defertoreptar

That's not to say there aren't differences in communication styles. Generally speaking, an extrovert will do better in a meeting environment and is comfortable talking out loud and talking through a problem. An introvert is more comfortable with a one-on-one interaction, thinks to themselves before speaking about the problem, and prefers communicating it through text/email.

Introverts can have a disadvantage in social perceptions not because they are actually a jerk but instead because they come off as a jerk due to lacking the practice and confidence of social interaction.

Amazon is expected to be good sports and take the loss exactly because that is their business strategy. Their mission statement is something like, "we seek to become Earth's most customer centric company." If they didn't have a relaxed refund policy, they wouldn't have the reputation they currently enjoy.

Contrary to what you've said, they do have public trust: just in the form of "Amazon does right by the customer." It's trust, not morality, that forms these expectations.

For the trustworthy customers who are equally concerned about their reputation, they wouldn't dare "cheat the system" by exploiting a pricing glitch. For them, there is symmetry of expectations.

The asymmetry only happens for customers who do not care about their reputation for being trustworthy. This can go the other way as well: an unscrupulous company who takes advantage of naive and trusting customers.

There is already a discount for businesses that provide value to the community: increased demand and the profit that follows. The underlying principle here is that people only buy things they want. When you indirectly buy things for them by taxing them and then using those tax dollars as a proxy for demand, you're only insuring that businesses thrive that are perceived to provide value (but not ones that actually provide value according to real customer demand).

> The officials see this as a feature: real estate is just a huge jobs program, and the fact that they have to do it again just means more jobs on the future.

And in the meantime they're scratching their heads trying to figure out why their tertiary sector isn't growing.

What do we think the author means when he uses the word "perfect"? He uses the words "in denial" and "deluded." He's implying that everyone's childhood contains some flaws that make later psychological introspection beneficial.

In that sense, he's obviously right. That's why "nobody's perfect" is such a bland truism, just as "no one's childhood was perfect."

So the real problem comes down to equivocation. The author means one thing when he says "perfect" and the reader understands it as another: "I had a lovely childhood, and it was filled with memories that I cherish, and it lacked any of those traumatic things you see on TV." Neither meaning refers to "perfect" in the sense that someone can get a 1600 on their SAT test.

Sounds like they're addressing this concern:

> These caps, including the agents’ peak APM, are more restrictive than DeepMind’s demonstration matches back in January, and have been applied in consultation with pro players.

The idea is to see if the bot is playing as smart as a human. To measure this, you must factor out any advantages not available to humans. This is valuable feedback when developing an intelligent agent, but that doesn't mean you can't remove those artificial handicaps once going to production with something like self-driving cars.

Edit:

Alphastar does already factor out reaction time:

“We measured how quickly it reacts to things,” Silver said. “If you measure the time between when AlphaStar perceives the game. From when it observes what’s going on, then has to process it, and then communicate what it chooses back to the game. That time is actually closer to 350ms. That’s on the slow side of human players.” https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/24/alphastar-deepmind-beats-...

I will say that I agree that the prolonged, near-zero interest rates is an issue. It's one less tool we'll have at our disposal once the going gets tough. We shouldn't slow the raising of interest rates, or reducing the balance sheet for that matter, while we're in a bull market.

That said, they didn't really point to anything that compelling to make me worry about 2020. At least, they didn't any more than I was worried in 2019, 2018, or 2017. They say the initial benefits of the tax cut will wear off, but doesn't the structure itself not change until at least 10 years? Are they saying that the tax cuts are a bandaid for an underlying issue? If so, what's the underlying issue?

> It is another step from collectivism where everyone is paying for their own icecream to the next level of individualism.

Eh, do you have that backwards? Wouldn't we classify "everyone paying their own" as individualistic?

On a side note, we've always had "influencers." They were the celebrities that appeared on ads. This is just the internet-enabled, more granular manifestation of that phenomenon.

If anything, I implied that DDG was worse in general, but only better when it came to certain political subjects. I take your meaning as rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.

Several months ago, I read an article on Reddit about how the USPS was raising prices. In the comments, the discussion was of why it was cheaper to ship some goods from China than it was to ship from state to state. I had recalled something about Trump taking some measure against this, but apparently at that time nothing had changed. I tried finding more info on Google, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. On DDG, I located an article from Newegg describing the UPU, and how these deals were established many decades ago and gave 3rd world countries at the time, such as China, a break. I then found another article from thehill.com that explained that Trump had begun the one-year notice of withdrawing from the UPU, but until then the rates would be the same.

On another occasion, I was in a thread that was talking about middle class wages, and I noticed that on Google, I could find many articles about how the middle class was shrinking. On DDG, I found some of those articles, but also found information on how if you control for inflation and hours worked, middle class wages actually increased since the 90s.

I can remember trying to recall details of political stories. I type the breadcrumbs into Google and am unable to find what I'm looking for. I then realized that I have better luck on certain subjects when I try duckduckgo, and I know it's not because they have a more mature search algorithm.

Shouldn't both be irrelevant to what you do in the boardroom? What you're saying makes it sound like it's not okay to marginalize women in the workplace, but is ok to marginalize gay women.

I can't speak for mooseburger, but I did a search, and it turned up some pretty shocking Wikipedia articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_rin...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_explo...

From Wikipedia:

> The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.

And I think you're missing the fact that you're not actually breaking any laws by telling people you're one race or another. Saying, "by law in the US she is considered white" implies there is some legal repercussion, which was likely cause for jumasheff's confusion. I could only imagine that happening if there was some sort of fraud involved.

> Irony is currently used as a conscious strategy by the extreme right. They know that it gets a pass from ordinary people. While permitting the sincere to organize in plain sight.

I have yet to see any platform that falls under the scope of "the far right" that hasn't been heavily criticized by every which way, no matter how ironic. What are you referring to exactly?

I thought it was an ad too, and would devalue those items compared to others because of that pretense.

Why? Because it's a similar pattern that we see on other websites: the "sponsored" content gets the top spots. The real content comes directly after.

There are numerous examples of Tetris clones out there that have not been targeted by the IP holders.

> What do you mean "trigger".

> If inflation (as measured by the Fed) increases and the Fed wants to lower it, they can decide to raise interest rates but it doesn't happen automatically.

That's what I meant.

Doesn't inflation also trigger interest rate increases? That's not good for payers of variable rate loans (mainly low credit and poor).

And doesn't the price of assets increase in lockstep with inflation? Those holding cash and bonds are the ones getting pinched during inflation.

> What else should you do with a store of value that you expect to appreciate in price because it has inflation going to 0?

It depends on the price. If the price if above what it's "real" value will be (after factoring in later deflation), then you'd sell it.

More or less, the distributors are all paying about the same when they load the gas onto the truck from the plant. The difference in cost comes from the additive mix. Some gas brands qualify as "top tier detergent gasoline," which some cars brands will recommend using.

> If you were compliant before, because you respected the users‘ privacy, the effort was relatively low.

Why? Don't you still have to build systems to be able to comply with user requests in a timely matter?

Unfortunately that won't work for everyone. There are some places, where 90% humidity is a regular occurrence.

Forced technology transfers and IP theft.

That's what I was wondering. After 82 cases, you'd think it'd be easier to just require vendors to have a license.

What are the key differences between a LTSE and a regular one?

I'd agree that throway's case was overstated. That said, Apple has built up its brand as being one of "quality" and "high end." It's a similar brand perception as Cadillac. If you have one, people assume you have the money to afford nicer things. That happens whether you bought because of that or not, and Apple knows this. If they start competing on price, they will sooner lose their luxury status.

> You responded to his first point about people electing to not work at all if the wage is too low. That's the contradiction to your point.

It only works as a contradiction in this case if Ford employees quit and stopped working altogether. If they tended to seek employment elsewhere, which I believe to be the case, then that makes my point.

Factory work was repetitive and monotonous. The Ford workers preferred to take work elsewhere, until Ford doubled wages. Had those other companies doubled wages as well, then why would they come back to Ford?

> If everyone getting minimum wage had their wage increased it would decrease the number of people who left the workforce entirely. The same effect would happen in for a case if all his competitors increased their wage too

This doesn't make sense to me. If employers didn't have enough staff, they would increase bottom wages in order to fill those positions rather than forgo potential profit and business health. If there is unemployment and bottom wages are low, then that says something about the labor market, not minimum wage. It means there is low demand for staff. Increasing minimum wage doesn't magically increase the number of open positions in the labor market.

> If all companies offered $.02 per hour, with little change in purchasing power, basically everyone would elect not to work

Yes, this seems obvious.

> And you can't look at economics in a vacuum

Agreed, as long as we acknowledge that we shouldn't use this truism as an excuse to sweep away every argument about economics.

Overall, I don't see how you've contradicted my point, which was that when Ford increased bottom wages, it worked as long as other competitors for its labor market did not increase their bottom wage in kind. It seems like you're just making a case against low minimum wage in general.

It affects everyone equally who would get minimum wage. If when Ford increased their minimum, every other company Ford competed for workers against also raised their minimum, then it wouldn't have the same retention effect.