force_reboot

Every user's looking for something. Some of them want to use Facebook. Some of them want to be used by Facebook.

Really happy to see this. Of course this is about immigration. Moderates on all sides of politics in all countries have long asserted that it is important that Israel remain a "Jewish and democratic state". Now some right wing extremists have taken this same logic and applied to other countries :-)

Sorry to hear this. I chose to work at a big company because I knew that this would let me work 40 hours a week and so I'd have a chance to socialize outside work hours.

Please bear in mind that this is always an option for you too. I actually had a startup before I got my current job, but decided to get a job at a big tech company instead.

Can you imagine the repercussions today for a sportsman or woman who said something like[0]:

"no intelligent white person watching this show, or no intelligent white man in his or her right white mind, want black boys and black girls marrying their white sons and daughters, and in return introducing their grandchildren as half brown, kinky haired black people"

"It ain’t sad because I want my child to look like me, every intelligent person wants their child to look like them, I’m sad because I want to blot out my race and lose my identity? Chinese love Chinese they love the little slanty eye, pretty brown skin babies. Pakistani love their culture, Jewish people love their culture, a lot of catholic wanna be with Catholics and want the religion to stay the same… who would want to spot up yourself and kill your race? You’re a hater of your people if you don’t want to stay who you are. You ashamed of what god made you? You think he made a mistake when he made you?"

[0] From a 1971 interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1Y693cSF7E

Not sure why you're getting downvotes, this is completely accurate (except that the competitors aren't necessarily college kids, as a demographic they are closer to taxi drivers).

But I would add that on net this is a good thing, and the beneficiaries are not just consumers, but the new drivers.

The logic of the free market is fairly simple and intuitive. One reason people shy away from it is that they are subconsciously afraid of organized labor. The left have drummed it into people's heads that these people mean business, and if they beat you to a pulp it will be your own fault for threatening their livelihood [0].

[0] e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ

My understanding of Python and its community is that they have good solutions for basic problems and so they have the luxury of focussing on cool or esoteric stuff.

Also a lot of the power of Python comes from the extensive ecosystem, so the fact that certain domain problems are made easy in Python is itself an achievement of the language.

For future reference this story made it to about 4th position, and then was moved to 320. I assume there is some manual switch moderators pull to do this.

This action is unfortunate because the article is peer reviewed and published in a top journal. Similar articles with the opposite conclusions regularly make it to the front page. So it looks like articles are being killed merely because they go against there preconceptions of some moderators.

(repeating comment from last repost) This paper, accepted to the top economics journal "Journal of Political Economy", demonstrates how the pay gap in lawyers is due to differences in performance, and that "the differential impact across genders in the presence of young children and differences in aspirations to become a law firm partner account for a large share of the difference in performance." I hope this scientific study will help inform the debate on the gender pay gap, and in particular will show that the view that the gender pay gap is due in part to different aspirations is based in scientific evidence, not prejudice.

This is very interesting research. In my opinion, consistency is very important in politics because, while consistency doesn't guarantee correctness, it does place some bounds on what can be true. Often smart people go to extremes in politics because they are able to see more clearly the inconsistencies in the mainstream political parties or ideologies. But being extreme usually just means being consistently wrong, which is not very helpful either.

Violence can come from the left or the right. Sure, there might be a "reckoning" where the 1% are punished for their alleged misdeeds. Their might also be a "reckoning" where leftists are punished for spreading an allegedly subversive and counterproductive ideology. Both have certainly happened in the past.

The problem with your reasoning, is that you have already assumed that you've won the intellectual debate and so your opponents are only acting from self-interest. But the main "reactionary" posts (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796842 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796746) contain good counterarguments to the article that you haven't addressed.

I like EITC, but I find the focus on change in the tax system instead of absolutes to be very short sighted. Where are all the articles complaining that EITC needs to be even higher? Because it strikes me as unlikely that every state already has set the EITC at the perfect level, and so only changes are worth commenting on.

Of course it's very hard to say from first principles what the tax system should be, but any attempt to do so is going to be worthwhile. The alternative is the implicit position that every single change to the tax system should make it more progressive, (and not make any single person below a certain income worse off).

You are are applying the standard definition of rent/rent seeking used by economists. But MichaelBurge's post is using the language of the original article, which claims that renting out an apartment, or making capital gains from a business, "rent seeking".

So MichaelBurge is making a valid critique of the original article, whether or not the article was correct in using the term "rent seeking"

1984 describes the world as if the Soviet Union won the cold war. So it does seem to capture some aspects of a leftist totalitarian society like North Korea. On the other hand North Korea is different any many ways, e.g. 1984 doesn't characterize the proles as living in near starvation.

When it comes to applying its ideas more generally, the problem is that everyone wants to use it as ammunition against their ideological opponents. For example opponents of Trump might consider the strong emotions he stirs up comparable with the 2 minutes hate, while opponents to the progressive movements might consider the attempt to erase gendered pronouns from our language as a kind of Newspeak.

The no vote bias looks like a serious flaw in the DAO. As the authors say, it is safe for an informed investor to split than to vote "no" on a proposal (for reference, users who split are still entitled to the proceeds of any proposal they funded so far). So passive investors would either be in danger of an attack from a bad proposal, or would find a way to automatically split if the investor wasn't available, defeating the purpose of the DAO.

Put another way, the stock market rewards passive investors with exactly the same rewards as active investors (which has its own problems - shareholder control over management is notoriously lax), but the DAO goes to the opposite extreme.

