aggronn

We just this week moved our sprints from Airtable to Notion. Seems like it will do everything we need--finally, we can have our sprints and our RFCs and other documentation in one place!

I cannot recommend notion enough!

I suppose they company could continuously issue stock in this case.

But in this world, it actually makes sense for those companies to stop doing their normal business and just go into the business of selling their shares.

This reality sounds absurd, but you could argue that BTC market is there. Enough of the market thinks that "always buy" is a good investment, regardless of the real-life value of the asset. Or maybe, less controversially, gold is that market. Any asset that is always increasing in value and not related to the real value of that asset is just a store of value.

The problem I see with that hypothesis is that the asset pricing must eventually be tied to actual performance--while it may be self-reinforcing to some extend, if it _is_ fundamentally wrong, there will be a reckoning and an adjustment after a high value stock goes bankrupt, for example.

While we're talking about slavery, it might be important to mention that the constitution specifically allows slavery in this context:

> "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." - 13th amendment

styled-components is what got me to switch from LESS to css-in-js, and I'm so grateful. Anyone interested learning about css-in-js for the first time would benefit from understanding the styled-components model, but there's already churn in that category, and new libraries inspired by styled-components that take it further. Here's an interesting perspective on the history of CSS-in-JS:

https://github.com/streamich/freestyler/blob/master/docs/en/...

Currently i'm working with Emotion (https://github.com/emotion-js/emotion) and enjoying it

I guess the difference here is our views on tribalism? I don't see people who live outside of my community as "others" who I need protection from. I would gladly earn less money to experience greater diversity and give people outside my community and opportunity to join mine.

I think for me, the line might be around protecting against transience. IF you want to join my community, people who are looking to contribute and leave a lasting impact should get benefits over people who are there to make money and leave. But there isn't really a great way to monitor this.

"Hire US Workers" doesn't strike you as anti-immigrant?

I don't see this as looking for constructive reform for, as an example, better conditions for H1B residents who have no mobility or leverage. Its saying "Stop H1B and stop foreigners from taking our jobs". If thats not their message, I don't know what is.

Yes. The point is that when you "trade" BTC for something, you're selling it. We differentiate between a sale and a trade colloquially based on whether currency is involved, but currency isn't that special--its just another good. You realize your gain when you sell your thing in exchange for some other thing.

Moreover, if you bought the toaster, and sold it for $20 in BTC, you would have profited $10 and would need to pay taxes on it.

This is an interesting take on the BaaS market. So this does something to similar to, for example, Chain (chain.com), but for non-technical people?

Lets say you make a 50% gain on btc. You have made money, but haven't realized the gain. You pay taxes when you realize a gain. You're argument is based on semantics, and not convincing.

At the end of the day, whether you traded BTC for DOGE or for IKEA couches, you were able to buy more of the second thing after you traded your BTC. You sold it. You realized your 50% gain.

Its farcicle to argue that by trading BTC for DOGE you're not realizing your gain. You're no longer tied to BTC, and your purchasing power increased at the time of the trade. Your wealth converted to USD went up. You sold your asset. You owe taxes.

> If I tell you I'll pay you 10000 dollars for the pocket lint in your pocket, did you just make a gain of 10k?

Yes. this is exactly how it works. you made a $10k profit. Its not a capital gain, but you made a profit and owe taxes. You dont owe them 10k, but you owe them part of it. If you then go and invest that 10k on physical capital in order to make more lint, then you can deduct that again as a business expense because you've essentially lost 10k on an investment (assuming 100% depreciation).

> The value of something is completely relative, speculative, and ever-changing.

This is why the thing that matters is when you realize your gain by selling the asset. It doesn't matter what you sold it for, you either realized a gain or a loss and that has tax implications.

Even if this is true, you're limiting your options by not trying to understand the technicalities behind it. Why don't the people at the top want to share? What are we even sharing? How does sharing happen? By what means does sharing occur?

The only reason you believe the people at the top don't want to share is because of centuries of thinking that has lead you to see the structure of the world in a way that this is useful. Summing up centuries of thought into a single phrase, and then throwing out the data and ideas that got you there is...risk at best.

I'm most familiar with this one, but I agree with your comment more generally

> (Goldin and Katz 2007)

This in particular is not a globalization issue. To the unfamiliar, the premise is that technology aids productivity for the highly educated, but replaces productivity for lower educated. Highly educated people will see higher wage growth as technology improves but lower education will correspond with fewer productive job opportunities. The group will become increasingly small at the same time, as more advanced technology begins to replace more complicated jobs. I don't think it was part of the paper, but you can think of it also in terms of what the singularity will look like as it happens (eventually no human is individually more productive because of technology, because the technology doesn't need the human).

