boost in their critical career forming years.
Honestly, $1k/ month could be the difference between going to school part time vs. working full-time. Why does nobody's mind go to this? Why is the assumption that foster kids would never make that choice?
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
Meanwhile, the amount of fat available has gone up 40%, while protein supplies have risen closer to c. 10%.
It is absolutely anti-data to imply that previous generations had access to the same amount/mix of food/calories as we do today.
It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws.
It's a nice thing Americans are proud of, but for example, The Supreme Court can't cite in a ruling, unless it's also in-line with The Constitution.
Yes, a much more popular IP-based movie.
I understand it's frustrating to accept that the viewing public prefers IP over original movies, but it's just true. Studio movies as audiences expect them (and increasingly TV) are just too big and expensive to be the medium in which we workshop new ideas. You'll often get new ideas from blank-check directors, animation, or indie films, but that's it.
Now, keep in mind, looking back at some of the greatest movies of all time, good movies were always IP-based, it was just less noticeable:
Godfather (book)
Gone With the Wind (book)
Lawrence of Arabia (book)
Wizard of OZ (book)
The Graduate (book)
West Side Story (Musical)
2001 (An expansion of an existing Arthur Clark Story)
I could go on, but you get the point.
Why are you so certain foster kids are just going to drink themselves to death? What about not having a parent makes someone immediately at risk for that?
Elemental and Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken immediately come to mind.
Or, and hear me out here, it could supplement the $2,400/month someone makes working 160 hours at $15/hour.
Again, keep in mind, median rent in LA county is is >$3k/month.
IDK everyone in this thread thinks so poorly of former foster kids. Have they not had it hard enough?