I personally think that calling for a moratorium is presumptuous - I'm certainly glad there was no moratorium of the stock market when it was introduced because some economists identified some real flaws. But it is a well researched critique.

Assuming that the consequences of acting like X is true when X is false, are much worse than the consequences of acting like X is false when X is true, there's a subtle but important difference between saying "we should err on the side of acting as if X is false", and saying "we should be skeptical of claims that X is true"

Let me explain. You are looking from the outside at a community which has a lot of issues around languages, tooling and frameworks for complex historical and technical reasons. E.g. Things that developed over long periods of time, like desktop apps, had to be rebuilt in the browser in a decade. Ask any desktop application developer how fun they think client side web dev is in comparison. And you are then assuming that the difficulties of this community are because they are immature and not as wise as you. Hope that clarifies things.

Really cool. From the description it sounds like you just made one for yourself. I would suggest you try selling these for $500 - $2000 each. You put a lot of work into it and I think that as art these would be command some money in the market.

There seems to be a huge moral asymmetry in your worldview between hiring and firing, which I disagree with. Yes, layoffs are very disruptive. But not having jobs (or having lower paid jobs) in the first place is also bad.

I don't think founders should go out of their way to avoid risk in order to avoid layoffs, because this would also mean employees would miss out on opportunities too. In fact, employees are already aware of the risks of smaller companies, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

This paper, accepted to the top economics journal "Journal of Political Economy", demonstrates how the pay gap in lawyers is due to differences in performance, and that "the differential impact across genders in the presence of young children and differences in aspirations to become a law firm partner account for a large share of the difference in performance."

I hope this scientific study will help inform the debate on the gender pay gap, and in particular will show that the view that the gender pay gap is due in part to different aspirations is based in scientific evidence, not prejudice.

You keep making assertions, but my original point in posting that reference, is that if your style of argumentation is to make assertions, and then pass the reader off to another source to verify your assertions, then all other things being equal, the source with the most academic backing is going to win. Either you directly argue the point, or you argue by authority. If you argue by authority, academia has the most authority.

That would cause inflation, and would cause markets to raise interest rates to account for this one they knew about the policy. Modern monetary theory is very non mainstream, flawed economics. It has a Wikipedia page, but very very few academic proponents. Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criti... if you're interested in reading more criticism of MMT

The article spends quite a bit of time citing intellectuals who argue against comparative advantage. As you say, all economists agree on free trade, but Krugman is talking about non-economists. And regarding HN, I would say a majority of comments in a recent article on MarkerBot outsourcing their production to China[0], are implicitly or explicitly against free trade.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11574215

I recently came across this article by Paul Krugman, which is different to his more recent writing (for one thing it is on his area of expertise, international trade). It's both a great exposition of mainstream economic thought on trade, and a discussion of why otherwise educated people reject these ideas. The story on MakerBot's relocation of its manufacturing to China was my immediate inspiration for posting this, but I think it's relevant to a lot of discussions on HN.

They are probably pretty excited to get paid far more than they could by farming. In China incomes have gone from 2000 yuan a year farming, to 2000 yuan a month or more working in factories. Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage works great in theory and practice, if you are open minded enough to look at all the evidence.

Paul Krugman has a great article on this BTW: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

The left on campus combines the rhetoric of victimhood, with verbal and physical harassment of those who disagree with them[0][1]. Of course this will eventually turn against them.

[0] E.g. an activist says to a crowd "every single trump supporer has a full legal name, attached to a social security number, with a place of residence, and employer, and classes. That information is easy to find online" in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ50XmALd54#t=3m18s [trigger warning: this video also features physical harassment of Trump supporters]

[1] A university lecturer and activist tries to stop someone filming in their "safe space" (which is also a public space) and yells "I need some muscle" in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_vgu4ewxVc

Fictionalism, and other formalist theories, will have to confront that problem that when we speak of mathematics as abstract rules governing strings of symbols, these rules themselves are mathematical. So it only replaces "numbers are real" with "abstract symbols are real". There are axiomatic systems that are strong enough to express manipulations of abstract symbols, but weaker than the usual systems that mathematicians deal with (e.g. see the work of Edward Nelson on so called predicative arithmetic). But to my knowledge these have not been explored much.

What a ridiculous and insulting proposal. People in the military agree to serve the country within certain bounds defined by tradition, they are not simply meat that can be used for any purpose.

How about use any politician who has every voted for the use of US military overseas. Or even better, a volunteer from their families. Or any professor who has advocated for such, or their families. Because I think that this would cover a lot of people who smugly accuse others of being drive by an "us vs them" mentality.

Unfortunately liberalism as a movement is not at all consistent. One would think that the liberals posters on HN would downvote that grandparent to hell and voice support for your post. But they don't, because Holmes is not supported by liberals for other reasons: she is White, blonde, comes from old White money, and tried to portray herself as workaholic nerd. So it's a free for all for sexism against her. But what do I know, I'm just an uniformed nerd who hasn't read up on intersectionality.

Sexual attraction is a powerful thing. Anyone who thinks they can cleanly separate their emotions from their sex drive is kidding themselves. Tinder is bringing casual sex to people (male and female) who might not have considered it as an option before, so it's going to expose people to unexpected emotions.

Tenure if a contract between the employee and the university. It says nothing about the university's or the employee's relation to a third party. You're just going for a cheap shot by bringing up an unrelated gripe.