Very little to do with Globalization, at least in the US where we have a relatively highly educated workforce.

I hope you'll reconsider this position. Its not a zero-sum game. More economic development doesn't come at the expense of infrastructure/public services. Economic development is what funds those things. The economics involved here are well understood. Lack of schools and infrastructure exists because there isn't enough money or political will, and adding economic development doesn't exacerbate that. Its meant to be a solution for the problems you're concerned about.

Okay you piqued my interest... "bad monetary policy" usually means we should be on the gold standard, but I've never heard that before as a solution for student loans. What are you proposing is the monetary fix?

The blackmailing scheme that Eyeo calls "Acceptable ads" is untenable because it is simply blackmail. Pay us protection money and sell our approved goods or sell nothing. Google will pay it because they have the money and there isn't an immediate alternative for shareholder value, but there aren't many others who are willing to subsidize ad blocking at the expense of content creators. That all said...

There's actually a great deal of effort towards improving quality and dealing with ad blocking at a high level in the industry. One recent effort this year is https://www.betterads.org/ but there are other initiatives lead by new adtech companies and other organizations.

As a result, I'm confident that ad quality will increase over the next few years overall. But like you say, its an intractable problem. Its not as simple as improving quality on the already reasonably good 75% of adverising that isn't so bad.

The bottom of the barrel inventory is likely not going to rise with the change of the tide, for example. If you're trying to stream pirated TV shows or watch porn you're dealing with the North Koreas of the adversiting industry--they're already cut off and live in their own world, and won't follow industry initiatives that publishers like NYT will want. Unfortunately many, many people have no problem with advertising generally but install ad blockers in order to access these sites, and the sites no one had an issue with are just collateral damage.

Moreover, many people install ad blockers because, lets be honest: why not? No more pre-roll video. Faster page loads. More premium consumption experience (most) everywhere you go. How do you address those users with better ads?

And the cat is already out of the bag anyway. 25% of people on the internet use ad blockers. If you improve ad quality, how do you get these people back? I think we're going to see a radical, unequal shift in the next fews years around the perceived value of content because of the growth of ad blocking. If you told me 10 years ago that everyone was going to be paying $10/mo for music, I wouldn't have believed you, yet here we are. I think if you ask me this time, I'd say in 10 years people will be more inclined to pay for digital content than they've ever been, because as ad blocking grows, the "anti-ad blockers" are going to grow too. More messaging to users about ad blocking, more paywalls, more access control requiring equitable value exchange across the internet. Eventually the middle will get squeezed out by the high cost of ad blocking. Users will choose to whitelist or subscribe for premium content, and the lowest cost publishers who steal, copy, or lie to generate clickbait are the only people who can survive when they've lost half their inventory.

> It seems like an intractable problem. I'm not convinced technology (machine learning! the solution to all problems!) is capable of providing the solution.

You're absolutely right. This is not going to be solved by machine learning. Ad blocking is an economic and political problem, and will only go away when publishers, advertisers, and users are able to come back into equilibrium. Publishers need more leverage to fight for user experience against advertisers' demands, and users need to understand the value exchange that occurs when they get targeted apple adaptor ads while they read articles about the latest iPhone. Publishers need to offer users more diverse but more firm and equitable options that make quality content sustainable and appealing to even the most privacy oriented audiences. Eyeo need to realize that profiteering on a protest movement is not a ethical business model. Easylist maintainers need to realize that they are not profits sent from god to punish publishers for protecting the value of their content.

Worth noting this is Appnexus, not Google AdExchange. Appnexus is still a very large ad exchange, but Breitbart's business shouldn't necessarily be affected. Its not unlikely that Appnexus and Breitbart don't even have a direct relationship, and Appnexus is just going to block bids on that domain.

jQuery doesn't officially support IE 8 and earlier, or any other browser older than "current - 1". React supports at least the same as jQuery.

The authors here are worth noting: Katz and Krueger are well known for publishing this[1] paper as well, which was one of the leading papers behind the idea that wage differentials are a function of skill-biased technology growth--that is, that automation and technology favors high skill workers and devalues low skill workers. This was an early paper that at least partially predicted the rise of wage inequality over the last decade where only high skill, high value jobs have really improved in wage growth, while low skill wages have stagnated.

