RyanZAG

> For that I will never forgive the New York Times.

In 50 years time, what disinformation that they are spreading today will they 'apologize' for?

It would be like you posting a Twitter message that says "I hate Donald Trump" and Twitter transparently changing that message to "I hate Tim Cook" so that anybody reading your timeline thinks you're someone you aren't. See the problem now? Now imagine if Twitter's management was taken over tomorrow and this actually happens.

Would you not be a little bit outraged?

You comment that he's made just one mistake on a bad day. Perhaps this is just his most visible mistake, and he's been making these kinds of bad mistakes for the past month. It didn't take him 10 seconds to do this - he had to log in with full access to the reddit database and run unprotected queries against the live running copy. That's both shocking security, operations and basic common practice. For a childish insult.

And finally, he did not actually apologize for any of this. "I fucked up" is not the same as "I'm sorry".

We need to stay focused on real goals, and space is one of them. Not petty insults.

I think it's just that people get caught up in tribal thinking very easily, and while the commentators on this site would usually be interested in discussion on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of free trade, Trump's message on protectionism have driven some people into a corner of having to be anti-protectionism to remain true to their 'tribe'. It's pretty unfortunate how quickly we as humans can fall into a trap like that: "I hate person X, person X believes Y, therefore I don't support Y".

To add as well, the free subsidy is definitely a short term thing. If you look at it as an 'education fee' for the subsidized business, it's not really that unexpected. Eg, a student may be paid nothing while he works as an intern and learns skills, but he does it anyway because once he has done so he can earn far more for the rest of his life. Same with subsides.

Also another way to look at it: the people buying the cars for less could probably already afford the cars. So instead of that money going to new workers in your own country, they're going to those in other countries. So the rich benefit in paying cheaper prices, but the poor who needed that income more than they needed a cheaper car suffer. In properly working free trade, this would be a two way street of comparative advantage, but because of numerous 'cheats' it's no longer a two way street.

If everyone is free trade, and nobody tries to cheat, then free trade is better for everyone.

However, when you add in state actors, taxation, arbitrage, high speed trading, and many other real world issues, then non-free trade can be more efficient if it distributes economic output better.

This is really simple if you stop and look at the individual pieces: if you have free trade, but your trading partner uses the money they get from taxation to subsidize weak parts of their economy that you would normally have an advantage in, then you're going to lose that advantage when businesses in that area go bankrupt as they can no longer compete. Your trading partner can then move the subsidy to other businesses and repeat the process until they have destroyed all of your local business.

Free trade doesn't work if others are cheating and you're doing nothing to stop them. There are many other cases besides subsidies where free trade can be easily abused by actors in your own country as well - such as moving their tax debt to other countries while continuing to operate in your country. Free trade is a two way street that has to be managed to prevent selfish actions. Not to say that free trade isn't still the best option, but you have to make sure both partners in the free trade agreement are working to the benefit of both partners.

EDIT: Ah, I'm from South Africa so I forgot it's the USA election and this website is liberal, which means you'll all lose your regular sense and downvote this post because it appears to support Trump or something. Carry on then, I'll be back in a few weeks when you guys have calmed down!

There is definitely no contradiction there. Genes will still evolve, but it will no longer be through a process of natural finding the most positive genes. Or I'd guess you could say that we will now evolve towards genes that enable the largest families. And the largest families are predominantly in poor suburbs. The actual environment is artificial though, as those families would not be able to survive on their own without support. Taken to an extreme, it would technically be 'evolution to destruction' by selecting for negative traits that make it impossible to survive outside of the safety net. Luckily we're nowhere near that kind of extreme.

Also, why do you say 'some'? It would stop all negative mutations, as all people are given the ability to reproduce. Your argument seems to be that people with negative mutations would not be attractive, but often they are attractive to others with negative mutations themselves. Or just people who no longer breed purely based on biological fitness - again because of modern civilization.

This isn't correct and is a common misconception about evolution. The process which does this is natural selection, and it only occurs through the organism being unable to reproduce as well as an organism with beneficial evolutionary changes.

