23 karma · joined January 22, 2016
I think the important lesson for learning an instrument is that you improve by putting in effort. There are gonna be songs that you couldn't play a month ago but now you can and that gives you a sense of achievement and an appreciation of hardwork. The actual technical skill of playing is just a vessel for this character learning.
If a self-improving AI could exist, it would be exponential in its self-improvement. So just like a supercritical nuclear reactor, it could conceivably go from undetectable level of activity to supreme intelligence within a very short span of time.
It would be like the nuclear engineer at chernobyl saying "is only 100MW comrade, is of not problem"
This is fixed by removing the central authority monopoly over the printing of money and/or make them actually print the money.
>until and unless the day when past hoarders rush to market at the same time
This is no different than the status quo. Bill Gates could try to 'cash in' all his 50 billions into rice. Would that be 'causing sudden inflation'?
Fortunately the free market of ideas has spawned innumerable competitors and many of them (etherium etc.) look to be very promising.
Although I don't think it was intended to be a 'genius ponzi scheme'. It just turned out that way.
>Inflation is incredibly healthy for an economy because it creates an incentive to invest money
in a system when you generate currency from nothing, this is true. But if you use currency as an actual IOUs, you would need to generate value to generate currency, and thus, if you were to hoard currency, you are providing value to the economy for nothing in return, which is a good thing.
There is something affirming about a tangible building especially when it comes to money. And that's why bitcoin will never replace shiny transition metal.
The fact that they didn't would imply that the trouble of keeping her is less than the cost of firing her, which says a lot about the performance of an employee.
Why should Yelp be responsible for her problems?
And this relationship goes both ways. Employees can treat their employers as replaceable. Although I haven't seen an equivalent loaded word for 'trash' in this scenario.
And there is no reason to believe that the only reason she was fired was because she wanted days off. Based on her own testimony, which is the best version of the events for her, she had many times used leaves to care for her children and put her manager in a 'difficult position'. So she would have been marked as a bad employee.
As for the union. A union of sellers of anything is called a cartel and is illegal, but if it's a union of sellers of labour then it is suddenly the shining beacon of equality. The only real difference is that union of sellers have way more voting power.
But the code was pretty useless. I didn't know that language and within the short time span that it was presented I couldn't understand the code.
Clearly this would be better presented as a paper so you could have time to go through it but I think if you ignore the actual code completely I still understood (or at least i think i do) the talk.
This is different from some suburban geeky guy who likes computers and decided to study electrical engineering in university. It reflects on his personality more.
Perhaps the aliens thought that some stupid deaf hunam sent it.
Bad laws prove that government intervention is bad and we ought to limit its power.
>They can, but this goes to the "perfect information" theory that you blithely dismissed.
I already addressed this issue. What is so special about the government that allows it to have more information than consumers? Nothing. Any information government can obtain for consumers can be obtained by consumers themselves.
>but actual people running the government have seen negative consequences and, acting as our representatives, regulated against them,
Actual consumers running their lives have seen negative consequences and, acting out of their own interest, decided against them.
No need for a government middle man
>2) The government employs people whose job it is to assess risks and plan accordingly. What do you know about mudslide prevention or sewage treatment, for instance?
Consumers can also employ people whose job it is to assess risks and plan accordingly. I don't know about mudslide? I buy a booklet from a risk assessment/engineering consultant/geological consulting firm and they tell me what I need to know. Again, no need for government middleman.
> A completely free market requires a willing buyer and a willing seller operating on the same set of information and meeting on a level platform.
This is not true at all.
A free market does not require people operating on the same set of information. It just needs lack of intervention. I can buy an apple for $2 from a seller I don't need to know how much he bought it from, from whom, when etc. There is no requirement for a symmetry of information.
> I am always at a negotiating disadvantage with a large service provider or even with someone who is an expert in his field and I not.
As said, a free market does not require sellers and buyers to have information parity. A seller who believes he is at a disadvantage can simply 1) choose to not enter any deal 2) obtain more information. He decides what choice is appropriate. Sellers have every incentive to educate buyers and be honest, as doing so would make it more likely that they will get a mutually beneficial deal.
>It is not efficient, for example, to have multiple power lines serving a single structure.
Humans are not hive-minded engineers. The point of a free market is not to maximise efficiency in provision of all services, although it does a pretty good job anyway, but to provide maximum choice and lower price for consumers. Even if there can efficiently be only one power line in town, the fact that there are multiple providers would increase the negotiating power of the consumers.
> Garbage pickup, for instance. Or firefighting.
A market might not be big enough for 2 players, but that doesn't mean that the government should mandate who the sole provider should be.
and now we have a situation where a little girl gets raided for selling lemonade without a license.
Transfat has been banned in europe but in many other countries, manufacturers are responding to consumer demand by removing transfat from their products without needing to be coerced by the government.
It is not necessary for the government to intervene. Consumers can take care of themselves.
>The problem with the whole idea of government regulation being always bad is that that's only the case if consumers have perfect information,
And how does the government know more than the consumers? Are they privy to secret information?
>are able and willing to choose any provider,
which they are in a free market
>and there aren't economies of scale.
you need to clarify this.
That's the status quo with the government owning the land upon which poles may be erected instead of poles.
So I don't see how moving the government ownership up a step would solve anything.
no it suggests fewer regulations
> Regulation (from government intervention) doesn't ruin a market - bad regulation does.
This is the same argument as communism has never been tried argument and that Mao, Stalin et al were doing 'bad communism'.
>some governments have regulated the telecom market to increase competition.
Regulation increases barrier to entry and therefore can not possibly increase competition. Almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention in the market.
>the best regulations are from independent groups such as IEEE. IEC-60079
Im not sure if this regulation is mandated i.e. it is enforced or not, but if it isn't then it's not really comparable to regulation from the government.
> Good regulation in my limited observations is very difficult.
Not surprising.
>However I believe you have effectively suggested more regulation
It's not. It is simply asking the holder of space to pay its rent value.
>Any time there is a monopoly (poles in the ground), it must be controlled with appropriate regulation to ensure the system isn't abused.
The only reason poles in the ground is a monopoly is because there are regulations that stop people from putting more poles in the ground. Do you suggest that the solution to regulations is more regulations?
If you have the only poles in town (because the local government said there is only enough space for one pole line) then you have effective monopoly over lined communication.
The solution to this of course is Georgian rent over space, in this case a rent over the only space in town that poles are allowed to be erected, which would be quite expensive, thus making their monopoly position untenable.
This argument is really semantic.
The line always devolve to the tautological "the only rules of the universe are physical rules"
but as it is they just shrug and say "i got nothing to hide"
smh
Its solution to any problem seems to be more stomping.