Gunax

Unfortunately, I think it's the only way to do it.

Corporate incentives are weird. Firing people is tough. If you don't force it, people find a way to just go along with the status quo. If you let them, managers all report that their teams are just super high functioning. And that path leads to mediocrity. Just like how the peer rating system devolved into bland platitudes.

From an executive's standpoint, where you are looking at thousands of individuals with no way to tell, I completely understand it.

And you accept that some unfairness will happen. People will be fired because they happen to be the lowest on a high-ranking team. You accept that's unfortunate, but the alternative is worse.

One reason your soccer analogy doesn't apply to a corporation is the scale--sports teams have a few dozen members. It's possible to know them all.

Back in 2008, Facebook was hailed as the tool that would set democracy free.

> The Web, a perfect medium for genuine grass-roots political movements, is transforming the power dynamics of politics. There are no barriers to entry on sites like Facebook and YouTube. Power is diffused because everybody can participate. The Web is being leveraged not only for vote-getting but—as the Obama campaign demonstrated—for grass-roots fundraising, too. The Web can be a formidable electoral money-pump.

So why the change now? Oh I'm sure Ken Burns will give you an ostensible reason.

But I think the real reason is that the very aspects of the internet being praised above--grass roots, power to individuals and the unheard--started being used by right-wingers.

When left-wingers used it, it's called empowering, triumphant, reaching out to the voiceless.

And when right-wingers did the same thing, it's the end of democracy.

Burns is upset about misinformation, but be is coming at a very inopportune time to make that claim. That covid very well might have actually been man made seems plausible now[2]. Yet, that's exactly the misinformation that was censored in 2020.

But, I'm sure Burns & ilk had no problem with 'if you like your healthcare, you can keep it', rated lie of the year by Politifact.[3]

I happen to think much of rhe outrage over Facebook is because Trump supporters used it effectively. That's why there are constant calls for Facebook to do something.

Aside from the bias, I think this is a mistake. We shouldn't expect Facebook to be a government or arbiter of truth. The purpose of Facebook is not to take the words of the president (whether that's about the affordable care act or about effectiveness of masks) and decide the truth. Facebook isn't meant to be a government. It isn't meant to be the arbiter of reality.

Burns talks about 'Soviet style disinformation' but he seems to think the solution is 'Ministry of truth', an equally abhorrent idea.

[1] https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/19/barack-ob...

[2] I do not actually know Burns' thoughts on the covid lab leak theory in particular, and I cant find any statements where he clarifies exactly what misinformation he is talking about. But this was, in my opinion, the single biggest claim that was labeled misinformation around 2021 when this was published. Also, I happened to think the lab leak theory was just a bunch of conspiracy nonsense at the time and paid little attention to it. It looks like I may have been wrong to do that. It's taken me a long time to realize that and eat my humble pie.

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/13/250694372...

I am getting increasingly skeptical of juries.

For one, I just don't think we are very rational. And I am including myself in that.

And, like this case, the personalities reflect exactly what happens when you gether a dozen individuals. One or two are loud-mouth bravados, a few don't speak, and some are just apathetic. It's nice to think that I would be that disagreeable person who would stand my ground, but I am not sure.

Sometimes I wonder what we would do if the courts were designed today. I am pretty sure we would not come up with a system where we gather 12 random people. I don't know what we would decide on, but almost certainly not this. But like many things, it varies on because no one has an obviously better way.

I suppose it is for discussing, but does the discussion actually promote justice? Afterall, that's why we have juries. I am not sure whether the deliberation actually increases or decreases false verdicts.

I take it that it's very difficult to anticipate the scenarios to test.

QA did a good job testing inputs to the orderBeer function. But they forgot to examine the other functions.

I think Americans have unrealistic expectations. From my perspective, you're all wealthy. There's a reason people are climbing over fences and walking through the desert just to live as migrants in your country.

We don't need this. The solution is to create a regulatory and legal environment that encourages building--not to directly enter the construction market.

Tldr but wouldn't ask if it steel and concrete be found?

If dinosaur bones and trilobites can last hundreds of millions of years, steel and concrete should also.

The history of the dispute is quite messy, and shows how these things never end. It involves miltiple treaties ratified and then disputed.

I find the analysis particularly ridiculous. It of course blames the USA--a country which has never used military in the region, has no bases in guyana, and wasn't the colonial power that created this mess--as the instigator.

Because America is to blame always. It's responsible for all actions it takes, but also responsible for not taking action when it should have.

I think I have experienced this at past companies, including Amazon.

But the limit was very high. I recall setting the contribution to something like 80% or 90% and maxing out after a few paychecks.

But in general: I agree with you. Why should we only be allowed to do what my employer allows? As if them allowing me to contribute is some benefit they are bestowing upon me. Rather than them just being middle-men between me and tax law.

Employers say 'we cant find anyone and we are offering $XYZ' where $XYZ is some astronomical amount.

And yet the experience of applicants is often very different. They apply and never hear back. Or they never receive offers that match.

So what's the discrepancy? Either one side is lying, or there is something being miscommunicated.

My guess is that often what employers mean is 'we cant find anyone with these specific skills at this price point'.

You have to realize there is a finite number of people with X years experience in Y. If you want to know how many people have 10 years experience doing Y, it's upper bounded by the number of people who were employed in Y 10 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree that 'zip' is lost. I would say the metaphor has always been ambiguous.

If you zip something irl, without context, what are you doing? I can see it being either sealing a bag or merging.

Everyone seems to agree that this seems like a very high number. And I also found it shocking to the point that I think there is something being misinterpreted.