With humans in the modern world, there is no natural selection because of state benefits that keep people alive and able to reproduce who would usually be unable to do so in a world without safety nets.

So in the modern world, any evolution in humanity - either positive or negative - will perdure. In effect we've ended the traditional form of evolution ages ago when we became civilized.

1) "UI by programmers". Very low use of graphics and animations. Everything looks very standardized. Usually has advanced options panels that let you tweak small parts of the algorithm. Gives a high level of control as there is little abstraction between the functional and presentation layers.

2) "UI by designers". Use of graphics and animations where necessary to make the UI more understandable, such as animations to show the result of user actions. Code is usually abstracted away and the interface is set up with the user in mind. Steps to perform common actions are very quick with the minimal amount of user input.

3) "UI by artists". Excessive use of graphics and animations. Animations that serve no functional purpose. High use of art with large images used for theme rather than function. Often no real link between what you expect buttons to do and what they really do. Steps to perform common actions are usually convoluted with multiple menus. Some even use hidden menus that must be invoked through arcane gestures in an effort to make screenshots look more appealing.

I think the UI being described here is actually the "UI by artists" rather than a well designed UI by a designer and not an artist.

You don't have to solve everything yourself. That's the whole point of a peer driven scientific community.

The code you do write is going to be more secure if you know what's going on. If it's on top of a billion line framework, you might accidentally break the security without even realizing it. No legions of framework developers reviewed, audited, tested or fixed your actual code.

But if you've built it on top of a huge framework then you can end up with all the separate parts stuck together in a massive project where you're not even using 75% of the framework.

Basically, don't use a framework unless you really do need all the features it gives you. Don't just pick a framework and try to cram your code into it for the sole purpose of using a framework.

It's kind of the point of the whole page - you don't need a massive general framework to solve your specific problem. Maybe read the whole thing instead of just skimming it.

Multiple platforms is not a problem and generally a good thing as long as it's not excessive. You don't want to be in a case where you have the same number of different platforms as developers or anything like that. I'm guessing there is a rule of thumb here, but I'm not sure what it would be. Max 1 different platform per 5 developers? Something like that.

Put another way: everyone is free to set up their own planet if they don't like this one, and it's undoubtedly possible with infinite knowledge and ability to set up your own planet. But it's not good advice to give someone today for obvious reasons.

For real immigration: that is already happening massively in the form of economic migrants into Europe. If you restrict capital from traveling out of the developed world, you'll turn the developing world into a hellscape that everyone will try to escape. Real immigration of that size would make housing unaffordable, overwhelm all infrastructure, overwhelm local water resources, etc. It's the exact opposite of what we want: we don't want all of humanity in a 100km big city. We really really don't.

For "virtual" immigration - you basically mean annexing the sovereignty of citizens of developing countries. Extremely unlikely, no government would allow that without a fight. But assuming they do, you now have a billion new voters living outside of your country. What do they do the next election? They'll vote in their own leader who will promptly redirect all the social grant money overseas. Hell, I know African leaders, they'll redirect all tax money to themselves in massive quantities. We don't want all of the developing world electing leaders for us, we really really really don't. You'll likely end up with a devout religious leader of some kind because of uneducated voters.

On the tax stuff - we'd need hard numbers to draw a conclusion. I was just giving some examples of how a capital tax would not necessarily solve the problems faced by an income tax and may have far more unknown problems that would only come up after we face the unintended side effects. There's always unintended side effects.

As for shifting all taxes from income to capital - this can't work without enormous changes to free trade. This means that we'd have to stop free trade entirely (catastrophic for developing countries) or implement UBI across all countries at the same time (definitely impossible in the near future).

The problem is that all the capital holders would have immense pressure to move their businesses overseas if they're going to lose substantial parts of their capital every year from tax. Income and profit taxes don't do this because the business still has to be growing to pay the tax, so you can just increase prices to offset the tax, etc. But a capital tax big enough to cover income for the entire country would be significant percentage of capital every year. Any hole left open in free trade would have that capital rush to other countries where such a tax does not exist.

