supernova87a

But I think there is a saving grace to your thinking that justices' views were cemented at birth/confirmation.

One of the respect-worthy things about Scalia (even Thomas) is that they believe(d) that what the Constitution says, should be followed. One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says. If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.

In that sense their position is clear and stable. They don't agree that the rights you're claiming are found in the Constitution.

How then, do you change that or turn it to your advantage? You make laws and amend the Constitution to change the ground rules of society over time. And justices that take the above approach will, if they are reputable, continue to follow their adherence to what the Constitution (updated) says.

Now, as I said above, our system seems to be quite dysfunctional right now in that a lot of issues cannot be decided by society given our political reality right now. But having a court decide an issue when 50% of people disagree will not gain it any credibility, or resolve it for society.

You should read this before jumping to the conclusion that this is an outrage.

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...

I have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of term limits and seniority as a long-term component of stability within the federal government. There are few other institutions that provide the same level of rigor and thoughtfulness to our government, and have the credibility and respect because they do not swing with the wind every year.

Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined".

Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken.

Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware.

If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately?

We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way.

The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation.

And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen.

I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.

[0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...

Does it cause for anyone else what it does for me -- the whole screen "vibrating" when you reach the limits of the horizontal scroll, or somewhat even while you're scrolling?

Other videos of ship side-launches I've watched on Youtube don't involve a tug pulling at the same time the hydraulics are released. What was the deal with this one?

by the way, how did you do all those subscript formatting tricks?? It would be great to know how to post more advanced things in the comments here.

Here's that talk:

"Secret History of Silicon Valley" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

I hate to say it (as someone formerly from this field), but --

Astronomers can justify any amount of spending you ask them to, based on whatever incremental learning a telescope of a new type can be built for, based on:

-- size of telescope

-- new sensors

-- background noise reduction, sensitivity

-- frequency domain, spectroscopic resolution

-- it goes on and on

Who provides the external check of whether the latest improvement is worth spending the money? Because astronomers will always say it's worth it on some dimension. How do we decide whether that dimension is worth the money?

Is pushing the discovery of some metal content in an early galaxy by one more unit of redshift worth $10B? Study of dust obscuration of some nebula really pushing the boundaries of our understanding like it was 50 years ago? (or similar esoteric questions)

What $ / unit scientific discovery is worth it?

Edit to add: and yes there are things like the decadal survey and the “industry” has to justify itself to Congress (in the US at least). And yes, I generally do think the finding of this is (at these levels) probably going to bring some net positive multiplier benefit even if hard to quantify. And is more value per money than sending it to war to use an extreme comparison. But I wish there were a more defensible bar for knowing, other than public opinion or “at least we’re not as much a waste as <xyz>”.

Just lucky for astronomy that at least they produce pet pictures for the public to support. But sad for other important fields that don’t have this luxury.

Rather than worry about this little tracking peculiarity, my mind wanders to a future where the govt is smart/capable/evil enough to be connecting all the cameras in buildings, cars, etc. into one place that constantly monitors for license plates and is able to tell:

-- anyone who has been driving around with a car registered in another state but hasn't relocated it to that state within a month (avoiding taxes -- CA I'm looking at you)

-- backtracking where someone who committed a crime came from, and has gone

-- etc.

Maybe somewhere this is already being done.

Maybe there is something about the agricultural tractor (or similar industry) sector where the amount of research and development, manufacturing, sales, support investment it takes, on top of the sales prices/duration, customer dynamic, product lifecycle, etc involved means that the few players who can do it need to earn some margin through service to stay alive profitably.

Of course, maybe they're just money grubbing capitalists.

But I think there's more factors than meets the eye, and this behavior is not without cause.

Otherwise, as you say, plenty of players should be clamoring to offer a fix-it-yourself brand that people would flock to and be loyal to.

Maybe sometimes there are real reasons for the way a market and a product are structured.

Should large capital expenditures like that be funded as explicit parts of the grants that use them (like an amortized user fee), or as items requesting funding on their own? You would think such things would deserve their own approved budgets (for the funders) and not be absorbed into a hard-to-dissect overhead factor.

Why don't grant funders apply a single overhead % to all recipients, so that those who are more efficient and productive with their funds benefit for it? The way it is now, you're almost incentivizing those who are inefficient / expensive to get more so because you're rewarding them with more $.

Then as CEO, how about equally I just say, "why?" and "no". Not a great justification either side.

But then all you care about is the names, not the $ figures they’ve invested and the % they received, is that right? If you assume that any deal with some VC entails a certain $ amount minimum of interest, why don’t I just show you the press release of who’s invested then?

