bb2018

I recently rented a u-haul that had this and couldn't believe all cars don't do this. It is very useful having the camera and the mirror viewable at the same exact time.

Nope! Which perhaps you could argue makes it not worthwhile if it couldn't help accomplish that.

However, some in our household were worried being targeted because of our position or industry. However, the security camera showed it was a homeless person stealing the mail of everyone on the street which (although annoying) was nice info.

We have that as well - but the Ring was by far the cheapest of these and the most seamless to install.

My house was broken into last year. I wish I had Ring then. We never found any leads and police were unable to do anything.

Since then I have gotten Ring and definitely feel more secure. We even found footage of a man stealing our mail and were able to confirm with Ring app footage from a neighbor that the man stealing the mail was the same stealing their mail.

I was simply stating I have trouble with this issue because of the media aspect not the general scientific consensus.

The article makes no mention of how local people, businesses, etc. are affected by the temperature change. The intended article takeaway is clearly about climate change and how this fits into the current state of climate change. Yet, the chance that one specific area is +/- a certain average over a flexible and short amount of time has nothing to do global warming.

It paints an inaccurate picture for those who don't read academic papers on their own. It reminds me of articles that talk about how a stock is down 5% when it is up 100% in a few years and make it sound like the company is imploding. By not framing it with a general sense of regular variation the article itself is confusing.

Does anyone have good information for how rare this actually is? To me - as someone who believes in global warming but believes the media does a disservice exaggerating its effects - this seems like a misleading article.

How many times during a 365 day period does the temperature read 20 degrees above (or below) the average? How many times does this happen per day, per weekly average, per month?

As someone who grew up in New England it doesn't seem like it would be that rare. There were weeks in July where it was over 95 when the historical average was probably 75 and weeks in February when the average was 10 even if the historical average was 32. What is the standard deviation for temperature in certain areas and how rare is it to see 20 degrees variation if you are looking at multiple windows of time that vary in length?

Sure, global warming did not cause it to be 20 degrees higher than usual? If anything it would be +3 degrees global warming +17 degrees random variation? Why run with 20 in the title if there is no way that global warming would be responsible for the random variation.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years. That stat isn't perfect but it is still that the number of people with jobs is about as high as it has ever been.

I agree in large part but I do think it is interesting. Running a campaign reminds me of The Producers - it is just as good to have a failure of a campaign as a winning one.

This only shows why running we now have 20 candidates running for president. They get a huge platform to expand their reach (good for both the issues they care about and their personal brand) with almost no downside (even if not pilfering their campaign funds they will raise enough money to travel the country effectively promoting for future book sales or a tv show).

I once booked a hotel on Booking.com on a trip to Japan that was a great price for a king bed and a large room. There was no mention it was a love hotel. While I had no issue with it - my SO felt differently...

Even CEOs who don't start the business and are paid more money that seems necessary are probably worth it. Lloyd Blankfein gets 50M+ at Goldman Sachs but with profits of 10B its hard to argue hiring the best possible CEO won't help improve profits by a tiny percentage.

Is it fair that society lets someone keep so much money? Maybe not. But if you are an owner (directly or through stock) or even an employee who de facto wants the company to succeed, it is mutually beneficial to have such highly compensated executives.

At the same time I'm sure the following statements would also be true:

"Those who know the least about the intricacies of lizard people conspiracy theories are most likely to deny it" or "Those who know the least about Bible-based curing methods or most likely to reject it"

I am pro-GMO and don't go out of my way to eat GMO free, but at the same time I think it misses a greater point that those who are against something for larger meta or ethical reasons of course are not going to know the exact mechanics of it (because for them that would be missing the point).

I don't understand it either. The difficult thing in any transport system like this is clearly the land and land rights. If you can't make that cheaper and easier to manage from a legal perspective than I don't see how a slightly better mode of transportation would offset it.

Perfect reply.

I honestly do not understand this perspective and would like to be enlightened.

The only way a young person could be given a house without owing any debt would be if someone else bought it for them or if the government paid workers to build houses for everyone. However, if the government paid people to build houses without any payments in return the government would be collected the debt which it would then hold. This doesnt reduce any debt globally it just transfers it.

Maybe you could argue it is better for the debt to be on government than individuals but that doesnt address how no debt is good. No debt would just mean zero houses.

First, even if you couldn't pay off your mortgage today that doesn't mean you would be in a bad position at all. If you had enough to contribute 50k a year (plus job increases) and had 500k left on a house you would be in great shape. You would be happy to have the debt and the entity issuing you the debt would be happy to be repaid.

Second, while it is useful to think of debts in terms of things like mortgages and auto loans, most of this global debt is government debt. Think locally - your local town may need 50 million dollars to build a new school. They aren't increasing taxes for one year to build the school they instead take on 50 million dollars of debt in the form of bonds. So even if you have no personal debt you still have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt which the government has taken out which can reasonably be repaid overtime.