For one, I am not sure if 'making' 79 cents means that is the entire revenue, or just Google's 30%. Even assuming the former, it still seems unbelievable.

Maybe this only considers paid apps, or some other filter.

I saw this link earlier and ended up tl;dr it because the preface is so long.

Just ship the preface. Now that I am reading the content I find it interesting.

It's hard to navigate in the web view because chapter headings are difficult to see. Just skip to 'One: Reward and Punishment Superresponse Tendency'

Stallman's only mistake was equivocation. He should have held firm and never apologized. It just gives ammunition to his enemies.

So he didn't actually do anything wrong, even by the author's admission. But if it makes someone uncomfortable, that is enough.

I submit that abortion can make people uncomfortable. Or defunding police. Or supporting/opposing military actions.

Presumably the author doesn't consider those beliefs to warrant ostracizing.

Instead, it's only some politics, and conveniently the ones that they dont like.

We have to stop this nonsense! No one should feel their livlihood is at risk because of politics and consent laws.

But we would not expect the coin toss to have a correlation. Whereas we might expect a correlation between actual and perceived ability.

So yes, both are null results, but only one is interesting.

For instance, we would probably expect there to be a correlation between height and ability to dunk a basketball. If someone were to show that there is not a correlation, that would be an interesting result. Just because random data would match my result doesn't mean my result is nonsensical. Getting results that look like random data is still a result--it just means there isn't a correlation.

My concern with economic debates is that there are always enough statistics to play with to make whatever point desired.

For instance: why compare wealth and not income? And if we do, at what age? Do we compare individuals, or households...?

I don't want to say it's wrong per se, just that I've been misled enough before that I don't want to trust anything.

A contract may have been formed, but maybe the contract has a clause that exempts pricing errors.

Without reading the contract, we cannot know. But given that the context was constructed by HP, there are likely multiple legal escapes.

And I still have no idea what this startup does, its plans, or how it operates. I expect more from WSJ

JavaScript as used in the web seems tough. I wouldn't recommend trying to teach the DOM internals.

IMO an intro course is about fundamentals--loops, functions, parameters, etc. Everything else is just obscuring what is important.

It's unfortunate that webdev, undoubtedly the most popular development today, is also the most obtuse.

US laws and constitutions were created to stop tyranny by making it very difficult to change anything. The result is most laws need a supermajority to pass.

That's probably good at stopping bad laws, but it really stops all laws.

IMO a sideeffect of this is that because courts create law by simple majority, they are often the only body capable of changing anything. As a result, we have politicized courts deciding things that should really just be legislated.

If there was one thing I could change about American law it would be to make it easier to change the law, including constitutional amendments.

While these things are usually tacky, it was more accurate than I expected. Partly that's because it's from 1982 and isn't very old.

The first page suggests you might be able to store the entire library of Congress on your home computer in 2000--a perfect prediction by my count.

The standard trope about future predictions is that we imagine things that currently exist being better (eg flying cars, video phones) but miss out on technology that isnt yet in the public conscience.

Mythbusters will always be his magnum opus. I actually see it often as something that he might even want to move on, but his audience will not let him.

I am generally skeptical towards anti trust laws--though i do recognize that they are necessary. They give the state too much power to decide who is a market winner. Too often the definition of anti-competitive comes down to political favoratism.

I would caution the author to consider the implications of what he seems to be asking for.

Most businesses run at a loss at first. You really cannot start a business--nevermind an unproven startup--if you're required to charge at a profitable level initially.

So I think the argument about Uber is accurate. Clearly the investors do plan on re-couping their losses. Were they planning on doing it anti-competitively? Maybe. The line between 'taking losses initially to get started' and 'taking losses so we can clear the field of competition and then reign as a monopoly' is dubious and difficult to quantify.

Most of the tactics mentioned re: Amazon seem like regular retail tactics (staples in the back, high-margin items prominently displayed). All retailers control the price of items (usually they don't want a reputation for being expensive, a few don't want a reputation for being cheap). And 40% profit margins are not unusual. And consider even after this, Amazon basically breaks even in it's retail.

It seems as though we are in competition with the ad buyers. And it turns out, the ad buyers will usually pay more to show an ad, than the recipients will pay to not show it.

I was once a member of a forum that ran on ads. Users asked and begged for an ad-free version for years. Finally, the owner added it.

But everyone revolted: the cost to go ad-free (something loke $15 per year) was way too high!

But it turns out that was far below what advertisers would pay. By his estimate, he was losing money every time someone bought the allegedly too-expensive ad free version.

I think the short answer is that consumers are cheap.

If even Alphabet cannot get a toehold on Apple devices, then other competitions have no chance.

In this case, I strongly favour opening the IPhone. Not because I care about Google, but because I care about completion at large.

25 years ago we said Microsoft was a monopoly just for including IE. They never stopped you from installing anything else. I don't understand why the same rule doesn't apply to Apple.

> The idea that Russia or China would magically become democratic utopias without violent social upheaval is extraordinarily naive.

It happened to South Korea and Taiwan. And almost happened to Russia. I really don't think it's naive, even if it's wrong.

Everything seems obvious in hindsight.

Not of all these schools participate in AA. Caltech notably does not.

While that's true, there seems to be enough for universities. He has the grades, the SAT, and the extra curriculars.

I feel like we are missing something. Someone with perfect grades, SAT, and leading a competition coding team should get accepted to more schools (many are strong but not name-brand).

It's true that unis and corporations care about different things.

However, I am surprised that he would only be accepted at two of those universities, given the grades, SAT, and competitive coding. Most of those schools are solid but non-name branded.