defertoreptar

Either by tolerating some risk and investing locally or by buying some US Treasury bonds.

Within that context, negative income tax was sought to replace welfare, social security, Medicaid, etc. Is that the case with UBI?

I guess you're right, then, if it's truly always a result of user reporting and HN never overrides that. I know that's not the case for Reddit, so kudos to HN.

Large community sites need never censor anything, then. For any subject even slightly controversial, there will always be at least some users flagging/reporting to justify removing it.

Wouldn't you consider selective enforcement a type of censorship?

If all the discussion stayed within the confines of the company and away from headlines, and they never generated lawsuits, and HR never had to hear employees complain about how such and such had an argument with such and such, then I doubt anyone would mind.

It doesn't matter what the philosophically correct definition of politics is--what matters is reducing HR complaints, lawsuits, and negative headlines.

How do you "make it work" without someone agreeing to do the work?

If we shouldn't expect people to be compensated, then why even bring up a dollar amount in the first place? Are you justifying enslaving people in order to "make it work"?

Had to find an alternate source due to the paywall:

https://fortune.com/2019/08/21/google-deepmind-co-founder-le...

I imagine they'll have a disclaimer printed for this exact reason.

I was referring to the word "useful" within the context of the author's hypothetical goal, not the parent poster's (i.e. a strategy useful for making money opposed to sharing knowledge).

I got the feeling this was more of a case of "I did all this work for myself. Nothing useful came up, so here's what I found." The author may be ok with spending an hour sharing the findings, but doesn't want to spend more time than that.

The problem is that Twitter probably sees a lot of complaints to the tune of "but the other guy said the same kind of thing and he didn't get banned!"

If they want to enforce a policy consistently and not have to face constant complaints, then I don't think grandfathering in old violations after some arbitrary date is going to work.

Yep, I believe there is a way for sure. YouTube can evaluate users by how likely it is that their flag results in long term removal of a video. If a user cries wolf too many times or flags videos later marked as not controversial at all, then that user probably should not have flag powers.

Great solution that is not at all impractical in any way.

Most people live with others in the same home, and more than one person can "own" a camera. Sometimes when no one else is home, privacy is expected of an otherwise shared space. I imagine in those circumstances, it can be comforting to know that the camera is actually off when you want it to be.

Here's my low tech solution to random LEDs from electronics in my bedroom while I sleep: electrical tape.

I agree that credit is due to the wonderfully creative game designer, Mr. Pajitnov. I don't see this as contradictory to my point.

> So no, it's not an "abstract game with endless possibilities". Tetris is Tetris, a concrete game

While protecting their IP in a court of law, The Tetris Company successfully argued that it does not exhibit scènes à faire because it is a purely abstract game.

> Moreover, Xio does not dispute that Tetris is a purely fanciful game, meaning it has no grounding in the real world, unlike a video game simulating a karate match or a golf game. Therefore, the analyses in Data East and Incredible Technologies are largely inapplicable; the scènes à faire doctrine has little weight in instances such as this because there are no expressive elements “standard, stock, or common” to a unique puzzle game that is divorced from any real world representation.

> https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jer...

> you shouldn't just pick pieces at random, that's not how Tetris works nowadays.

It's a purely abstract game with endless possibilities for how it can be made. That's what makes it timeless. There's no reason you have to use bag randomizer in your own personal projects. That is, unless you feel some strange need to check off boxes to comply with what the current IP holders happen to prescribe at a particular moment in time.

In fact, there's an argument for using a memoryless randomizer: it maximizes variation, unpredictability, and increases challenge.

> would rather read people's stories about what happened to them. Recommended reading is useful too. Logic hardly matters, give me the data it's based on.

At which point, you're drawing a conclusion. I like to hear people's stories and firsthand experiences, too. They help us get into the shoes of someone else and get a new perspective. However, I take them for what they are: anecdotes. If we want to draw some conclusion or insight from the data, then we must apply reasoning.

> but in online forums we have a constant problem of people claiming expertise in things they just read about in the news and know hardly anything else about.

> I'm actually somewhat encouraged by people showing up and giving their credentials. Claiming group membership is a form of that, so I don't see it as being a bad thing in itself. The problem, if anything, is not showing similar respect for other people's credentials.

Do you think we should rely on people's "group membership" and/or credentials over the actual substance of their reasoning? There are many cons that go along with anonymous-ish online forums. In my view, one of its pros is that it forces people to face the actual argument without falling back on appeal to authority.

The only way he doesn't have a point is if Google thinks its company is significantly undervalued, in which case buybacks are smart. Their CEO, Sundar Pichai, gets a huge stock-based compensation, so you have to factor in how management has a large incentive to grow the stock value, but not necessarily in the long term (making buybacks desirable regardless of whether the company is actually cheap or not).

I wonder if it could be the difference between areas that rely more on agriculture vs areas that must rely on their tertiary sector (where education counts for more).

Currently 9% https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-t...

> It had a huge impact, reducing the people admitted to emergency centers, women in particular, and had a corresponding economic impact from lower healthcare costs. Driving through a few inches, as it turned out, was less dangerous than walking through the snow, particularly if one was pushing something like a baby carriage as well

Ok but what was the overall economic impact on the town? Did unemployment change? What did it do to population? The author makes it seem like there was no downside. Without more information, that seems dishonest.

We cannot evaluate that claim based on hypothetical figures. 10% claiming the Earth was flat would be a very biased sample in the real world. It would more likely be 98% and 99%, resulting in only 1% surprisingly popular.

Given how 10% of people responded "yes" and so few thought people would respond "yes," I would agree that "yes" is in fact surprisingly popular.

That implies that it has to do with genes in the first place. Perhaps there's an argument there. However, I would also consider that the size of an estate may grow, but not exponentially (at least not indefinitely). Yet, the size of a family tree does grow exponentially.

70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation. http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

90% is lost after that. https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth-barely-last...

The problem is that we're not leaving ourselves options for when things inevitably go bad. We need to unwind the balance sheet while it's possible, because otherwise we won't be able to deal with another 2008 the way we did.

I've learned that when I actually implement a process (and not just call from a library), that's when the idea really "clicks." Usually it's much simpler than I realized.

I think it has to do with how, in programming, everything can be decomposed to concrete terms. If something seems vague, then it's possible to follow the execution of the code to find out what is actually happening.

Written formulas can be very ambiguous. I get the feeling that authors prefer to leave out as much info as they can get away with just for the sake of having the formula look "elegant." Many times, it's assumed you know enough to fill in the gaps, and it can be frustrating when you don't know where to even find that info in the first place.