xenophanes

My position: Milton Friedman had basic economic literacy but chose to ignore it at times, caring more about some other things (like moral and social issues – an area where he made some serious mistakes).

Many other people don't have economic literacy in the first place – and if they did have it, some of them would change their minds about Basic Income and other issues, rather than ignore economics to focus on their social-moral philosophy. One reason that would happen is plenty of people don't have a very strong social-moral philosophy in the first place, don't care about it much. And some would even change their social-moral philosophy itself, for the better, if they understood basic economics.

Spreading basic economics isn't a total cure-all alone, but it's a great step. Many people would notice the conflicts between economics and some of their other ideas. Some of those people would then have some success resolving the conflicts and reaching reasonable economically-informed conclusions.

sorry. basic economic literacy precludes a Basic Income

see Ludwig von Mises

ok that's a bit less bad but i still think i'll pretty much quit :/

censor-by-default is such a bad approach. if people are passive (very common) then HN censors. defaults matter, like with mailing list opt-ins, etc, b/c ppl frequently don't want to bother changing the default.

So if I write a comment that people don't want to endorse – let's suppose it's actually bad – then it's pending forever and I can never post again?

RIP HN.

gg :( was fun while it lasted.

It Is Time For Basic Economic Literacy

250k fine is very misleading:

> OSHA has subsequently forced Dish to pay $157,024 in back wages, $100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as the former employee's legal fees.

so 157k was paying a debt, not really a fine.

isn't top 5 per category way too little? if you wanna know what colors are popular in a category, shouldn't you look at like a couple hundred icons?

I ended up thinking it was not a scam but being uncomfortable. It's possible I had originally put a fake address for my whois info, possibly triggering this, I forget. I'm not 100% sure.

Here's the people, i spoke with them on the phone: http://www.neustar.us

here is their first email in april 2011:

Greetings,

As you may be aware, in November 2001, the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") selected NeuStar, Inc. ("NeuStar") to be the Administrator of the .US top-level domain ("usTLD"), the official top-level domain for the United States of America. As Administrator of the usTLD, NeuStar has agreed to perform random "spot checks" on registrations in the usTLD to endure that they comply with the usTLD Nexus Requirements which can be found at http://www.neustar.us/content/download/2659/32865/ustld_nexu... ("Nexus Requirements").

Our records indicate that you are the registrant of the domain name CURI.US.

On April 28, 2011, this domain name was selected for Nexus revalidation and confirmation. According to the information you provided with your registration of this Domain Name, you indicated that you qualify under:

Category 1 - You are a US citizen or permanent resident

As part of our verification process, we ask that you provide to us by no later than ten (10) days after the date set forth above, a written response describing how you qualify under the above Nexus category.

In addition, please verify that the name-servers that you have selected to use are also physically located within the United States as required by the Nexus Requirements.

In some instances, we may request additional documentary evidence from you to demonstrate that you meet the Nexus requirements.

You should be aware that if you either (i) do not respond within the ten (10) days, or (ii) are unable to adequately explain or demonstrate through documentary evidence that you meet any of the Nexus Requirements, NeuStar may issue a finding that your entity or organization has failed to meet the Nexus Requirements. Upon such a finding, you will then be given a total of ten (10) days to cure the US Nexus deficiency. If you are able to demonstrate within ten (10) days that your entity or organization has remedied such deficiency, you will be allowed to keep the domain name. If, however, you either (i) do not respond within the ten (10) days of such a finding of noncompliance, or (ii) are unable to proffer evidence demonstration compliance with the Nexus Requirements, the domain name registration will be deleted from the registry database without refund, and the domain name will be placed into the list of available domain names.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

John .US Nexus Compliance ___________________________________________ NeuStar .US America's Internet Address Email: nexus-compliance@neustar.us

Well their SSL cert on their website was invalid (just expired) and there was some kinda mention of them on some government site somewhere that wasn't quite clear enough IMO.

they got bored of trying to prove their identity and just said like "whatever, verify your identity or you'll lose your domain". i ended up phoning them with the number on the site with the invalid SSL certificate, getting the person i'd been emailing with, and she said i could black out the driver's license number on the photo. i ended up sending it that way. i think they were just stupid, not scammers. that was years ago and nothing bad has happened yet to my knowledge.

