supernova87a

I don't have a strong opinion about whether they were / continue to lead in tech, but I do have a strong belief that Japan and its general culture does lend itself to a much stronger valuing of conscientiousness in work and doing things well / fully / to the best.

Maybe that's a bit of cultural myth of course, which the Japanese benefit from propagating. (All the movies, mentions of people who take decades to perfect their craft; even small everyday jobs being done well; things on time; everyone polite, considerate, etc)

But there definitely is something about what attentiveness to detail can achieve, when allowed to happen by emphasis of culture or the work at hand.

I don't know if I or anyone I work with every gets to be conscientious about doing something really well and to high competence. It seems that everything I'm involved in is "let's try it and see whether it works" and then give up and move onto the next thing. Or "well, good enough".

Which is good for some purposes and ends, but not good for developing a decades-long expertise, deep expertise and wisdom, about doing things.

Removing loopholes, reducing the kinds of things that can be claimed without solid proof (or likelihood of needing to be proved, or complicated to prove), reducing the amount of paperwork that can create loopholes, etc. is part of simplifying.

Removing personal deductions, a simple 1-step calculation, is not simplifying.

And reducing tax rates is not necessary to simplify taxes. A graduated income tax is very simple.

Think about it harder. Don't be intellectually lazy and just jump to cutting certain taxes because it would be "simpler". Unless that's your goal.

By the way, did you know that (some) modern looms use jets of air/water to send the weft thread across the loom? No more shuttles or mechanical passing of the thread. Amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVWkZiHjreI

"Yamaha CEO Pleased With Current Production Of Jet Skis, Alto Saxophones, Snowmobiles, Power Generators, Scooters, Golf Carts"

I have also noticed in some jet bridges, you will see some kind of air sensor probe on the end of a coiled cord, which is very odd to me that this would inform the operation of the bridge. I can't find a photo of it readily, but it is definitely something I have noticed and puzzled about.

Ah yes, that is a key barrier to doing it. Or maybe this tool would only be to know your own H-index. But that's just a curiosity then.

I guess the dividing by post count is something like the H-index. Although not quite the same information.

Thanks!

But still, I doubt you would have found many grad students who were independently wealthy before unionization. Or at least, in the field where they were lobbying the hardest for unionization, is probably where the most independently wealthy students were.

What will happen is that given a finite pot of money, fewer grad students will be taken on by the university's PhD programs, so that the ones who voted for this can get paid more.

I'm not sure that's the right choice.

Somehow my 6 years of PhD in physics begs to differ.

As I said in another comment, grad students are going to grad school and getting a big bump to their future earning potential, subsidized often by the state. I don't think it's an entitlement that they get to do that for free, much less claim a right to earn living wage level on top of that.

Grad students are getting an education and a big bump to their future earning potential, often at significant taxpayer expense. What entitlement do they have to have a free ride, much less make living wage on top of that?

But more info is also needed -- is this only to positive, or negative static charge? or both? If you're walking with your furry cat it's ok, but not if you've got a glass hiking pole?

Anyway, separately from that, what is your position on the statement that for certain types of evidence and cases in progress, the accused should not be allowed to see the specific evidence (and methods of collection used) against them, because it would compromise compelling national security considerations?

How about if it were to be unsealed after some amount of time when the need for security of the collection mechanism(s) were to have expired?

Since when do we do that for police searches for crimes in progress?

Drug dealers are notified that the police are seeking a warrant on their address and given a chance to review the evidence?

Do you believe that there is no role / need whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation?

If you do believe there is the role for such a court, then the question is not whether it should exist, but how well it is overseen / checked, and what mechanisms there are to make sure it operates on correct information and has an advocate for the parties that are not allowed to participate in its decisions.

If you believe that there is never a need for law enforcement decisions to be made that cannot be revealed to the accused party, then that is a separate (and in my opinion, impractical/unreal) point. We might as well ban judge-issued search warrants unless the person whose property is being searched gets a chance to hear the evidence and object.

I think your desire to paint it as some evil government bogeyman + some philosophy that everything should be open is over simplistic and honestly a little naive in how a country needs to defend itself.

Now I am no fan of all that the FISA court has allowed. There are legitimate criticisms of how the lack of transparency has allowed some rubber stamping of investigations without good adversarial oversight.

But to fundamentally assert that such a court should not exist is a bit ridiculous.

You might as well suggest that every time before knocking down the door of a drug dealer, the drug dealer's attorney must be notified and get a chance to argue against the search warrant in front of the issuing judge, because in a couple of cases, they knocked on the wrong person's door.

Note the helpful Cityticket discount fare on LIRR as well!

Will the NYC subway system ever evolve further? My mind is on Tokyo a lot lately, because of some recent visits, and also probably related I get served up a bunch of Youtube videos about how the Tokyo metro has evolved over time.

The subway system in Tokyo improved over decades by forcing interoperation of rail systems, improving control systems, building new track, unified fare systems, etc. etc.

So today you have a system where (for example), every 5 minutes, you can take a commuter train from an outer suburb that enters the city center, becomes a subway train, lines up with automated platform gates, hits every stop within seconds of expected, emerges from the subway system and continues to the airport as an airport express train.

They did this not out of some desire for some luxury level train system, but because it was necessary to support the number of people who had to rely on it as a system. Of course, they had the benefit of being a system that could change post-war, and bulldoze land that was not yet staked out and developed.

But still, is NYC's subway forever frozen in the current state of shittiness? What needs to happen / how will it happen that it ever improves from here? How is the demand for the NYC subway not turning into improvements? We're just out of money and political will I guess?

If you can buy something for very cheap, and only need to use it infrequently, it isn't a huge problem if it's inefficient for that use a few hours per day.