doublespanner

What ethical framework supports accepting immigration as the "right thing to do"?

Often yes, it's now not defined as simply a description of a process it's "The Science"... An editorilised summary of work that supports some policy or initiative.

It's often not really possible to contradict or contribute to The Science as an outsider, as access to the equipment, samples, and raw data is not available.

I don't have access to this article, I would take it as changing conditions or duties to the least pleasant or practical that still fit within the terms of employment.

For example required on premises work, assignment to undesirable projects, moving to a different office.

It's not easy to go from catching up to leading... Maybe China can but it seems far more likely that they are destined to settle in a few miles behind the west like the rest of the Asian tigers.

It seems like the group of people who can start a competitive service is small enough, and homogeneous enough, that we risk a case where we can choose between the site where you can use the word "cis" and the site where you can use the word "retard", but can not find a platform where tracking the political activity of billionaires is OK.

Because I have not had a personal contact within every company that has had an interesting job listing....

Only moving to companies where I can get an internal reference seems very limiting...

At least in roles where I have sent out a resume, including keywords was less about the interview, and more about passing the not necessarily tech savvy hr or external recruitment process.

In an interview I would hope to talk more about the more detailed parts, but it feels like I need the tickbox stuff to get to that point.

It doesn't matter if goods are cheaper if other parts of the human experience are degraded.

It's not as simple as companies lowering costs, migration also creates conditions that concentrate wealth and creates unpleasant rapid growth.

From what I have personally seen, there is a general feeling that the social costs of migration are not worth it.

Sure, you can afford highly complex consumer goods, but you have are now just another cog in the globaly homogeneous exploitation machine.

So much is possible in Japan due to the high trust and high conformity culture. I've lived in JP and Australia and the type of dense living that can be very nice in JP would be absolutely miserable in AU, due mostly to the people.

Have you tried any of the third party android apps? Definitely a step ahead of old.reddit and many times better than the current default...

It's best at a desktop with old.reddit and res, but the better apps are a close second.

Not sure if this is something that scales with the current number of users, but the moderation quality appeared to be better before some of these powerful tools.

For example, things like automatically banning based on activity in other subs is not necessary a power that improves the site.

I suspect many of the more disappointing echo chamber effects (that steer something like a local subreddit into a political one) are due to over-moderation.

Did you intend to reply to me? The reason we are trialing these systems on public roads is because that is where they must operate in order to make sense. It's not about safety alone.

To respond to your tangent: Breathalyzers are not all that reliable, nor is GPS localisation... And a national speed limit would mostly reduce revenue (not to mention the new problems regarding who is liable for maintaining the limit correctly). There is a great history of implementing practical safety requirements, maybe not the first globally, but when it becomes practical to adopt something we generally do.

It's all about the cost of a driver relative to the activity and risk; with taxis it's a much higher proportion than it is for aeroplanes.

Every other system has rigorous testing with trained safety drivers, planning interventions and working in short enough shifts to remain attentive.

Tesla does some of this, but then releases fast to the public... So far it has had some concrete consequences when they pushed this testing responsibility onto unaware people.

This tends to solve the problem by making the destination less desirable, more than it increases supply.

It's similar, but when the price of the product is closer to the willingness to pay, market share becomes important again.

It's also has an impact on what products get made, and investment in r&d. If you fall behind the competition in terms of quality, you loose marketshare.

It's because both competitors are making the same calculation where a loss in market share is worth less than the per unit profit increase.

This isn't really a matter of competition, it's that people's willingness to pay (in nominal value) is much higher.

If people's willingness to pay were less, then increasing prices would loose a greater portion of the market.

Well no, there is no real dilemma, because unlike the prisoners you can change your choice at any time. You can do research and make a decent guess at the units sold at a price point of you only make a small increase, and then your competition does the same, and as long as you can all keep pushing the price each small increase is absorbed. This is essentially a mechanism for discovering inflation, it continues step by step until people stop buying.

Again, not all costs associated with regulatory compliance are transferable; this is by design to keep a barrier to entry. Many accreditations/certifications have a reset clause when something significant in a business changes (like owner), or have a not widely available cheaper streamlined version for long-standing businesses.

This is even assuming that selling the whole businesses is the best way to exit; taking over the whole business rather than just the machinery (for example) is a restriction that might be detrimental.

The thing you are not understanding, is that you have to be able to loose money for longer than the competition; it either requires an investment on the same scale as the total valuation of the incumbent, or a string of failed attempts from others to set the stage... And you can estimate ahead of time how long you can operate for, and how long the competition can, so you can likely tell before you start that you are going to be one of the failures.

Only if the competition thinks the increase in share is worth more than the increase in per unit profit.

And depending on the industry, there might not be much more to be gained by scaling up. Going from 45% to 60% of the market might not be more profitable than an extra few percent per unit.

Only if the infrastructure is something tangible, often the startup costs are regulatory, and not necessarily transferable.

There is also the problem that if the incumbents move to undercut, then any onlooker would assume that even if they bought the infrastructure they would also face the same undercutting; and would therefore have to remain solvent longer than an incumbant to make a return.

I think this is why there is so much focus on tech or disruption; you need some way to compete against the scale efficiency of the incumbant.

High end tvs have significantly better visuals compared with projectors; function in more environments, and are much simpler to set up. If you have a dedicated space and want a huge screen then projectors are the only way to go, otherwise they are worse at colour, contrast, cost and noise...

The grey hairs want all computers to exist inside beige metal boxes.

In practice probably not; with google results there is an increasing feeling that it's entirely bullshit designed to sell something or get clicks...

A response from ChatGPT seems somehow more honest, even though it's just an aggregate of the former.

Its an odd one, maby something like more churn at low income schools leading to a lower average seniority; and therefor lower average pay?

It's the economists paradox, any sufficiently good model will drive decisions and policy, changing the conditions away from the assumptions included in the model.