I got email from the people who run .us domains demanding a photo of my driver's license to prove I'm American. They did not understand why I might think they were scammers and want them to verify their identity first, nor did they understand how to verify their identity.

If you buy most stuff with a bitcoin VISA, what's the point of bitcoin?

One thing the anti-speed-reading folks never take into account is comprehension per time. They always look at comprehension for one reading of the material.

My regular reading speed is around 220 wpm. But I can speed read or speed listen at much more than double that. Therefore, I can do TWO speed readings in less time than one slow reading.

So for a fair comparison, you have to look at TWO speed readings vs ONE slow reading. In that case, the speed reading might win on comprehension, even though it was behind after its first reading. Reading stuff twice improves comprehension a lot, and can still be done in less time.

Or if I really really care about something, I would do a slow reading and several speed readings, and I think that's way more effective than doing multiple slow readings, for the same amount of time or less.

Also with speed reading I can do over 500 wpm with very good comprehension. The point where I can't keep up mentally or with my eyes is (after a lot of practice) above 500 wpm. But my regular reading speed, if I just use Kindle app or a paper book, remains under half that.

I can also speed read at over 1000 wpm, for light reading but not dense philosophy. Yes comprehension drops, but two readings at 1000 wpm for light reading may still beat one reading at 500 wpm for the same material. Or FOUR readings at 1000 wpm could beat ONE slow reading, in less time.

It's important to be able to read at many different speeds, and also use several skimming methods, and think of them as different tools in your toolbox, and then figure out which is appropriate for what you want to accomplish. If you always read everything the same way, you're doing it wrong.

That's interesting. It's hard to tell what the actual reason is, which is bad. I'm skeptical of UN treaties in general, but I think if the US doesn't sign it should say why, clearly and proudly. It's tricky, though, because I imagine Bush and Clinton have different reasons for reaching the same conclusion of not signing.

happyscrappy was being sarcastic.

The death penalty and the death penalty for children are different issues. I'd bet you that if allowing death penalty for children was polled, it'd do a lot worse than regular death penalty, and be a minority view.

Also, note the poll question was terribly written and may dramatically understate US support for the death penalty. The question I mean is the top one, "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?"

This is ambiguous. My position is I'm in favor of the death penalty for SOME crimes, in some special cases, but NOT as a default for all murderers. I think the death penalty should be ALLOWED NOT OUTLAWED – I think it should be a possibility sometimes – but if I was asked that poll question I would say "no". I think MOST murderers should not be executed.

So the poll question is really really badly done. The only saving grace is that a lot of people will ignore the question wording and hear "death penalty: pro or con?" and give their general political stance using their pre-existing knowledge of what the actual issue is.

Actually I think the US's inclination towards local authorities controlling things, and not being controlled much by broader authority, is very good. It's a more decentralized approach that allows for diversity.

The thing about strong central authority is when it makes mistakes they are much harder to deal with. And mistakes are inevitable from all authorities.

Did you bother checking what else it says and what the U.S.'s stated reason for not signing is? Or do you prefer to post ignorant sarcastic criticism?

If you think they are doing something good in this case, I recommend not complaining in discussions about this case.

Also, Google is a big complicated thing with many different people and parts. Don't expect total consistency from anything that large and complex.

What you've argued is faulty logic was actually sarcasm. One major clue is that the previous paragraph also contained heavy sarcasm.

Something bad happened. Some people are sad. Let's bring up the topic of suicide and make sure they are all aware of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111 And then feel good about how kind and helpful we are.

