ITB

You’re a good person

They could. They just want you to confess the things that are harder for them to track. So they pretend they know more than they do.

No. There’s more to this. My wife has hyperphantasia. She can imagine an apple in front of my face, with her eyes open, and she will see occlusion.

There’s no point to a country. It’s just a form of governance that is in vogue in the 21st century. Like every bureaucracy, a country wants to grow and survive.

The homeless is also a very broad term. I think this sort of article doesn’t refer to people that are able and willing to work, but have to live from their cars. It’s usually about people that are often incapable of being a functioning member of society, beyond their housing status.

The best way to help these people is not to give them “benefits”. It’s to permanently place them in facilities that can afford them a humane existence. There’s no reasonable amount of “benefit” you can give to some of these people otherwise.

These mega corps are the product and the cause of America being the wealthiest country on earth.

I truly believe limiting educational attainment for our smartest (or privileged, if you want) children is among the most obviously harmful things we can do as a society. It’s shocking to me that anyone can vote to make moves like that with a straight face. Of course we want everyone to get better education. But under-leveraging our highest potential children is a crime that takes future well-being from everyone.

The point is that they forbid the children that can subtract from learning algebra

He’s one of the most authentic big Co founders.

It’s perfectly reasonable to renovate a historical building, following appropriate techniques, so that it can be appreciated as it was during its time. Greek ruins would be less compelling without the extensive restoration work.

It appears this person's high intelligence helped them cope with an otherwise very hard to treat condition.

We have partitioned the developer experience too far. We need a full stack stack.

I wouldn’t personally support those companies, and I think most others wouldn’t either. But I think if a company was made of women who only want to hire women, that’s okay.

Some laws are meant to bring fairness at a time of egregious unfairness. But don’t need to be laws forever. That doesn’t mean the problem will inevitably return without enforcement.

The Edison video is amazing

My personal opinion is that it’s fine for an employee of my company to do comedy on the side, by the way. So it’s not about this case. It’s the principle that I’m highlighting

There’s two sides to freedom. Freedom of individuals to express themselves, and freedom of companies, which are also made of individuals, to want to work with each other. I personally think all employment should be truly at will on both sides.

is this happening to anyone else?

Very little substance

sounds like room temp superconductors

No. There’s mandatory unemployment insurance/tax companies pay that will float employees terminated without cause for a little time, depending on the state. But it’s not high.

Large companies tend to give decent exit packages though.

Either they start coming to the office or their employment will be terminated. It’s not a resignation.

If someone doesn’t have aptitude for higher education, they shouldn’t get it. Higher education is not some universal right. But those who do get free public higher education should do it in a field that has clear downstream economic impact.

I find this article incredibly inspiring, and my interpretation is that the main character was fulfilled by these accomplishments. The person interpreting the journal uses the word “obsessed”, not as a direct observation, but to put it in contemporary terms. But we have no evidence this person was burnt out.

My observation is that many people in HN seem burnt out, and are resorting to pointing out reasons, not just for their own burn out, but for that of society’s as a whole. I don’t find it constructive. It seems like another flavor of doomerism. Capitalism is not evil— it’s incredibly ingenious and productive. We all live much better for it.

A lot of comparison between AI safety and legal or security teams. It doesn’t hold. Nobody really knows what it means to build a safe AI, so these teams can only resort to slowing down for slowing down sake. At least a legal team can make reference to real liabilities, and a security team can identify actual exposure.

This is a very generalized statement. I think you’re feeling down and projecting those feelings into all of society.

How much do libraries matter now? Hard to say they matter as much as several decades ago.

If a hedge fund returns a bit under SP500 on average but is more predictable and always has a positive return, it will definitely be desirable.

You’re not being practical, hence you’re not adding any value to the conversation. How exactly would you slow the world down?

The machine wants you to work, and in return the machine gives you money, and some times other benefits. You don’t need to work. But modern life is probably better if you do. I’m personally tired of this debate. It sound like some sort of secret cabal is being blamed for how things are. It’s mostly a free market and everyone here mostly have a choice of where to allocate their time and energy.

So far all the comments are against great person theory. But what is the counterpoint? Companies like Apple and spaceX are just inevitable and some lucky bastards will just stumble upon them? That’s nonsense. There might be more than one candidate to become Steve Jobs but not that many.

Would e-commerce have evolved without JeffB or smartphones be invented without Apple? Probably, but it might have taken longer, or they might have been invented in another country, greatly hurting America’s prospects. To this date Amazon has the best e-commerce logistics on the planet.

Doing things ahead of its time, by gathering the right people and enough money, is a very unique skill. Couple that with being well positioned for a certain “inevitable” innovation and that limits the number of people even more.

There’s also a compounding effect. Walking backwards from humanity’s global tech maxima, if every key innovation was late by a few years, the overall maxima might be late by hundreds of years, maybe worse. Maybe humanity ends due to an asteroid impact because we didn't get advanced enough to protect ourselves in time.

Anyone can find an arrangement where they work less. You seem to imply everyone should be required to work less, so that you’re not competing with people that are willing to allocate more of their time to work.