Why? Would it even make a difference if you could see it?

Isn't it pretty much up to the founder and board whether you get diluted (and how much) in the future, and whether any number you see there continues to be accurate (for your own purposes, or others in the table) or not? And unless you're one of the top people at the company, your net worth is going to ride largely on how much of a success the company becomes, not your particular % / exact small share of it.

The VCs and next funders care about the exact numbers. What would you do, use it to negotiate more?

I suppose you could take it as some indication, but it's by no means some kind of binding assurance of the future. This is a thing I have a fundamental gripe about SV startup practices -- there are a lot of things associated with being employed at one that have the appearance of legal obligations and securities regulations to the novice eye, but under the surface they are not at all, and you are largely at them whim of whoever owns the company. The value of your options could evaporate in practice, even though you hold "100,000" of them (either through decline in company's future, or active dilution, or the CEO just doesn't like you).

Or am I exaggerating what I feel after a decade in the area?

There are a lot of questions that people ask, where I feel, is it even meaningful information you would act on or are you trying to feel better about something? (see all the useless 20-year-old-something comments/questions in threads after some company CEO announces the possibility of layoffs... "Can you share the exact formula by which people will be laid off?" "Why are you doing this in successive rounds and not all at once?" etc. etc. What would you do even if you knew the answer?? )

This donation in 1986 was also approximately the last time that Bell Labs contributed something noteworthy to the country.

/snark

A meta-recollection related to this (and takes me back to those days) --

The magazine issue linked here has 208 pages. I remember that in the years to come, you could tell how desperately the Apple / the Mac community was doing by the gradually thinner and thinner page count of the magazine on the newsstand.

And then maybe it grew back a bit and stabilized (but never reached this kind of heyday again) as all the ads shifted online at the same time that Apple began to recover.

You know, I find that for my parents, this is the thing that is saving them.

They were never very outgoing people, weren't highly skilled at English being immigrants, and didn't engage in the polite courtesies that prepare you to be a well adjusted and sociable kid growing up in the USA. They had no cares for my arguments about being felt left out of activities or such.

But you know what, it's perfect for them not being scammed now, decades later. They just don't pick up the phone for anyone, or if they do and don't understand anything, they just hang up. They don't pay attention to emails or feel like they're missing out on some amazing deal that comes their way. All they have is a tendency to forward news articles that are slightly "oh I saw this 5 years ago".

Funny, it's like some evolutionary niche. Things that are a detriment in one environment turn out to be a saving grace and success in another.

Yes, that's true. I was just focused on another case of for example, trying to turn a large building's hot water boiler into an electrical / heat pump one. That is where the set of huge new condensers comes in, replacing like 1 previously dishwasher sized boiler.

I don't know if anyone else is following this as an issue, and maybe in the grand scheme of our housing "demographics" it's a small thing.

But if you live in a medium or large sized condo or apartment building, it is extremely hard to get legacy systems like gas furnaces or hot water boilers replaced by a new technology like this.

Not because of lack of desire, but because it involves incredible amounts of:

-- legal questions on whether you're allowed to do such things as an entity (will the owners agree to do it)

-- who will pay for the new costs of the thing itself, as well as the ongoing maintenance, any changes to insurance costs, etc. (how will current people who have to pay shoulder the costs of future benefits)

-- (sometimes) how to divide up or give up space from existing ownership stakes to fit the new hardware into what was never expected to be modified in the building ever again

-- electrical, plumbing, power, heat, requirements that may change the performance or costs of your building (how will you swap a 300 pound furnace with 1200 pounds of condenser units and not have the roof collapse?) Technical feasibility not matching the policy goals.

And then on top of this all, the local city wants their say to block or make it very expensive for you to do all this. (yet at the same time their city councils are charging forward in requiring the phase out of natural gas while not fully understanding the inability or cost to real people of not having the ability to affordably implement those mandates)

For some kinds of buildings, this is a very big problem stopping people from being able to change things. There needs to be some enabling legislation to cut out these roadblocks, or somehow make things easier.

Contractors know this so well they apply probably a 10x discount factor in the number of calls they receive to the number of projects that actually proceed to being started.

Single family / single owner homes have a much easier time just getting it done. And new build.

It can be really very difficult to displace existing technology, for very real and legitimate reasons.

Side question, is the 3-4 months of severance pay cushioning a bit the impact to whatever micro-economy laid off workers would otherwise be affecting? We're not yet seeing the potentially worse effects yet until severance runs out? But I would hope that most laid off workers are able to find jobs in that time frame.