Plus even if capital stayed, that would further reinforce 'growth at all costs' mindset. You'd have to grow your capital at a rate greater than the tax every year to be successful. You'd have massive corporate thuggery - such as pricing things just above UBI to force people to come in to work as marketers and other roles to push each business above the competition and beat the capital taxes.

What if your whole economy had a bad decade and assets failed to outgrow your capital tax? As with income tax, your tax base has just shrunk. But you can't decrease UBI because your whole population and economy is based around a set price level. You're back to having to take extreme measures to keep everything running, and a mistake will blow your now-fragile economy out the water.

The takeaway for me is that UBI isn't something we could just graft onto our existing system and pretend it's a miracle cure. We are going to need to change our entire system.

UBI can only succeed if people continue to consume, preferably at higher levels than currently, which would allow others who want to live a life at a higher standard to sell things to UBI recipients, who can then be taxed and support everyone else on UBI.

If UBI encouraged too large a portion of the population to pursue non-taxable income (say, making art and games and giving them away for free because they don't need money), then UBI would collapse from lack of income. Especially so if that art is given away freely to other countries over the internet. So it's a fine line that is probably a lot more complex than people give it credit. There's certainly no guarantee as to what the results of UBI would be, and no guarantee that the medicine won't be far worse than the symptoms.

EDIT: Even if you assume that a UBI could survive if it decreased with a fall in taxable income from a policy and livability perspective, if a person on UBI received $100 one week, and then had it drop to $75 the next, he would get a major shock and public opinion of a UBI would fall apart. You could print money to make sure UBI never falls, but if UBI is going out to the entire population, the amount of money needed would be enormous. That much money added to a system without an increase in real demand (people on UBI would still buy the same stuff), could easily cause hyperinflation. So another constraint that UBI has and I've never heard anybody mention - UBI can never decrease, even if tax income decreases. Plus there's no way anybody could trust politicians to manage something that complex. UBI practically demands a complete restructure of government, society and the economy. Instead of being a 'patch' as many have described, UBI is closer to 'The World 2.0'. It would be the most incredible Second System Syndrome ever seen.

> https://capnproto.org/news/2014-06-17-capnproto-flatbuffers-...

"With that said, my intuition is that SBE will probably edge Cap’n Proto and FlatBuffers on performance in the average case, due to its decision to forgo support for random access. Between Cap’n Proto and FlatBuffers, it’s harder to say. FlatBuffers’ vtable approach seems like it would make access more expensive, though its simpler pointer format may be cheaper to follow. FlatBuffers also appears to do a lot of bookkeeping at encoding time which could get costly (such as de-duping vtables), but I don’t know how costly.

For most people, the performance difference is probably small enough that qualitative (feature) differences in the libraries matter more."

The lesson is more that to get mass appeal, it's the story that counts, not the technology. Technology is just a method to connect the story to people. Pokemon Go is popular because it is 'real world Pokemon' and lets you catch 'real world Pokemon'. Without that story, the game simply doesn't work. It's the user filling in the lack of an actual game with their own imagination.

If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two options open:

1. High paying field they don't really like.

2. Low paying field they'd love to do.

Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money, they will generally be forced to choose option 1.

The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1, and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.

Woah, what? So a degree that cost $1 but raised your career earnings by $100 would be at 100%? 1000%? Not sure how they're doing the math, but it completely dwarfs the rest. And shows how obviously flawed the measure itself is.

One of the key things left out is the baseline cost of time. A few years of your life is not free and probably makes for a pretty high baseline cost.

If you sell fish, and do really well at selling fish, you'll acquire wealth. That wealth will let you build bigger boats than someone without wealth. Same seems to apply to everything. Even little apps on the app store. If you make a successful app, you get a large following of users. This will give you a springboard of users when launching your next app, and having all those users on your old app gives you valuable data on how to build the next one.

Do you see where I'm coming from about the nature of wealth?