3,208 karma · joined January 25, 2010
It's also a natural infinite game due to Kos which can be the best move to play. This requires a set of extra rules to prevent. (Ko, superKo, triple kos, etc)
Will look into the singlequotes issue!
Theres no tolerance for typos on code and way more special characters than MonkeyType.
120 on monkeytype can be 50 on wpm
I bought my 5-yo daughter an arcade for her birthday and we have been playing Bobble Bubble non-stop for months, finally beating the game with a single credit!
As we played the game, we discovered new patterns, tricks and pathways to beat impossibly-looking levels safely, and we discovered portals, bonuses and secrets galore. We also got to know each other better, as we play together better than we would play with other people.
The game pushes you constantly between competing to get power-ups and extra-lifes to collaborating to beat asymmetric levels.
There is one power-up that turns the level into a bonus where you have a score board and whoever gets the most bonus items wins extra points. But if you do even scoring, you both get the max bonus. The game is testing you!
It is when you beat the game at the end that the secret of the universe is revealed: Love & Friendship.
The protest is about trying someone else to do something.
So, pass on that.
The first is that Asian culture (including Japan, Korea) is profoundly dogmatic and hierarchical. They have a completely different moral-alignment with being obedient.
The second is that over time, you can really achive the social transformation spouted by authoritarian governments. Russia was communist for 90 years. North korea approaching 70 years. After several generations what you have is the only thing that people know.
As a westerner, I find it truly amazing that these systems survive at all.
This is just a plain criticism of capitalism in general. Does this logic apply to everything else? Like food? Housing? In practice we have a great example with public education: an expensive, unequal base level that americans avoid if they have the money to.
> It’s crazy that the government was able to shirk it’s responsibility to look after people and place that unfair burden on businesses. > . It’s time to relieve businesses of the burden of dealing with their employees health
I agree, although I would like to note that historically this made sense from an administrative standpoint. Back in the 20's, administrative work of insurance was like half the cost. It wouldn't be so expensive today with electronic payments and all. Its the same logic behind payroll taxes (those that work pay it) mostly because its easy to do, not because its fair or good.
Its true that businesses would love not to manage training people about healthcare, but then the government will have to do it and that won't come cheap. That will be an interesting challenge. The M4A plan of no copays no nothing, that would eliminate that instruction is a pipe dream.
> It doesn’t increase the size of government, those are flow-through dollars, they go in one side and out the other.
Hey come in.
<They are in a federal bank account.>
<They are processed by a claims office that decides what to pay and what not to pay> They come out.
Whatever claims are not paid, its money leftover for spending in whatever initiative the government wants. In fact advocates for socialized medicine like Sarah Kliff want that to happen so the government can set prices. Since its your only employer (no competition with private insurance) you say you accept it or you close down.
> If anything consolidating these disparate services should represent an administrative efficiency
And if it doesn't, whats the way out?
> Yes the government can then change health policy, that’s the point.
Maybe thats your point, but I don't want in on that. I dont want the government deciding for me.
So I dont want to go thing by thing: we disagree, you envision a government administration to be great and fantastic, and I see it as unfair and oppressive. Lets compromise on our different of beliefs: lets advocate for a public option. Government offers something, insurance offers theirs, they compete in the open market, you get what you want and I dont need to confront.
I do want some other things though!
Reagan was the last president to make a deep impact change in how economics and politics relate. He was unique in the way he self-deprecated government, something that is truly rare for presidents. He would actively advocate the government was the problem not the solution, a famous line by Milton Friedman on his economic ideas.
To this day, I am awed at the air-traffic controller firing. I am from a country with a pervasive strike culture, to the point that even cops strike, and it has been unfathomable for any president , of any ideology, from dictatorships to democratic socialists, to fire a swath of strikers.
> The gist of it is that employees aren't compelled to pay union dues...
This is always the argument unions make to get mandatory contributions from employees. The risks of doing so are the following:
1) that all employees regardless of their individual contribution get the same salaries, meaning that over-achieving workers will work less, and under-achieving workers will not work more. (a.k.a. elimination of incentives)
2) That employees that do not like how the union is managed cannot work in that place, either because the union would not allow them, or because they have to pay for an organization that they do not belong to voluntarily
3) That the union, having sole negotiation power for all workers, takes kickbacks from the company for lower compensation for all workers.
4) That even if the union is incorruptible, its optional but its subscribed by most employees, that it actually manages not to decrease productivity, then, there is another company that does not have the same problem, will attract more capital since it gets bigger returns, and the company fails anyway.
Unions are not economically efficient organizations. They are politically efficient, so they serve a great political purpose, but their work in the economic sphere is only destructive.
Inequality between middle class and upper class, maybe. Inequality between lower class and middle class? It blasts it out of proportion.
Unions create a lot of unemployment, and thus poverty.
Finally but not least, add wealth in that graph and see what happens.
I also dont feel sympathy for how the medical education gets to have people hostage, as a reason to "not lower physician salaries". Its like saying that a slaver paid for his slaves, how can you take them away from him! It cost so much!
In any case, if salaries went down, less doctors would go to college, and colleges will either lower students or lower prices. Easily make-upable if you allow reasonable residencies for foreign doctors. The US could absorb an infinite amount from abroad where the cost of education is not irrational.
In argentina, a cardiologist might make 4000 U$S a month. If he could, he would jump ship to practice in the US immediately.
The actual analogy would be a world where you need to get a visa per-magazine to read the articles they have, to the which you might not qualify.
A newspaper-immigration-patrol would look at this comment of yours on HN and possible deny you access, you should watch out.
> What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are "institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these questions then drops the thread.
A great open question is what happens to institutions when there are culture changes. But bear in mind that without immigration, there would be no institutions in the U.S. whatsoever. It is a point of view of past immigration being great, but current and future immigration being bad, which I think it makes very little sense holistically speaking.
> Yeah they could, but most won't.
There really isnt a limit on living space. The rent is high in places like the bay area precisely because moving there is still a good deal. Problems of residential prices are widely overstated.
Conventional theory is to play the approach move from the right hand, extending the top right formation.
Note; something Michael Redmond mentioned in the commentary which is false is that joseki is even. Its not correct: josekis are not even, but are the best recognized patterns given a specific purpose.
In a way, straying from joseki means that you failed to apply the best possible sequence for the pattern you wanted to play. There is some subtlety around this topic.
Even though im a programmer, the only thing i do in facebook is add friends, it already affected me to just have an account there. The effect was neutral to good..this time.
IPOs were always a way for the finantial institutions to take profit from naive market investors. Historically IPOS have very bad results in average, and in the case they do get good results, they dont get to the average one-guy online investor but to institutions.
Finantial institutions involved in the IPO proceedings (getting your company fit to be a public company) can get up to 10% of your company : they dont invest money at all, they only help your accounting be public and legalities.
Of course, IPOs are widely advertised because the more people pay, the more money these institutions win. Of course, the institutions that used to do these are the ones that are in a terrible shape from the economic crisis.
Benjamins Grahams "Intelligent investor" says IPOS are "for suckers" :). The book that was written many decades ago even mentions these same financial institutions used to consider IPOs an unethical business because too many unskilled investors hoped too much of such operations.
I think that this situation happens in part for the "moral"restrictions, in part for the credit rating, but also because of the effect that once that you invested a certain ammount of money in something, you keep pouring money on it even when its not good for you.( the famous throwing good money after bad money)
"i have already commited to buying this house, and pay this much already, so i might as well put more".
Im sure many of the readers here have put money into fixing their computer several times before acknowledging that to buy a new one would be cheaper :).