adasdasdas

But I didn't say whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, I'm happy with some heterogeneity in our values, but I feel like you jumping the gun kind of proves my earlier point.

Most people have incoherent answers to any question of right and wrong. Philosophers like to overcomplicate things and throw buzzwords too. I think it's a very difficult conversation full of emotional traps and personal biases. Once upon a time, we all shared the same moral foundation (religion) and did not have this problem.

React is just a way to procedurally generate templated HTML in the frontend. You can do the same thing in the backend but it just makes rerenders more expensive which could matter depending on how input heavy your application is. For example, if you update a row in the table, do you have to reload the entire page or just the row?

If you are building a framework to do that, you are probably just reinventing React

No you don't understand, there's an ocean of body builders throwing off the statistics

I'd be happier if more socialists actually read Marx. However, to your point. Marx thought that once our production ramped up enough, we could have everything we needed and overthrow our capital demons. He also thought that there was a ceiling to production innovation and that profits would eventually dry up due to competition.

But its been 150 years and none of that is true, we're still getting better at doing things, and human appetite for consumption hasn't really slowed down. Some part of that is hierarchical, some people just want to be better than others and so their consumption is relative. This is where a lot of artificial scarcity is manufactured. But we still continue to solve very real problems, much of which is fueled by a capitalism.

Ok so why has the average work day been dropping since the industrial revolution began.

If you respond with: well unions fought for it:

I'd say, that's partially true, but it wouldve only been possible if production efficiency grew, which it has been continuously over the past 300 years... because capitalism is the strongest driver of technological innovation.

Secondly, this whole thing about artificial demand is bunk because you aren't forced to consume it in the first place. You are free to live the life of a 19th century man, and you really don't have to work very hard for it, because producing 19th century level goods is very very cheap.

I literally responded to the parent argument though. And yes I do assume vocal critics of capitalism online to be socialist, I'm happy for parent to prove me wrong :)

Socialists will attribute any societal problem to capitalism. Of course, capitalist critics online will never mention that capitalism drives down labor demand by incentivizing technological innovation.

One of the OG skeptics, love Montaigne

You should check out spark social, I have a plot there and it gets great sunlight. It's a little pricy, but what isn't in sf

Oh the experiment didn't go as expected? Rerun 5 more times with minor tweaks. It definitely not p-hacking ;).

Ok but American planes fly in and out of the US. Also domestic flights have no limitations on foreigners. Unless you are saying that it's ok to have terrorists onboard, as long as they're not trying to terrorize America.

Why are we going off the rate of terror attacks in America

At least in my circle, I've found (for mass company wide layoffs)

1. Lower level managers usually find out them at the same time as IC's 2. Managers and directors can be part of the layoffs. 3. If a manager/director is part of the layoff, they are even less likely to be consulted in the process.

Yup, most mass layoffs are done without consulting the directly/skip managers who actually know who the strong performers are.

Being an exec is choice to commit an exorbitant amount of your time/energy on your job. You can always settle for an easier/lower paying job. You don't see the president complaining the job is stressful.

They made it easier/more profitable to develop land by driving prices up

So you don't think you can present the same 2 sets of facts with different tone/connotation and achieve drastically different outcomes in public opinion?

Here is a better title.

FTX firm headed by SBF collapses after failing to process user withdrawals. Mismanaged funds and risky trades are to blame. Victims and prominent figures within the crytposphere allege fraud.

Funny how when it comes to most stories, "Business is killing babies... says person (random person on twitter)" is good enough.

The fdic is not a law, its a self sufficient insurance company that banks pay premiums to.

FTX is a brokerage not a bank. Furthermore, banks have strict regulations on the kinds of loans they are allowed to give. Also, bank accounts are secured by FDIC.

It uses the same tone that SBF uses when characterizing the situation as a complicate mixup instead of what it really is, deliberate fraud using customer funds to increase leverage.

If you want to compare tone, you can look up any NYT article on FB https://www.nytimes.com/topic/company/facebook-inc.

If you want something specific to compare, just take a look at the headline/subtitle which about as far as most people get in any article.