Reedx

> It simply isn't time/cost effective to cook for one person, probably not even two.

Paying someone else to source and make your food is a luxury. It saves you time, but you're definitely not saving money. Far from it.

Rarely is a financial advisor going to say: "Get your food from restaurants instead of a grocery store"

It's a combination of voluntary and mandatory. The question is whether the mandatory part overstepped. It's a fair question. Did it do more harm than good in some cases? Did it prevent businesses from being able to adapt to the situation? Like what some ended up doing with moving seating outside, or converting to a different model, etc. But if there's a mandate that "all X must close", you're blocking adaptations and any chance of them figuring out a way to survive.

Of course it's multivariate. But that doesn't map nicely to our tribal discourse, where everything must be binary and in perfect opposition. Nothing gets solved, it's just endless deflection.

History rhymes.

A witch-hunt or a witch purge is a search for people who have been labelled witches or a search for evidence of witchcraft, and it often involves a moral panic or mass hysteria...

In current language, "witch-hunt" metaphorically means an investigation that is usually conducted with much publicity, supposedly to uncover subversive activity, disloyalty, and so on, but with the real purpose of intimidating political opponents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

Maybe, but imagine looping over this:

"How can we, as [profession], help to make [x] more energy efficient?"

It doesn't take long before that starts to add up.

> Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place

It's hard to square that with the algorithmic feed, likes, etc, which are making the world worse every single day in favor of engagement metrics. We've known for many years how destructive these are.

Facebook and Twitter could literally make the world a better place simply by disabling those kind of features. Just remove them. It doesn't get easier than that to substantially improve the world, yet it's not being done.

Data and statistics aren't getting through, so maybe the answer is to rebrand it. Drop the word "nuclear". Chernobyl is too powerful of an association. All the data in the world is just no match for that story and imagery.

Whiteboard coding in an interview is a performance anxiety test and hazing ritual as much as anything.

Sometimes they do that on Shark Tank (Mark Cuban especially), making an offer and saying "but you have to decide right now". Giving them just seconds, even when there are still other potential offers on the table.

It's a terrible dark pattern and wish everyone would just dismiss it outright. Kudos for doing so.

You'd think that would result in an unbearable level of cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't because they changed the meaning of the word "inclusive".

And a bunch of states in the US.

Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and has some genuine medicinal use. It doesn't make sense for it to be illegal, never should have been, and is extremely counterproductive for a host of reasons.

It's only a matter of time until full legalization and they should just get it done already.

I think the trend was already in progress, and Covid-19 just accelerated it by N years.

Yeah, I'm making a generalization about the platform and what it incentivizes. It's definitely not to say that all channels create filler.

Being logged in and curating really makes all the difference. ContraPoints, CGP Grey, Joe Rogan, Kurzgesagt - I think that kind of content shines on YouTube, isn't possible on TikTok, and don't see them as artificially long.

Yes, you can and should "both sides" this.

Maybe you're unaware of what's happening with the extremes on both sides, but they're feeding off each other and rapidly regressing (thanks in large part to Facebook/Twitter). While each is enabled/emboldened by the free pass from their side, who are either unaware of their own extremes or just more afraid of the other. It's a negative feedback loop and we really need both sides to start pushing back on their own.

Only after having a kid did I fully realize just how much time and freedom I had.

> I like to think it's an opportunity. If you're able to combine domain expertise from your first career with a solid grasp of CS fundamentals and a good day-to-day working knowledge of your toolchain, that can make you a pretty rare interdisciplinary candidate. Perhaps that then informs how you market yourself and to whom.

Indeed, you're in the best position to solve attorney problems with programming.

But another approach to consider is augmenting or skipping the candidate part and build it yourself. Identity a problem you had, solve it and sell the solution/tool to other attorneys. Even if the selling part doesn't do well enough, you'll learn a lot and have a valuable resume booster.

The Coddling of the American Mind is good deep dive on this and helps explain the phenomenon.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B076NVFT5P/

> It just comes across to me as a 'hate the rich' policy that creates perverse incentives.

Indeed, wealth tax sounds good because there are problems with income inequality and it's currently fashionable to hate the rich. But that's about where it ends, while second-order effects are ignored or at least not taken seriously.

Andrew Yang was one of the few high-profile Democrats brave enough to push back on it.

"I think the wealth tax is an idea, in spirit, that makes sense, given the wealth distribution. But in practice it would have massive implementation problems. There would be capital flight, wealthy people would renounce their citizenship. And the bigger problem isn’t even the money. It’s the annual inventorying of their assets. The truly wealthy in this country have zero interest in submitting to an annual audit of all of their assets. They barely know what all their assets are. And the last thing they’re going to do is report them every year and then pay a toll. So you would have massive compliance problems. And to me there are better ways to make this economy fair, though I understand the spirit of it and the intent of it. But I agree that it would be somewhere between problematic and a disaster in practice."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/02/andrew-yang-wealth-tax-plans...

Soon we'll have that cognitive overhead on HN threads and there will be a larger volume to parse.

Will the comments still be worth reading at that point?

[ this comment may or may not be GPT-3 generated ]

I always wonder what % of people actually read them compared to those who just see a slogan and decide based on that.

Probably similar to "read headline" vs "read article"?

> The problem is that it is so sensationalized, that it could be that there are 10 people doing this, and it's not really a big deal.

That's basically standard practice now. Find a couple outraged Tweets, present as though it represents the majority.

Zynga bought their office building and ended up being one of their best investments. Good timing though, buying in 2012 and selling in 2019.

"Zynga to Make $369 Million on Sale of Headquarters. That's far more than the company has ever made selling mobile games."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/05/29/zynga-to-make-369-...

I've been sick to death of it since the days of Nintendo vs Sega, but I'm starting to come to terms with these being relatively benign outlets for tribalism.

I'd much rather people burn off that kind of tribal or religious energy via PS vs Xbox and Red Sox vs Yankees than Left vs Right, which is an unfolding disaster.

“This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games." - William S. Burroughs

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Wish-cycling is a thing, and it's very wasteful. People consume more when they think it'll be recycled. Then it goes in the wrong bin, often shipped to a recycling center where it takes up resources to get sorted out. Ultimately just taking a longer path to landfill.

Tim Epic (not to be confused with Tim Apple) retweeted that with an amusing response:

"While waiting for Apple to #FreeFortnite on iOS and Mac, here’s another awesome battle royale game powered by Unreal Engine!"

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/129941176668281651...

Well, UPS/etc can also cherry pick or negotiate terms if it doesn't make sense. They don't have to take those (or any) deliveries from Amazon.

I'm guessing they're just trying to hold on until they can convert to robotic delivery. Then it'll be profitable. In the meantime they're preloading the platform, building brand recognition, etc.

That reminds me of this case in SF, where someone spent 4 years and $1M just trying to get approval to convert their laundromat into an apartment building.

https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-...

I hope most 13 year olds don't need babysitters.

At that age you're fully capable of staying home by yourself and following online instruction, at minimum.

> Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that 4 out of 5 drivers don’t support.

Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?