[1] http://economics.mit.edu/files/563

Typically when you shop around for insurance, your agent will make you aware of whatever benefits/incentives are available to you through the specific plans. In terms of keeping overall cost of your plan down, just do whatever you can to make sure they don't get sick/go to do the doctor and use insurance. A high deductible would be beneficial, for example.

Insurance companies usually offer benefits. Many plans offer reimbursements for gym memberships, discounts for companies that drug test, etc.. Moreover, the average cost of an group is a function of the health of its members--the healthier the company can get it's employees, the lower premiums are for everyone, because its less risky to insure.

This is great. Its too bad there isn't a +1 button for comments in github issues, because some of them are just incredibly important to highlight. I just installed VSCode and was impressed overall and would absolutely use it, except I could never switch to an editor that didn't have basic things like this, which was mentioned in the issue thread.

  Numeric arguments (3dd, 2x, ...)
  support for combining commands (ci[, cW, ggVG, ...)
  visual commands

Anyone who uses vim primarily lives by these features.

The title "GraphQL/Relay Wins. Flux/Redux Considered Harmful" is obviously clickbait. Relay is clearly superior to Redux/Flux for data fetching and object storage, and that isn't shocking to anyone who has looked into both of them. But Relay isn't there yet (Relay is soon going to bring time travel, has no way to manage local state, etc). With redux coming in at 2kb, there's no reason no to use both relay & redux. This isn't about winning, and Redux is by no means obsolete (yet).

1) How is this more inefficient than our existing welfare system? Seems a lot more efficient to give everyone money rather than spend $100M on bureaucratic infrastructure for verification and employment tracking.

2) It benefits society because you no longer have to work to live. This affects how you make decisions about your employment. You would be more likely to change jobs when you're unhappy, for example. This is good.

3) Whether you make $40k, $100k, or $500k, the $10k isn't there to prove "additional income support". The system could be set up so that after basic income is implemented, your disposable income is the same as it was before--people making $40k wouldn't have $10k in free money to spend, because their taxes would go up $10k a year, for example. The key here is that if they choose not to work for some period of time, they can. That's not how I think it ought to be implemented, but the principle is true.

4) If government handed out $10k to everyone, they could tax everyone $10k and it would be like nothing happened. The difference in implementation would be that the additional taxes would be progressive, while the benefits are flat. So if you make over $100k a year, you might be taxed $15k more than you were before, but you would also receive $10k. Without a doubt, an effective basic income would require a more progressive tax structure than what we have.

5) "If you do start to add guidelines for poverty, etc.," not familiar with this reference, but presumably a basic income would eliminate extreme poverty. Do you mean like, for example, what would someone who was physically incapable of working receive? Is the basic income enough?

the core use case is

  var { foo } = pony

I agree this is kind of silly in isolation, but more often than not, its used like this:

  var { foo, bar, baz } = pony

which is honestly not that hard to read, and is much better than

  var foo = pony.foo;
  var bar = pony.bar;
  var baz = pony.baz;

which is very useful when you're referencing properties of pony a lot. Since you're going to see destructuring used like

  var { foo, bar, baz } = pony

typically, I think its a very nice idea to always do your variable assignments like that even when its a little obtuse. I'd rather not see multiple styles for variable assignment.

  var { foo: f } = pony

is just there as an escape hatch in case foo already exists in the namespace. It is not something you would typically do.

Are you saying that ad blocking is a victimless 'crime' that doesn't have any effects outside of your computer?

It might help to think of this paradigm as "streaming apps". Instead of downloading apps and having them on your home screen, you go to a URL and it behaves like any other app--it will render its own app shell and then say "Sorry, can't get content. Check network connection".

This might be the case for people who travel a lot and only hold money in bitcoin and not their native currency, but even then its worse then using USD. There are much better debit cards for travelers which don't charge foreign transaction fees or ATM fees (Schwab Investor Checking for example).

If there's as much demand for him as you're describing, he could probably make a much better living doing consulting for these companies than he could working for HP.

Probably because they're very short term forms of debt, so if the system has issues it doesn't exist in for 10 years or however long the instrument lasts.

This is a well known concept in economics called rent seeking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Depending on how this works on Avis' end, this may or may not qualify, but rent seeking is definitely a thing. The wikipedia article has good examples of pervasive examples of rent seeking.