And maybe this is politically naive, but you would think that whoever is in power and in charge of running the government, they would want to properly fund the very entity responsible for bringing in the funds that allow them to do what they want to do. If for example, each person you hire to the IRS can bring in 100x (or more?) the cost of having them on the payroll, wouldn't that be a no-brainer?

But as I understand it, some people are more interested in crippling the functions of the government to make it easier to dismantle its functions.

Maybe the goal of having our government be effective and useful (the long and hard won effort of building the institutions we have) has fallen by the wayside to having it be used as a pawn in stupid power games.

> “A direct-to-I.R.S. e-file system is a solution in search of a problem,” said Tania Mercado, a spokeswoman for Intuit. “And that solution will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.”

Funny, I think she has conveniently recast "the problem" as whether to replace the commercial tax filing industry with something that might be free to the taxpayer. Because yes they doing just fine, thank you, paying us for that convenience, so there is no problem if you look at it that way.

But if the problem is helping people file their taxes easier, then clearly Intuit didn't think that that was a solution in search of a problem, for them to build a whole industry around it...

Funny how entrenched interests will go to great lengths to redefine and recast what the fundamental goal of the government should be. And usually that recasting is some kind of distraction away from the question whether the government should serve the people, or serve specific entrenched interests.

Not that long ago there used to be people who would add up columns of numbers to calculate the books at companies, and every time they wanted to run a different scenario a whole room full of them would have to get back to their pencils and redo the calculation for a day, and they no longer exist because of spreadsheets.

We used to have admins whose entire job it was to find out when people could meet, and they no longer exist (or only in much smaller numbers) because you use your online calendar tool.

We used to have people who would physically fly bank checks from one city to another each night, and in a single day they ceased to exist when you were instead able to transmit just the numbers back and forth.

People who used to sell encyclopedias are out of work. People who used to develop rolls of film are no longer around. We're missing a whole generation of telephone operators.

But people will deal. Because these developments come from every single one of us using tools and adopting things that we choose to, not because it's some decision handed down and enforced by some government against our will. You and I, using Excel, scheduling our own meetings, using direct deposit or even our phones.

I don't even believe yet that these latest models are going to be that transformational, but even if so, people will deal. And new things will take the place of old.

Wait a moment. While I agree that the government should be transparent generally about its law enforcement, you can't suggest that there are absolutely no secrets that should be kept confidential to enable reasonable law enforcement to occur?

If the government or some agency published all the indicators of fraud that it used to check that people were filing their taxes legitimately (and catch crooks), how would you ever conduct anti-fraud operations? Every criminal would have the manual on how to circumvent the detection mechanisms and move to techniques that the IRS doesn't know how to detect.

Should the government equally publish its root passwords because that's within your right to be able to know how the government operates also? That would be ridiculous.

unpaywalled: https://archive.is/tWCMu

and the ruling: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1007698.pdf

What a respect-worthy man, and a lucky man to have been born at the beginning of an age of exponential innovation. Also, from all that I've read about him he gave back to the world in equal measure and was the best of a past generation of Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

For anyone who has interest / time and lives in the Bay Area, watch this PBS program for the history of the "Fairchildren" and the roots of Silicon Valley. (of which Gordon Moore was one of the "traitorous eight" who contributed to making SV what it is today) If you live, drive, work around the area, there are so many landmarks and legacies of this phase of history that you can still see today (but only if you keep an eye out and take a little effort to learn the past).

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/silicon/#f...

(links to Amazon Prime, Apple TV there, and you can also find this on your favorite BitTorrent source...)

On the topic of whether inflation hits the poor harder than the rich, I have been undecided/inconclusive in my mind about this. And would love some perspectives on it, along the lines of:

Although day to day items that dominate the spending of a lower income person's paycheck are easily seen affected when inflation hits, for a wealthy person, whatever savings and money is accumulated eventually has to be spent on such things also -- whether directly by the owner, or through goods/services that have to pay such expenses.

So in time, in having to spend their wealth, the rich get affected by shrinking buying power as well. (they just have the luxury to spend on more items that are not daily/monthly subsistence expenses)

Is that reasonable to think?

Why am I getting downvoted for such a legitimate economic question? Is this offensive against lower income people?

I forget a famous economist (old British guy I think) who said that there is no more effective way to secretly and insidiously overthrow / disrupt a society as unchecked inflation.

(something similar to that, I'm probably paraphrasing badly)

Reading that book takes even longer than getting a renovation permit in NYC.