heylook

wait, what exactly gives you the impression that Fetterman isn't all there?

this is an interview he gave within the last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0

Only if you assume there is no regulator or shared protocol.

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

Seriously? I think "AWS exists" is self-evident enough to almost be a tautology. It's a hugely successful business whose business is making tools that make it easier/faster/cheaper to build and scale software and internet products. If that doesn't prove how much easier it is now to build the technology of Twitter, I'm genuinely curious if you could present a hypothetical set of facts that would actually be convincing to you.

ETA: I want to be careful to say that it's not "lol easy peasy" to build Twitter, but that the question "How likely would an investor be to pass on your Twitter clone startup because they thought the technology couldn't be built by your team with their investment?" is laughable, possibly even if the founding team is non-technical. With $5m, anyone competent enough to even file a YC application could hire a good enough technical consultancy to get a Twitter clone that scales to millions of users.

Many many senses. First, it's already been built. Now people now how to build it. In fact, many of the people that actually built it have left the company and could presumably help to build it again.

Second, the toolchain has matured in absolutely huge ways. AWS exists. Twitter had to build their own cloud to meet scaling needs. Languages have matured or been purpose-written to enable building/scaling these types of systems. A huge portion of the N+1s and hidden footguns have been cleaned out of the thousands and thousands of open source libraries that you can glue together to get the system up and running.

Third, Silicon Valley engineers as a whole have spent the last decade-plus building all sorts of Twitter-adjacent Web 2.0 projects, so there's an incredibly deep pool of people that have extremely relevant experience, even if they never stepped foot inside the Twitter building.

Fourth, Twitter (and companies very similar) have been publishing literal engineering designs and post-mortems for public consumption on their engineering blogs. Even if you have no idea what HTML is, your path to self-education and building your own Twitter clone has never been shorter or better paved. They've even published huge chunks of their own work as open source projects.

And on and on and on and on. And here's the thing about growing to Twitter-scale: it doesn't happen all at once. You can build the low-volume version and just follow approximately the same technical scaling path that Twitter itself followed, except you'll be able to skip a whole bunch of mistakes.

> Get ripped off from a foreign supplier can require a lawsuit if available to you in an unfriendly legal system. Cryto can solve these trustless entities problems.

Pardon the ignorance, but, how, exactly?

From "Rick and Morty": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m1s2NFOGyg

> A major driver of inflation is Baby Boomers retiring.

What's the mechanism here?

> I already work too much.

That’s your problem. Repetition, mindlessness, boredom, flow are different facets of the same phenomenon. When your ancestors needed to build a shelter, they spent hours and hours chopping, hewing, digging, etc etc. Birds have nests, bees have hives, beavers have dams; the list goes on and on. It’s perfectly normal to find some amount of busywork soothing.

You hit your cap at work; others don’t. There are also those with real addictions where it inhibits their ability to accomplish other goals, but that’s true of tons of habits that scratch the same itch.

> If you were in a burning building you would save a jar of embryos over an actual baby? Is that what you are saying?

> If that is true you are a sociopath.

Just wait til you hear what rubyist5eva thinks.

> - Large unicorn startups that are perpetual money losers continue to operate only because they are effectively subsidized by regular capital raises. Look no further than all the Silicon Valley darlings such as Uber, Netflix, AirBnb, Tesla, and so on. All of them would cease to exist without continued capital injection from secondary share offerings or VC raises

You should look up the financial statements of the companies in your list.

Yes. "An externality is a cost or benefit caused by a producer that is not financially incurred or received by that producer." [0]

Dominating a market so thoroughly that your competitors go out of business and must find another line of work creates a cost for society that is not borne by the winner unless they pay for it through taxation. Namely those costs include retraining, possibly monetary assistance, etc, etc.

Beyond that, companies like Amazon[1] and Walmart[2] have well-established histories of paying their workers so little that they have to use SNAP to make ends meet.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-on-food-sta... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

Political change of this magnitude happens because different people are voting, not because the same person changed their mind. Literally it’s because the old people died before they could pass 100% of their bigotry to the next generation.

