Skilled labor (such as mechanics) require training and apprenticeship pipelines. If those pipelines don’t exist or are starved of people it doesn’t matter how much you’re willing to pay right now. Long term sure you can make that career path more appealing but it can and often is absolutely the case that companies would pay out the nose for employees with particular skills and are unable to find anyone. But sure let’s go with the standard Reddit pablum, why give it more thought than that?
This is a random aside but somewhere I have some slightly obscure early 2000s anime with fan subs, and in one of them they accidentally left an additional “working notes” subtitle track that I find fascinating. It basically has all the little messages between the participants discussing whether a given translation is accurate or should be changed, alternative ideas, disagreements over proper translation, etc. It really illustrates how subtitling is nowhere near an exact science and oftentimes whether a given translation is the best is highly subjective. You basically need to be a good writer to be a good translator.
As someone who never went to college: one thing I know I’m missing is knowing patterns and the commensurate pattern matching. What you describe perfectly illustrates this. Knowing what are effectively standard tools, best approaches to known challenges, and what’s truly novel is something almost no one without a formal education can do. You’ll hear protests to the contrary but it’s just a fact.
Why is the title of the post here on HN so substantially different from the actual press release? The HN post tries to make it personal, claiming an individual is doing it, while the press release (correctly) refers to the companies. That seems an impotent distinction that the HN headline carefully erases.
So they surveyed a few hundred people and that’s supposed to justify an academic paper? In a formerly prestigious journal (emphasis on the former - if you need evidence that it’s been co-opted by activists take a look at its home page).
So to be clear you would consider UBI a success if the only detectable change in metrics is simple arithmetic in the form of “we gave them money and then they had more money”?
I’m sorry to sound snarky but I’m struggling to read this comment any other way. You seem to claim any metric that isn’t a number representing dollars a person has (however ephemeral) is “unrelated” which seems completely bonkers to me.
Plastics are one of the greatest modern inventions today. It’s saved literally millions of lives and makes possible countless things in manufacturing that previously literally could not exist. It’s probably the single greatest contributor to reducing human climate change of any other invention (by drastically reducing packaging weight and thus transportation costs around fuel).
It’s not without downsides, but too often people just say “plastic sucks” (or equivalent) without thinking of what a world without plastics would look like. A de-growther’s dream perhaps, but everyone else’s nightmare.
It frustrates me that the article doesn’t credit him by name. His art was absolutely iconic, even in a sea of other “chrome-tastic” illustrations. Dude was an absolute master of airbrushed chrome aesthetic.
Anecdotal but my UK friends ere blindsided by this too, at least a number of them who are otherwise quite clued in. They said they felt like they had no idea this was coming at all.
How do you propose a system to be effective that proves you are over a particular age but also does not prove that you are you? In other words I don’t see a way to solve the problem of needing both proof of identity and proof of age to accomplish proof of age.
This excuse is so tiresome. Generations before you lived through far worse than whatever supposed hell you doom scrolled your way into believing. The world is literally better than it’s ever been. Go experience it instead of complaining about vibes.
“Tipping is a thing of the past” is just a completely false statement, given it’s the norm in the most economically powerful country in the world and not at all u heard of elsewhere (food delivery in many countries, high end restaurants in the UK and elsewhere, etc.) If we’re being generous we can call the claim is vs. ought distinction, except the phrasing doesn’t even leave room for the ought interpretation. It’s just a falsehood (were it was true).
The replies to this comment remind me that the supposed unavoidable law of induced demand evaporates pretty quickly amongst urbanists when talking about things they want to build. At the risk of sounding really snarky, “just one more line bro”.
Can you explain what the benefit is of giving “people” more options (putting people in quotes because they could be current residents, it could be visitors, it could be hypothetical would-residents, it could be people in Alaska - I don’t know what you’re referring to).
Also while it may “give people more options” it inevitably would increase density in one of the most dense cities in the western world. Can you explain why that’s a good thing too?
I am 100% of the opinion that it’s (2), in no small part because the writers themselves say as much frequently and vociferously at every opportunity. This isn’t reading some hidden meaning, this is just listening to what they say when they’re interviewed.
The two most common themes I hear from writers are intense narcissism, feeling deeply their own personal experience is something anyone else should care about, and activism/social justice/messaging, where they’re pushing a particular political narrative. It’s why we’ve seen the death of truly morally ambiguous characters or even antiheroes - they threaten the clear and unambiguous message the writer wants to send. Stories aren’t for the audience to interpret but for the writer to preach.
And again this isn’t inference. This is reading and watching interviews with writers, showrunners, producers, etc.
This is just absolute total nonsense. Normal people do own real estate. Lots of people rented back then and do now. Friends were “far away” back then too, they took their cars, bummed rides, took buses, whatever. Where do they sleep? Where do you think they slept back then? The floor, the couch, the lawn, or they didn’t sleep at all and just went home in the morning.
What you will get in a comment thread like this is wild speculative climate doomerism along with sarcastic remarks about how humans are ruining the planet. This is not the place for hard facts.
I feel compelled to once again ask the only mildly rhetorical question: “If Trump was actually acting under directives from Russia what would his administration be doing differently?”
I go to sci fi cons and telegram has become the de facto method of coordination for everything. Party, meal, event we all want to attend, any kind of meetup we create a channel for it to be used ephemerally and invite everyone who’s going. It’s a million times better than any event invite functionality of social networks, absolutely frictionless and without all the frankly stupid stuff social networks add.
Not trying to be a mindless skeptic but your “why is it so hard” question seems bizarre to me. It seems quite understandable that it’s hard for people to believe there’s a particle responsible for a significant percentage of all matter in the universe that we have no direct evidence of and the only reason it’s believed to exist at all is because a lot of otherwise well-understood equations and observations require it to exist.
This is a pet peeve of mine: yes there are unskilled jobs. Lots of them. The term is maybe slightly misleading, but there absolutely is a class of jobs that any able-bodied person could perform given at most a few hours or a few days of training, and they are qualitatively distinct from jobs that require education, specialized training, and/or months or years of experience to be considered proficient and productive in them.
That doesn’t mean people who work jobs in the former category deserve ridicule or disrespect. But the distinction is important because finding workers to fill an unskilled role is just a matter of finding said able-bodied person, while for the latter you need some kind of system of education, training and/or apprenticeship (either explicitly or effectively) to be set up and functioning to even have an industry that depends on those jobs.
Not everything is some silly game of political fighting through language. Some things we actually need terms distinguishing “this” from “that” so we can have real world conversations about them.
Income inequality is perforce a problem from a socialist worldview. So yes, for the sort of people who abhor capitalism, all income inequality (and class inequality) is bad.
You’re essentially just claiming price gouging without saying as much because otherwise the economies of scale would not exist (which anyone with any knowledge of how the economy works knows does in fact exist). “Smaller number of larger players with greater buying leverage as well as lower marginal costs leads to higher prices for consumers” is just using a lot of words to say “evil corporations are price gouging”, which is not true.