yrimaxi

Actually that doesn’t pose any kind of cognitive dissonance to more mainstream economists since they know what role the state must play in a capitalist economy. Which is not “leave it be”.

Right now they are studying at Stanford (started at age thirteen) and we hope that both of them will be posting on HN before the age of sixteen.

I still haven’t tried it myself. But I see now that there are plenty of people who have made an informed choice and chosen Zig over the other systems programming languages. So obviously they must be doing something right. Obviously Zig has something that system programmers like.

So, props!

A better world for whom?

Of course a paragraph-long comment won’t provide a rigorous critique of the media. And I might disagree with that commenter with regards to “fake news”, since you can go a long way without outright lying (omission being one tactic). In any case, there are long-form critiques of this phenomena if one is interested. And they’re not crackpot theories.

Brave words. Stabilizing for whom?

And if it did happen the comeuppance is cheapened by the fact that the author was a person with some kind of authority over the other person. You don’t really have to be a brilliant speaker or rhetorician in order to make your own students feel awkward...

But you are right that a person’s actions (and policies in this case) is much more important than whether they happen to say silly things.

But for some reason “inequality” gets glossed as “skepticism”. It’s apparently all in their heads—comparing themselves to others on social media—even though getting laid off and having no short-term prospects as long as the pandemic is going on is something to worry about in absolute terms, not just in relative terms.

I think that it’s good that we worry about how the economy is doing for all of us, not just the fictious average person.

Bad idea. The market is supposed to process information for us. Consumers are just individuals who know what they need and what they want, but not much else. The market (if we are to believe the hype) can process enough information to make selfish actors in aggregate cooperate. So why not let the market solve it?

Consumer-responsibility is pure propaganda: in the same way “we” (collectively) drop plastic into the middle of the ocean, “we” (chiefly the corporations and their marketing departments) drop the symbolic responsibility on consumers.

You could go live in the woods in which case you might not suffer from the same fates. Until civilization starts to encroach on your cabin (I think that’s what happened to the Unabomber).

> I wonder how many people have been forced into a "sedentary" life style by COVID-19...

You are not forced into a sedentary lifestyle if you have the time and space to do bodyweight exercises.

   Avoid $ success at all costs

Really, this must come from some utopian idea that company-founders really want to make the world better above else, but then profit-seeking—the modus operandi of all for-profit companies—intervenes just because the world is not pure enough for their vision.

What a backwards analysis.

A social platform that is not already popular is worthless to most people. They have no use for it. Hence they are definitely unwilling to pay for it before it gets popular; there is absolutely no incentive to. And, of course, once a social media platform _already_ is popular, it must have gotten to that point by operating at a loss.