danhak

If streaming does indeed come to overtake theaters as the primary distribution method of new releases going forward, I'm curious about how significantly this will upend the industry due to direct competition from classic films.

For example, the way I purchase and consume a book is identical whether it is a classic or a new release. And my reading habits skew heavily toward classics.

Same for the way I consume music, and I listen to releases from the 60's - 2000's just as much as new stuff.

Increases in housing and healthcare costs have been absolutely dwarfing wage growth in most major metros, for decades now.

This "it's your fault for majoring in gender studies" meme is a red herring. There was a time in the U.S. where one parent could support a family and purchase a house while the other stayed at home with the kids. With nothing more than a high school diploma.

The millennials also made the terrible decision to enter the workforce during the worst economic crisis in a generation. And then to continue working for stagnant wages while costs of housing and healthcare skyrocket.

I’m not sure I follow. Does the thermostat become otherwise unusable if there’s a network outage?

No one is perfect because everyone has a different definition of “perfect.”

Plenty of folks find his trolling and irreverence endearing.

This seems like it might introduce a different perverse incentive for people to remain in their homes indefinitely even if they’d prefer to downsize / move. Might further exacerbate supply / demand issues.

The criticisms are valid, but this article does not address the issue of audience and community, which is everything.

I post on Reddit and HN rather than a private blog because that is where my thoughts will be seen and responded to.

Is there any place you draw the line? Should 9/11 truthers be given equal time? Holocaust deniers? QAnon / Pizzagate conspiracists? Obama birthers?

Media is complicit in this, not the victim. By presenting "both sides" equally in many contexts, they give the false impression that the case of the denialists is equally strong.

Just because there are two sides does not mean there are two equally valid sides. And presenting them as such is a form of bias. Quite a pernicious one.

This is common practice in all sorts of stories. Journalists are trained to solicit / include some counterpoint or naysaying voice, no matter the topic. Even if the story is otherwise uncontroversial.

I hope this isn't too harsh, but I really struggle to see why Meg Whitman continues to be hired in these roles and what she brings to the table.

eBay was the world's biggest online marketplace while Amazon was still selling books. eBay could've been Amazon, and perhaps would have been, given a leader with the right vision.

Her tenure at HP was disastrous. And now the Quibi debacle. Can someone please clue me in? I don't know as much as I'd like about her career.

> And that's before we get to the point that corporations, as a practical matter, are formed under state laws, so why is the federal government giving them rights?

That's an interesting point. Marriages are formed under state law as well, and it doesn't seem controversial to me that the federal government grants that relationship special privileges.

We're gonna fix healthcare...because...technology. Let's throw in some buzzwords like "machine learning" into our one-pager for good measure.

As if nobody in this $2.5 trillion industry has heard about software before.

Healthcare costs and waste are not a technology problem. They are a policy and incentives problem.

In public health, mortality and morbidity are often expressed in units of DALY (Disability-adjusted life years) or QALY (Quality-adjusted life years).

Because COVID deaths are being predominantly borne by the old, and deaths due to war are predominantly borne by the young, I would be very curious to see the equivalent charts in DALYs.

In other words, not "what is the number deaths" but "what is the expected number of healthy years of life lost."

Algorithms are designed by people. People who have--whether benevolent / well-intentioned or not--particular values, agendas and biases.

The law does define the concept of “protected class.” It includes race, religion, gender and yes age (but only above age 40).

I look forward to reading the book this excerpt is from. And despite my waning attention span and increased demands on my time, I do indeed always feel a greater sense of calm and perspective when I unplug and read a book--particularly one that has stood the test of time.

Books remind me what substantive, rich, thought-provoking writing feels like. As opposed to the mostly shallow, pithy and often sarcastic or angry content that passes for writing on the internet.

Yes, my experience with CBT very much leads me to believe that shame is a highly destructive emotion, more likely to cause someone to withdraw and disengage from life than to promote lasting positive change in behavior.

There is a growing social consensus that all body types are beautiful and should be celebrated.

This is obviously a very delicate issue. We surely don't want people to be shamed or ashamed for being overweight. Nothing good comes from shame.

But there is serious mortality and morbidity associated with obesity. And as a society, we don't seem to have much of a problem shaming people who fall into other risk categories such as smoking or drug use.

Expressing an opinion or a position is not the same thing as having a bias.

Anecdotally, a lot of the sorts of people I've met who would subscribe to SciAm are not particularly politically conscious and subscribe to the "enlightened centrism" / "both sides" kind of philosophy.

Other major tax advantage is zero tax on up to $250,000 in gains ($500K for married couples)

Generational wealth. Ask yourself why there are so few entrepreneurs—of any race—who can take big risks without a family safety net to fall back on.

Now realize that slavery was only two generations ago, Jim Crow / legal segregation ended with this generation, and mass incarceration and systemic racism are ongoing.

> Is the market worth more now in Yen, Indian Rupees etc? Or are people just willing to part with more USD (that asset specifically) for the underlying asset (the stock)?

Those are...pretty easy questions to answer. The dollar is down about 10% since its March high compared to a basket of other major currencies: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy

I like this idea very much. "Find your niche," in other words?

You are benevolent in these ways. Most people are not. If most people behaved the same way as you, tragedy of the commons and moral hazard would not be real things. But they are real things. A successful policy will take that into account, not just hope for everyone to be benevolent.

Vegetarians are a minority. Most omnivores would consider it a sacrifice to shift to a vegetarian diet.

Changing the world's mind on this is a losing strategy for sustainability.

Society will never overcome this tragedy of the commons. Only a few will make personal sacrifice for the common good.

Only a market-driven solution will be viable. We need to find sustainable alternatives that are better than the foods they replace. Just like we need electric cars that are better than internal combustion engines.

> And the income tax is by far the highest, currently at 13.3%

If you’re earning over $1,000,000 per year, yes.

SF median income is below 100K.

But...that’s who this article is discussing: homeowners who are listing their properties for sale in higher numbers.

Property taxes in California are among the lowest in the nation.