I agree that the article conflates a lot of issues and I can't find a clear explanation on how government debt is calculated. Most of the global debt in the world is from governments and in this case it isnt the worst thing as is usually a relationship where a government owes its own people money but the people owe the government money every year in taxes too.

I think many think articles like this intentionally make the numbers seem as scary as possible. Negative currency (debt) is a good thing for most people. It is what enables people to buy cars and houses or go to college. Of course, many individuals will get in over their head but on the whole it is a positive thing that individuals can take out mortgage and owe more on the house than they put down. The same goes for companies and governments.

I could not be more upset that people who have stated progressive goals such as cutting down on fuel and providing cheap public transportation are against these. They are an absolutely great alternative that makes these goals possible without having to completely overhaul city designs. The only externality really seems to be they are parked in random places - but I don't see how that is any different than cars parked on streets which are actually much more disruptive. Now more people can get to work or do errands cheaply without the need for a huge car or spending extra time with consolidated public transporation.

I watch a lot of documentaries. There is a big shift in behavior from pre-2000 to post-2000. Pre-2000 is pre reality tv and pre technology. Nowadays people approach interviews differently. I'm not saying one is more real than the other and it is clear people have different goals/mindsets when being interviewed.

This sounds interesting.

Will this make fish much much cheaper?

Will it be easier to regulate since it is all data is stored? Are these companies more interested in regulation (since if theyve invested so much they may want longterm production)

I have probably only seen 4-5 videos of his in my life but I did once see a man that look like him flying a drown around the beaches of Santa Monica. I cam back an hour later and he was still there flying a drone.

I was pretty sure it was him and followed his videos for a couple more weeks until a video of him in Santa Monica came out.

I am not into vloggers and agree most play up their amateur status but I was still impressed by the hands-on dedication he was putting into getting one shot.

It all depends on your notion of fair.

If one percent of people call up customer service to complain about 50% of their transactions they are clogging up the system. I only call if something is breaking and I've exhausted all troubleshooting and automated methods.

Working remotely/flexible is definitely the biggest.

It definitely works from the employer side. I would have to be really excited about a new company or get paid significantly more to go back to working in a normal office with normal hours. Once you grow accustom to it nothing beats setting your own life.

Does anyone else have trouble getting invested in articles on income inequality or demographic economics when there are lines like this:

"For each of the two years he was on Kimmel, Allison earned about $208,000, which in Los Angeles, the second-most-expensive city in the U.S., represents a middle-class lifestyle"

That amount of money would put you in the top 10% for Los Angeles for household income - which means if you had no dependents (or a spouse that at least made some money) you'd easily be top 5%. In no way is that middle class.

There are similar articles like this: https://www.laweekly.com/news/it-takes-nearly-100-000-a-year...

which seem to use stretch metrics to make a point. It says you need 100,000 to rent the median house. First, it doesn't say how much you need to rent any house. Second, the city of Los Angeles is mostly apartments for those without children so you would need far less than 100,000. The only reason you would need a house is if you were a couple - but in the case getting close to 100,000 in combined income is much more achievable than doing it solo.

I know neither of these points speak to the larger point of the article - but it becomes harder to take the rest of the article seriously when they stretch the economic truth so much. As a resident of Los Angeles I can attest people get by with many magnitudes less than 200,000.

When I was little I remember my parents getting us hyped up to go around the neighborhood to get signatures for a town vote which would protect the area due to wetlands. We were middle class and Democrat - but certainly not rich and not environmentalists. I cannot remember my parents ever saying anything about wetlands after that. It's clear it was all motivated by property issues, but I didn't realize that until years later.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ring overstated their impact.

That being said systems like Ring are pretty amazing. I can log on and people around the neighborhood (big city) are posting videos/images of people who broke into their house or were acting suspiciously late at night. I imagine even if just a slice of these lead to arrests in the short term it could lead to a very good impact in the future (both because the people who were stealing would have likely repeated if they weren't caught + if it becomes perceived as harder to rob a house less people will attempt it).

Yeah. I'm not saying that Americans being able to speak more languages would be bad, but it's not the same at all. There are only 5M Norwegian speakers worldwide. Of course you will want to learn another language (probably English) if you want to be successful and communicate with the rest of the world.

People can look at other people at identify who they are...

New DNA tech essentially is giving people the ability to look at a fragment of biological material and identify who they are.

You could say the difference is that in order to recognize someone you need to know who they are. Still, I think the bigger difference is that the DNA ability is new and therefore seems unnatural. However, I still struggle to come up with a major argument why it is that much different.

Do you have a right to be completely anonymous at all times? And in public? My answer would be no.

Do others on HN not quite see the harm here? I think ultimately I don't know why (morally/legally/etc.) one is entitled to have absolute privacy over one's DNA. If you leave your DNA somewhere I don't see why others couldn't take it. Similarly, people have a right to ID others by people's face. This is just slightly more nuanced.

I see huge upside (as mentioned in the article it is becoming harder and harder to get away with vicious crimes) with limited downside.

I know it sounds/seems unnatural to be identified by your DNA, but what is the actual worst case scenario of this?