andriesm

I suspect it was meant tongue in cheek, I had a good chuckle with it when I read it.

I suspect communism and socialism is usually sold with claims about how equal everyone are and how much more equal everyone will be. But then when it is actually implemented... a lot depends on how high your friends are in the government and how high your rank is! And of course 'the supreme leader" and those closest and most loyal to him cannot be expected to live like the masses now?

How to turn poor countries into rich countries? How about the Argentina (Javier Milei) model? Could be worth a shot. It's not patented, and we can all stand back and verify firsy that it works, before copying it. Plenty of well known economic ideas accelerate growth, but most people vote against these winning ideas because of feelings and not understanding economics or refusal to accept basic economics.

People don't like to hear it, but it is pretty factual that the more of a society's money gets plucked out of the main economy and centrally spent and distributed by its government, it tends to lower economic growth, and similarly for being over-regulated.

People can argue, but we have a realtime. experiment in the form of Argentina in front of us right now to prove these ideas.

Other success stories could be plucked from recent history, as right now these ideas are not so popular.

People want to hate the rich, and figjt inequality much more than they want tk reduce absolute poverty or increase economic growth.

One can sacrifice a lot of growth to boost equality. So it's a matter of what people want to prioritize.

I'd be curious to see it, just in case it helps with noticing something else.

People are mindless pawns? People are not free to say no thanks, ignore or tune out? That's what I do my entire life. And I actually appreciate and value highly targeted marketing messages that show me things I'm interested in and WANT to buy. Really good targeted marketing is a win-win, it helps consumers find stuff they want and it helps the companies generate profits. (which in turns pays salaries to employees) I don't have a solution for weakminded and vulnerable people, but perhaps such people should be under parental supervision.

I did. Bought it myself. Learn how to enter clinician mode by holding the right buttons for your model. It's quite shocking how controlled and artificially limited things are in CPAP-land. cpap, and more advanced machines have identical hardware, but they cost orders of magnitude different prices. For many people have different pressure when inhaling vs exhaling is important - so called BiPAP. Everyone tells you start with CPAP, but if it turns out you need BiPAP then you need to replace the entire machine even though hacking the software works in, ahem, certain cases.

exactly. Borland era OOP gui code was amazingly well thought out. The flaws in the flutter framework are soooo many, a lot of half baked things are made standard. Try to get 2-way scrollbars working decently (try to nest them, or go watch the video tutorials that supposedly explain how to do this - it was an absolute horror show). There are so many hassle factor things that one googles or searches the github for, find tons of other smart people beg for it with examples and use cases and just watch the team say they won't implement for some or other reason. But even the simplest thing, that when you create a component (say with mutable state) - you don't create one class to get one widget defined, noooo you have to create two, one stateful and one stateless. All of these little weird decisions that were made for bs reasons eventually add up to a ton of incidental complexity. Oh we made part immutable for "performance" reason, but the real reason is that people don't understand when to avoid functional style programming idioms. All the weird ways the layout system can bite you, the way they designed constraints being passed down and sizes passed back up - boy are they forcing you to do a lot of thinking about incidental complexity, and the different containers and how thy interact in ways you would not expect by default. The fact that you cannot on a per container basis disable overflow displays in dev (many people have asked for this). That silly debug ribbon your app gets until you disable it LOL who thought that was a good default. In the end though one can make it do a lot, and it is reasonably performant. But the pitfalls are many, and basic stuff that it doesn't solve well for you.

Dart is my favourite language, it is the flutter framework I'm not so fond of. People literally designed better GUI frameworks than flutter 20 years ago. They did all sorts of weird things, probably for "performance" reasons, that forces the user to do things that kinda undo many of those "gains". Language wise, I love the fact that it comes with NULL safety out of the box, the number one feature I miss in GO-lang is NULL safety. NULL safety has very low cost to syntax or compile efficiency, and literally takes away half your program crash possibilities.

The imaginary crime of money laundering. If the underlying activity is a crime, we already have laws to deal with that. Why is any attempt at financial privacy deemed money laundering? Why does making any tool that help law abiding citizens have financial privacy, also guilty of money laundering?

Of course, now that most people have bought into money laundering, the goal posts are now getting moved that any attempt at privacy can be considered illegal.

You use or provide a messaging service that has unbreakable privacy - we'll make this a crime too!

Why should it be illegal to use a crypto tumbler/mixer service?

Oh because some people use it for crimes.

Then arrest the CEOs of gun companies, because guns can be used to commit crimes!