I'm a little thick. What are you implying here?

Because you exist within a system whether you like it or not, so the optimal/correct solution must account for those variables, including your ability to entice cooperation. So yes, you would still be wrong, just not for the narrow way you’re choosing to redefine “correct.”

> The exception is with unusual unit compositions

Could be wrong, but I believe this is actually a case-in-point moment for the other side. AI as it exists now is flummoxed by unfamiliar input, whereas a human expert is more likely to be able to react in a way that is at least directionally correct.

Put another way, if AlphaStar is confronted with a Terran opponent that can build Zerg units, how likely would it be to win the game? How likely would an expert human be to win that game?

> Never. And I'm serious about this.

You know that we have search engines, right?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20180622.107025/...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=267875

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381978

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3520915

Do you have any data to back up this claim? Parent comment provided links. It seems fair to me that a rebuttal should as well.

Bad faith actors can fabricate "evidence". Therefore all evidence is useless?

> it highlights a very basic problem with taxing an asset again and again, especially on unrealized gains.

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of a floor? If we only tax wealth above $10m or $100m, it will literally never result in "all of your wealth" disappearing.

> We gladly support this idea, because it affects "the billionaires" but not when it comes to everyone else and for good reason.

> Ironically this is one of the main contributor to sky high real estate prices and housing crisis

Right. We support it, but we don't do anything about it, even though it causes one of the most obvious policy problems in the state.

> if we do, most people would lose all their wealth in a matter of couple of years.

Like literally every other state? I'm sorry, no. This comment is internally logically inconsistent, ignores obvious examples to the contrary, and asserts itself as its own proof.

I would happily trade away:

- 1 whole semester of in-person instruction for all 56 million school-aged kids in the US

In exchange for:

- The cumulative remaining years of the 50k(?), 100k(?), possibly even more that will die directly from the virus in the US alone

- Freedom from long-term health issues caused by the virus for another several hundred thousand at minimum who won't die but also won't get "the flu"

Now your turn. What is your number?

> There is no right or wrong when it comes to reopening, only unpopular and even more unpopular and it all comes down to who you're trying to please.

Which path forward "pleases" you the most? I can't believe this needs asking but: How many deaths are you willing to tolerate before you are no longer "pleased" by this approach? If one approach "pleases" you but "kills" someone else, how should we balance that tradeoff?

> These vapid online brawls have engaged millions more people to vote who never would have voted in the past.

Voter turnout in presidential elections is the same as it has been for 50 years at least. Voter turnout in the most recent midterm spiked a crazy amount, but I'm not willing to credit social media so much as a natural reaction to the extremism of the current administration. Which sources are you using that I missed?

Looking at the menus, it seems like they're generally serving quite low-cost meals. I'm curious what the parameters of the cost-benefit would need to be for it to make economic sense. How many people would need to "cheat" for how many meals per day to make up for the operational cost of implementing a given safeguard? How much food could a person stockpile before it starts going bad more quickly than they can make some other use of it?

No, you are making the straw man argument. The argument is not that the exact same people have been holding the exact same jobs with exactly the same pay the whole time. There's a reason you found it so simple to lampoon. That reason is you chose to view the argument as naively as possible.

The argument is that any minimum wage earner is worse off than a minimum wage earner the year prior, and the year prior, and the year prior, etc. By holding the minimum wage fixed, we are making the default decision that a minimum wage earner tomorrow should have less effective purchasing power than a minimum wage earner today.

That's like saying that we all need to accept that any and all whales will be harvested for whale oil to keep our lamps burning

IMO the difference is a combination of two things:

* the unprecedented targeting ability of social media ads vs traditional broadcast/print * the unprecedented amount of disinformation (especially from foreign governments) vs traditional broadcast/print

If you can't see the difference between the two, frankly, you haven't been paying attention.

Add me to the long, long, long, long list of people living a better life because of your tutorials. Thanks.

Who cares? GP didn't say anything about "market" or "not-market". It's dumb that we're here. Full stop.