bicknergseng

Is it really a poor choice to buy a house? Should people have known that banks were intentionally misleading them? The banks are the ones that should have been telling potential homebuyers that they weren't qualified, but they weren't doing that. Yes, the banks were also incentivized to make that kind of loan, but creating the derivative products that intentionally obscured the high risk of those loans and reselling those products as "low risk" derivatives is definitely on the banks and ratings agencies.

I disagree. What if it were a company like Amazon that operates with over 100 billion in revenue but less than a billion in income (many years actually ending up red)? Would 500 million an appropriate fine for, say, willingly misleading consumers about billions of dollars in fraudulent items? If anything, I'd argue income should be the irrelevant number in a scenario like this, though the only numbers that really should matter are ones based on the magnitude of the damage the wrongdoing causes.

> the fines are absolutely significant and do change behavior at the banks Is there any evidence of this?

> It is a typical human response to want to crush them under your boot into oblivion, but I think counter-productive. Maybe, but I'd argue penalizing one of the major creators of a global financial crisis with a fine that doesn't even cause them to go into red for _one_ year is even worse. Fines all accounted for, GS profited off of the crisis, no executive lost their job, and the behavior that caused millions to lose homes and pensions continues on almost totally unchanged. The human response is to want justice served, and this isn't it.

Imagine if bank robbers were penalized by taking 4/5ths of the profit from only one bank robbery, then released to continue robbing banks.

There is an uncanny valley for book to screen adaptations. Lynch's Dune is just far enough out of the bottom of that valley that I can enjoy it as an incredibly expensive, overproduced sci-fi movie based on the Herbert universe by the same name.

If I can double down on the mistake though, I'd be concerned if someone who didn't feel like learning how JSX works tried to dive into immmutables and combinators :D.

Thanks for react-hyperscript-helpers! Feels like react-native in a good way.

I've been using JSX since React 0.4. React's greatest strength is its simplicity. You can read all of React's documentation in 20 minutes. There's hardly any learning curve compared to the larger JS frameworks out there. It's all just JS*--no "logic-less-ish-kinda-sorta" template for loops, or two way data bindings, or figuring out when to render.

I don't think JSX is the terrible problem the hyperscript people make it out to be, but I think it might be time for it to retire. While JSX is as mild as learning curves come, it's still a learning curve. It still requires transpilation. It requires the extra characters. To reframe the conversation, does it make sense for the learning curve to be "it's HTML-ish with caveats like camelcasing but it works like JS" or "it's a collection of functions that generate HTML that are named for the HTML tag they generate."

I'm also really interested in the "but it makes sense to designers" argument. Is that actually true? Are there designers out there who understand JSX but wouldn't understand well formatted hyperscript? I feel like that's saying "yah I get ERB but HAML doesn't make any sense."

Again, I don't think this is a big enough deal for the amount of attention it gets paid. I'd love to see the React team bring in first class hyperscript-like syntax that is 100% JS, but it's hardly a reason to not use React.

[1] https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/jsx-in-depth.html

Just thinking it _should_ be much harder to compel individuals to do something like this than it is to compel a corporation.

There really needs to be some concept of a commit group, one or more commits (probably the diff in commits from one branch to another) that are packaged together so that they can be addressed as one object instead of trying to keep track of a whole bunch of commit hashes. Merging a commit group is revertible and trivially cherry picked across branches. This addresses one of the weirdest behaviors in git: the rebase squash. We want commits to be understandable and usable, but that probably assumes the committer either held off committing or rewrote history to make it seem like things were written correctly the first time. It seems to me like the whole purpose of an scm is to keep track of history, whether it's the neatified, readable feature/branch merges or an individual git user's frantic, probably unorganized development progress.

[1]http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=20389...

If you have a large, complex web application that integrates data from many different sources, then an API aggregator or view model is essential.

GraphQL is not an attempt to move the datastore clientside.

If your datastore exists in your server side rendering application. I would say that "chaotic front end needs" exist in applications that require data from multiple data sources: many different APIs and datastores that need to be independently queried. If that is true, is there really a big difference between having a server side or client side view model that wraps that complexity?

>No deductions for any special interest.

>I'm not a huge fan of subsidies either, but if you really think you need to "make it easier" for some vital or up and coming industries, then you could give them some subsidies for a while.

Er.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think determining what is "good" science and what is "bad" science is out of the reach of most people, let alone people who understand the scientific process. There's also often more than one conclusion to be drawn from any data, as well as the difficulty in gathering sufficient data or even knowing whether the data gathered is enough to provide any kind of accuracy. I think the "who paid for it" question has been used more and more try and provide more context (sometimes useful, sometimes harmful) into scientific or psuedoscientific conclusions... of course it gets misused as a non-sequitur just like everything else in rhetoric.

Again, not saying it's right, just trying to provide the context for _why_ people might use financial motives to judge scientific merit.

I mean... $8.99 is already 10% of the $89.99+ that you'd have to pay to get a cable subscription with premium channels and HBO, but I think this is still an interesting argument. Does make you think about the power Netflix holds though: little stopping them from expanding services and prices until they are the new old cable company. Personally, I think even Netflix will eventually have to do what people have been demanding from the cable companies: break services into more a la carte (but still all you can eat) options.

Yes, I know this monetizes what used to be free in a way and maybe goes against the "spirit" of open source, but practically speaking it feels like it'd be a huge win win for the open source community and small to medium sized government projects in general.

TL;DR: tsu.co spams Facebook. Facebook brings the banhammer in the same way they ban every spammy app that does the same thing today, including removing posts of a lady who draws dogs and links to her tsu.co account. Tsu tries to play the victim.

Nothing to see here folks.

Would a celebrity endorsement be a dressed up pig? The going rate for a Kardashian tweet is absurd. But how would it be "fair" if they were disallowed from tweeting if everyone else could.

I think it's impossibly complex and nuanced, and trying to paint this kind of activism as equal to corporate and individuals buying elections is blatantly disregarding that complexity. There goal is to balance the contributions of individuals and special interest groups in a way that no single party is able to grossly tilt the process in a way that harms it. What that means in the real world is incredibly complicated and to be determined, but I can't see individual volunteering of time and skill as being the same as individuals volunteering millions of dollars.

12k is a small sum of money in SF. Assuming the founders don't want to live together in a studio, looking at >5k month in just rent. Other costs of living are also high. This leaves almost nothing for any actual start up costs.

Makes some sense if you're 22 and have no dependents, but 12k wouldn't be persuasive for a Bay Area founder with a family.