Unfortunately the original comment is now flagged and deleted it seems, so I guess I will never know what his/her snark was. Also I would be scared to comment any of my own comments here, because I've had some pretty legit questions about stories seen my own comments being flagged, so I have some trust issues with thr moderators here. Ever since I've had my own pretty legit comments flagged on HN, in ways that seem rather unfair, I can't help but wonder what I am missing when I see someone else's comment flagged and deleted here.

The only thing better than to attach your startup tech to either AI or blockchain, is to attach to BOTH simultaneously, like the wave of AI blockchain tokens!

I've been twice to Mexico, snd no mstter where I travel I have several personal devices, and I have plenty of places to pick for my travels, Mexico just got hard deleted from my list of upcoming future travels, I don't have any appetite to play these games where we pretend it is OK to charge import tax to tourists on their 2nd hand personal affects. Sounds to me like the person who came up with this regulation has a brain problem.

Or being extraordinarily observant, creative and skilled in predicting trends.

Sounds to me like Sweden is doing it right! If you want very extensive social programs you have to tax EVERYONE really really hard.

The fantassy that one can pay for wellfare by only taxing the rich more or by reducing their loopholes is a pipedream.

Or you could have a society with very low taxes and very low to none social programs, especially if your government doesn't love fighting expensive wars all the time.

Wars and wellfare programs are all very expensive. Even miserly wellfare programs like what the US got is creating some real debt default risk over there.

Or take people who are super competent, with strong ethics and world class bravery, and catapult them into the truly heroic! Think for example, Elon Musk!

"requiring new safety assessments, equity and civil rights guidance"

I think everyone is probably onboard with safety and civil rights, but why is EQUITY a specific requirement the government wants to push into all AI's?

Why is this OK, considering that equity, as opposed to equality is a term with a very specific academic and politcal definition that is quite divisive and almost certainly not something that most people will typically agree on, one that I personally find hugely sinister.

A widely used definition of "Equity" from the first page of google:

"Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances."

Basically it means trying to play favorites in order to compensate for unfairness in society instead of treating everyone equally.

Seems pretty disgusting to me, although I'm sure many people think the opposite.

What should be clear is that this is NOT a universally accepted value shared by all, so why is it a cornerstone foundation of AI evaluation pushed by the government?

I had my comment about this flagged. Commenting that it's a bit unusual to show Taiwan as a province, and yet showing it's stat seperately like one does for all the other countries on the list, and not breaking down provincial stats for any other countries, strikes me as unusual, got me slammed by the moderators here. If this is the state of play on HN, I will refrain from all participation here, deapite having had an account for dozen years and having applied several times to Y-combinator etc. This makes me VERY negative about HN, because I've posted much more edgy comments in the past, and this one is quite a fair point - pointing out the logical inconstency in how they slice the data because of political reasons.

I see several comments calling this piece "fluffy" without much real insight - I have to respectfully disagree - I'm 48 and wrote my first code at 8, still write code for my self at 48, have managed teams, held all manner of roles and done some startups. This article is solid gold.

I'm surprised people think this article doesn't have much important to say. I suspect their code probably crashes a lot in production, and will still kill many startups or otherwise end up destroying significant amounts of shareholder value.

They think the article is banal and obvious. They will not really take the key insights to heart and truly live it.

Crowdstrike is the perfect example of this!!!

And for every crowdstrike there are tons of startups that don't make the news but ends up burning their early adopter users through inability to deal with bugs properly, delay their own success unnecessarily or even turns what would have been massive business successes into technical morasses. Imagine failing to capture your businesses full potential because of a bad approach to software defects!

I wish someone would explain to me why confiscating my clear plastic water bottle from me at the airport is such a security priority.

To "throw him a bone" you'll "let" him get an IOU for what he put in (at very high risk) to create the "initial something" from "nothing" ?

I must be honest, if someone approached me with that attitude that would probably be the end of talks.

First they came for the billionares but nobody spoke up. Then they came for the millionaires, and still nobody spoke up. Eventually they came for nearly everyone but by then they've become an unstoppable force.

Luckily we have discovered air conditioners, have the ability to move and even mass migrate people given enough time, build dykes and floating structures or supported platforms, and invent ever better solutions to problems previously thought unsolvable. Instead of slowing economic growth to make an almost imperceptible dent in climate outcomes, why not maximise economic growth and trust yhat we will find solutions to deal with the fallout? Also people say, what about poor people who will suffer the most from climate change? Well, let's get that economy to 10X as fast as possible, rven if wealth disparities increase, the bottom is still getting better off, just at a slower pace than those at the top. So if you care that poor people will be harmed by climate change, then maybe focus on how to get them economically better off? Telling them they cannot use fossil fuels etc is not helping them I suspect. And slowing down the first world's economic growth is also not going to help the poorer nations.

This entire thread just drips of venomous, manipulative and toxic scheming. Regardless of your intended outcomes, your methods and attitudes are atrocious.

This explains the research that shows why far left world improver types often have above average levels of dark triad personality types in their ranks.

My suggestion is: "Clean your room" - i. e. get rid of resentment and the desire to control others and rather fix your own life and use that as the starting point for being the change you want to see ripple out into the world.

"Mainstream economics is in "disarray."

It ignores the reality of power, it neglects questions of equity, and its policy recommendations can be "little more than a license for plunder."

In other words, economics is not about social justice, it's about optimal allocation of resources, how markets set prices, and what makes economies grow or not, productivity and efficiency.

So economics haven't placed marxist clads struggles at it's center, therefore it is in "disarray"

I tried many different diet types, keto hypetrain etc, eventually had me and my gf write down the calories of EVERYTHING I consume, used an onlinr calculator to determine my resting calorie consumption was 2500, and that if I ate 1000 calories less than this every day I would lose approximately 1kg a week. I've kept daily logs and weighed myself daily for a few months. The trend becomes quite clear ob larger time scales, results match predictions almost exactly. (short term fluctuations are misleading - daily fluctuations in weight is larger than the weekly change you wanna measure - but plot it, and you will be enlightened as I was - surprised to realise calories really matter no matter what diet you follow - but it is healthier or more sustainable to consume healthy calories - nontheless for weight loss - nr of calories cannot be overcame through any other aspect of dieting)

I also got the cloudflare block.

Care to elaborate?

I've always found evo psych interesting and it has some very serious scolars, a lot of experiments and predictions, yet a few years ago it used to be very trendy to say it is all bunk and projective stories about human behavior. Also it seems some people are more comfortable with evo-psych when it comments on male-behavior than when it comments on female behavior. I think the entire field is massively interesting.

Pretty good, yet obvious to a master programmer, which I define as someone that programs on the conceptual level and ubderstands the thinking about code deserves a lot more attention than the mere effort of banging out code to realise a specific desired output result.

Because most programmers are NOT master programmers, they just bang out code that is a means to an end - bang out code that other people cannot read and immediately retrieve the highlevel concepts that sits behind it.

Master programmers instead make sure that at the highest level the code first explicitly encodes the conceptual design, and then at a lower level of abstraction does all the necessary things that let the code actually produce the required program result.

A master programmer never divorces the logical conceptuap structure ("the theory" in the terminology of this article) from the implementation code.

Most peogrammers however bang on code in ways that quickly and radically diverge from the conceptual design, and they don't care because as long as the program produces the desired results, the code is "perfect" in their minds, never mind that they themselves won't be able to understand the code they wrote today in six months time!

A master programmer can go back to a code base that he hasn't seen in 10 years, and be be productive on it within an hour, because all the core concepts ("the theory") is explicitly encoded in the program source code.

I remember 40 years ago as a small boy all the talk about 'abnormal weather' - abnormal weather happens, I guess to put any stock in subjective claims about abnormal weather, maybe it is better to bring 300 years of data or something.

Blaming forrest fires on global warming when ignoring lapses in forrest management, seems a bit problematic too.

After listening to both experts and sceptics as much as I can, all I can say is I don't know for sure, but my suspicion is that scepticism is healthy to keep.

Whenever people insist the debate is settled, or that there is not time for debate, be extra sceptical.

Otherwise, for me, I tried to get really deep into the guts of this, to try and figure out what is really true, and determined it impossible for me at this time.

I did find a ton of lies and bad arguments, quite a bit of it on the 'official position'.

All I can say is, if you really care about the environment, don't use lies and dishonest arguments to win in the moment, you just turn off more people from wanting to support you.

I don't have my huge stacks of notes anymore, a Phd in Chemical Engineering friend who is very pro the official position had to concede that I had indeed demonstrated important peer reviewed published lies/deceptions in a few instances.

Haven't touched the field in many years.

I was just curious about the question, can a generally inteligent person with a basic science knowledge build up from first principles and eventually properly. understand climate change and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt what is true?

So far, I have to remain agnostic on this question.

Which is itself a dire warning to a field that claims so much certainty when making trillion dollar policy recommendations.