People already know suicide hotlines exist. If they want one they can google it or siri it or whatever. You aren't giving them new information, just telling them, basically, that you wouldn't find it surprising if they killed themselves over this.

Well I can listen to text to speech at ~550 wpm anyway. You apparently think that's impossible, all a jam of syllables. I have friends who do similar.

no respite is a matter of practice. time to parse the content is not that hard if you've already learned to RSVP faster.

you're basically denying what you don't know how to do, for no apparent reason.

Blinking might explain why I strongly prefer 2-3 word chunks, instead of 1 word chunks, when I read with RSVP. Interesting. I can read some texts at 800 wpm with 2 word chunks but find it a lot more problematic with 1 word chunks so it's flashing twice as fast.

FAQ says:

> Next, let’s talk about subvocalization. This is the process whereby, whenever you read, you talk to yourself, repeating every word in your head. The issue here is that most people can only speak at about 180wpm, maximum. Increasing speed beyond that means not saying every word to yourself.

This makes no sense to me. I've read at 600 wpm while sub-vocalizing every word. That's much much faster sub-vocalizing than they claim is possible. I've experienced it.

Retention with spreeder is a matter of skill and practice. Don't give up easily. I've read difficult non-fiction in it with very good retention at 500 wpm. That requires a slower speed than I could read a simple novel (800+ wpm), but still much faster than I could read it in paper (under 300 wpm).

This took practice. I was reading economics books by Mises at 300 wpm in spreeder for a while and gradually increased the speed. I kept the speed low enough to understand it. However, it was never worse than regular reading.

Also, I started with 3 word chunks. I found that a lot easier than 1 word chunks. I normally use two word chunks now but that took work to get used to. I wanted to lower chunk size to reduce sub-vocalizing and eye movement. I've tried 1 word chunks but I lose over 100 wpm with them.

Anyway, low retention is caused by many things but is not inherent in RSVP.

This is called RSVP. It is easier (for the same WPM) with 2-4 words at a time than 1 word. I really hope this catches on more and allows different chunk sizes.

500 wpm with no training is an exaggeration. wpm also depends a lot on which book you're reading. however, RSVP is the fastest way to read and way over 500 wpm is possible with practice.

I said authority doesn't work, not science doesn't work. I think science works in a way other than authority.

Being right more often does not mean you're right in any particular dispute, so how exactly does it matter? Every dispute has to be resolved based on the actual ideas in question, not the authority of the person who said a particular idea.

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3188816

consider fair coin flip sequences. stopping at arbitrary points of your choice can never really affect anything serious. but you need to make sure you're doing math right, meaning if you stop when something gets a lead you don't use incorrect math that says the coin is biased.

data is data. as long as the method being used to collect individual data points is fine, and they are collected independently, then the data you get as a result is gonna be OK, the rest (like arbitrary stop time) doesn't ruin it. you just have to avoid bad math.

what ruins data is stuff like throwing 10% of the heads results in the trash or using other approaches in which data can be selectively discarded or not discarded. so just stopping arbitrarily can be a problem if you might never stop and throw out the results if you don't like them. but if you do something like "stop after 1 million data points max, or when i feel like it earlier" then your data is still OK because it cannot get selectively ignored.

stopping earlier cannot make a fair coin look unfair or anything like that.

this is not some random unknown position that flies in the face of how actual statistics works. something like this is the standard bayesian position, and i think it's true. (i strongly object to bayesian epistemology, but i think bayesian statistics is correct).

not ALL stopping rules are OK but lots are. you don't HAVE to use simple ones like "gather X data points, stop".

see stuff like:

http://andrewgelman.com/2014/02/13/stopping-rules-bayesian-a...

http://lesswrong.com/lw/mt/beautiful_probability/

> And then there's the Bayesian reply: "Excuse you? The evidential impact of a fixed experimental method, producing the same data, depends on the researcher's private thoughts? And you have the nerve to accuse us of being 'too subjective'?"