andrestan

These are almost exactly my thoughts as well coming from a 2015 MBP. I would only add that for me, I actually like the new keyboard. The low/firm travel of the keys is actually preferable for me. I felt like the old keyboards were "mushy". That's obviously a personal preference, however.

Sure, that's possible but then you're just dealing with relatively blind speculation. I would assume there's no issues on the investment side unless there's strong reason to believe there is.

Primarily, from my understanding, it's related to diminished permitting and (most importantly) very lax zoning laws.

Stock market "correction" != recession.

It's also not even remotely clear to me that a plot of 500 of the largest corporations in the US SHOULDN'T be growing extremely/exponentially fast.

RMarkdown and Knitr are dramatic improvements in terms of final outputs and VC relative to notebooks. Notebook believers (Satan worshippers, imho) would suggest that notebooks are best for developing in and not primarily made for use as final outputs.

"people" aren't but you are able to for them? What makes you so much better than the workers at Amazon?

Citation needed. This makes no sense. There's always going to be heterogeneity in output per worker in every role. Amazon pays for a baseline of expected output and wants to ensure that within a role they can manage to capture those workers whose productivity will exceed that. To do so, they provide performance bonuses. Not everyone will get the performance bonuses. Amazon is willing to pay the bonuses because the increased output is worth the increased cost. This race to the bottom isn't at all aligned with reasoning and could only happen in a monopsony which Amazon is obviously not.

For white collar roles, we don't claim performance tied compensation will lead to this, but you do here. Why?

Possibly, but generally the difference is one of power structure. With OSHA, workplace safety laws are put in place to protect workers from the tyranny of their need for wages. People need to work and therefore their workplaces should pose a maximum amount of risk that society defines as reasonable. What's at stake here is not the general safety environment of the employee but rather the amount of effort the employee VOLUNTARILY chooses to exert. Who are we to define how much effort an employee chooses to exert? Who are we to define incentives that encourage a worker to exert more effort? None of this seems reasonable to me.

I'm not taking an absolutist view at all. I was asking questions challenging a blanket statement without any supporting evidence that the workers or society or some very broad concept's welfare was improved by removing performance based incentives. I don't even make a positive statement at all.

These incentives are totally and completely voluntarily pursued by the individual workers. It doesn't appear in anyway that these incentives present greater danger or risk to the worker beyond the worker's own choice to increase effort and therefore whatever risk is increased comes from voluntary effort within the confines of the job. Sure, society makes rules around workplace safety (many of which can be reasonably debated) but those are not made in the context of how much effort a worker puts into their role but rather the conditions within which the worker's role places them. The difference here is in the power balance. The view society takes around safety rules is that we don't want a worker coerced into a scenario by the tyranny of their need for wages that is greater than a reasonable level of risk. That's fine, but that's not what's at stake here. These are workers who have opted into roles, in work environments that aren't exorbitantly risky and are then incentivized to increase effort beyond expected baseline with bonuses. The person I responded to claimed that the removal of these was good without any evidence or reasoning. Do you claim that similar performance bonuses in white collar careers are similarly amoral?

I would note that the person I replied to explicitly stated that the removal of performance bonuses was good without stating any evidence for such. In polite societal debate, I've never in my life seen someone suggest that a person stating naked opinions on the benefits or costs of a scenario shouldn't be challenged to provide evidence for their statements let alone seen someone suggest that asking for evidence or reasoning is not only inappropriate but should instead be provided by the challenger. Very strange.

Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?

It was a really short doc and I didn't see it answer this question at all. Where do you see it answering it?

I think if you compare R's tidyverse to Julia, you aren't at all in Julia's wheelhouse. Julia's value comes from algorithm development primarily, not from interacting with data.frame type objects. If you really want to speed up that, use data.table in R. It'll provide you with the fastest data.frame implementation around.

This is fair. I don't have a ton of heat issues but they could allow me to easily bump fan speed earlier on in the process of heating up. Would be a welcome addition.

As an alternative, I personally love the keyboard of the 2018 Macbooks and I'm not sure I'm aware of dramatically better CPUs that could be put inside of them? Certainly my new 13" with the upgraded CPU is fantastic. I would like a better GPU, but I can use an external GPU if needed. The disk speed is I think literally unparalleled, the screen is fantastic, the touchpad is the best in class, the T2 chip provides great security... I quite like my upgrade from my early 2015 13".

There are plenty of public companies that reach a steady state. What happens for those companies is their PE ratios shrink, they start paying out dividends and their expectation is to be a big lumbering giant whose valuation isn't expected to have dramatic swings based on outsized expected future earnings. What happened here is not "Wall Street" saying that Twitter must die, it's saying "Hey, your newly expected future earnings are no longer able to justify your prior valuation and therefore here's your new valuation based on all currently available information".

They're only unsustainable if the employee's productivity is stagnant. If one year of experience increases an employee's productivity then you can more than happily increase their pay by greater than inflation.

Are those really the people you fear the most?

Wow! I didn't realize that! Thanks for telling me. Very unfortunate given how much I value the service :(

It's not xenophobic to want or expect a country to protect its IP from a country known to openly flout such rules.

I would specify that you're actually a founder of The Lobby, because otherwise I thought this post was spam until I clicked into your user page.

That's untrue. Uber lost huge amounts of market share due to the scandals in 2017.

A great example of an executive who has led the rapid development of a business but drastically needed more mentorship would be Travis Kalanik formerly of Uber. Running a large and successful company well is much, much more than just generating revenue and valuation.

Most likely credibility, publicity, connections and mentorship that major VCs provide.

Maybe it's a part of _your_ problem but I don't think it's a part of _the_ problem. What OP said is correct. Democrats continue to escalate and promote legislation that is deeply invasive.

Yup and then some other proportion are actually people you know/are friends with. You probably occasionally reach out to the ones you know/are friends with and ignore those who language you don't speak in the countries you've never been to.

All of this is of course a designed test to see how accurate the model is, to see how ordering of suggestions influences behavior, to see effects of noise, etc.

They aren't stupid and they aren't bad at their jobs. It's just a test.

The magical part where it solves all of our problems with magic.

"enforce its commercial appropriation of European culture, history and stories"

How do you actually mean by this? It seems to me that the vast majority of big Hollywood movies are of US origin and not European. For example see here, http://www.businessinsider.com/highest-grossing-movies-of-20... where only Beauty and the Beast could argued is "appropriation of European culture". If anything, it seems like the EU not enforcing copyrights is an attempt by the EU to itself commercially appropriate US culture. The US populace generally isn't spending its money on imported films from the EU. The reverse on the other hand happens quite a bit.

Which news story about Uber makes invasion of privacy seem like a top-down policy?

Even by your source, US GDP PPP per capita is quite significantly higher than most European countries. Most larger European countries are ~75% of the US as a rule of thumb.

Irrelevant to his original point. That Southerners do the same does not justify San Franciscans doing it as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque