eksu

I feel like there isn’t much ‘clash’ (debate term) between what you’re saying and Ben Thompson’s article.

Ben isn’t attacking the concept of Net Neutrality, he’s instead attacking Title II classification. Ben puts forward a few arguments.

First, he starts off with an offensive piece of matter, that regulatory burden from the 2015 Title II classification has a cost, and that cost is felt innovators who want to enter the market and by everyone who’s deprived of those potential services.

This directly removes small businesses chance to WIN — the ‘entire point of net neutrality’ as you put it.

Secondly, Ben attacks the notion that things in our pre-2015 status quo were bad enough to warrant Title II classification and the regulatory harms he outlined. He does this by showing that no significant harm existed before 2015, and by showing that the regulation has no solvency.

Ben shows three examples of net neutrality issues resolving themselves in the free market before these regulations were in place, showing that these harms were already in check. Then, even better than just a listicle of past cases, he gives you a mechanism that disincentives companies from violating net neutrality. Because of their fixed costs, they’re not in the market of alienating users.

Small businesses still don’t have the chance to WIN — the ‘entire point of net neutrality’ — in 2015 regulation because more harm is caused by zero rating, which isn’t affected by the 2015 classification.

You make a claim that ‘the rules Ajit Pai wants in place’ would allow Walmart to buy out Amazon at the ISP level.

Again, this is an example of something that the status quo wouldn’t have allowed to happened. You’re ‘postulating about future harms and foregone opportunities’ and then creating policy, but we already have a robust system to stop this behavior. FCC complaints like Vonage & Madison River solve, anti-trust solves, and our media ready-and-willing to raise a ruckus solves again.

I should also add that Ajit Pai isn’t proposing rules, he’s proposing removing rules, and going back to pre-2015 internet days. If the worst example you can come up with is a hypothetical Amazon vs Walmart, instead of a literal example, even though we lived in that world for 25 years, I think that speaks volumes.

I can’t tell if you’re talking about the FCC promising Forbearance with Title II classification, or if you’re talking about ISPs.

Who is to decide the direction of our shared, aligned economy and development? Why is this alignment preferable to a more competitive free market or a command economy (China)?

If you want to brand basic income in a way for conservatives, advocate for a Negative Income Tax (Friedman's idea) as an alternative to welfare bureaucracy.

That would be a great way to destroy the ICC, and sorta fuckup the whole world in a lot of ways.

Those are some great points - I didn’t think much about sporadic work. UBI is probably easier to implement administratively than trying to change check sizes every week.

I think though politically it’s easier to stomach if you’re of a leaning that sees government giving as a good thing.

I think politicaly you have a hard case saying we’re also giving sama and bill gates these checks (even if their effective rate still puts them under at the end of the year!)

I would hope the incentives problem would be solved with a very gradual tax curve rather than brackets for NIT.

You don’t have a hard and fast threashold but have it taper off on a progressive curve.

No.

Universal Basic Income is ‘Universal’, meaning there’s no qualification to receive it. Basically it’s flat and it goes to everyone equally, rich and poor.

A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a smooth curve or line.

Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax?

I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

The government should be providing a sense of community and belief system?

I don’t think this was all about money. Raja had been trying to run Radeon Technologies Group like an independent company and pushing for separation from AMD for a while. HardOCP did a good piece on this -> https://hardocp.com/article/2016/05/27/from_ati_to_amd_back_...

I think the recent Intel + AMD custom chip was probably the last thing Raja did before he got pulled RTG got the reins put back on and now he’s hoping ship to peruse what he’s wanted all along. To work with more independence.

Surely we shouldn’t investigate every country in the world in regards to every election we’ve had?

I never used twitter before the 2016 election. I don't use twitter to communicate with people I know in real life, but I know my father and I both started using it as a place we can put on a pseudoname and talk about politics openly, without having to worry about bothering friends & family like on facebook.

Both my own and my father's accounts were classified as "exhibit patterns conducive to a political bot or highly moderated account tweeting political propaganda.", which is in a sense kinda accurate because they are solely political outlets for us. I think this is a feature, not a bug, and probably the only use case the service has provided for me.

I feel like twitter, tumblr, and other semi-anonymous networks have always been pretty political. I think the only thing that has changed is that people see twitter as news - stations actively report about what's going on on twitter - and that online political discussions are no longer dominated by liberal / social justice voices.

Twitter and other social media networks should be seen as common carriers and not interfere with what people post. Twitter should be able to exercise their free speech on their own twitter account, not by censoring other users.

It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.

Yes, I think you have it correct for the US.

The US is also very unique in which it’s the only country that expects you to pay taxes on money earned overseas as well.

I am more familiar with American tax law than Norwegian but I have huge doubts it’s illegal to have money offshore. Having money in more than one country is a pretty good hedge. When the Greek banks shut down and imposed atm restrictions, only Greeks with foreign bank accounts were able to access their money for example.

I’m searching but if you find anything on what constitutes ‘hiding’ in Norwegian tax law as it relates to offshore accounts it would be much appreciated.

I have a feeling ‘hiding’ is another one of those spirit of the law / unwritten societal rules sort of thing in this context.

Allowing people to keep their own money does raise the standard of living for all parties involved, but that’s a marginal benefit and not the core ‘argument’ why the wealthy should be allowed to keep what they make.

Why should the government, or the masses, or society be allowed to take people’s money at all in the first place?

Isn’t the underlying assumption when talking about (air quotes) “cheating” taxes is that taxes are supposed to be redistributive?

If someone is following the letter of the law, how can they be cheating?

Well, they can be cheating if they are violating the ‘spirit’ of the law or some unwritten but generally accepted notion about the law. In this case, that assumption is that taxes should always always be progressive and redistributive, right?

That’s how it’s an alternate view point.

(Personally, I’m in favor of negative income tax, but I think Yaron Brook is a talented thinker and speaker. I did not know this book of his existed, and am glad it was brought up.)

Surely they could generate some interest with give aways and events?

Just tacking a question on here - when creating a student account, should I be setting my location to where I’m attending school or where I’m planning on being after graduating?

Looks like interviewing.io is tackling a big issue. :-)

I wanted to tack on here that even our agriculture has a huge environmental impact — nothing worse for biodiversity than how we’ve replaced animal habitats with fields of a single crop! And then pesticides etc.

I don’t know if it ever happen, but we really should support capture fisheries, fish farms, and captured game.

Properly Managed Captured Fisheries (Mostly more prosperous nations have well managed fisheries, outstanding fisheries would be in Alaska & New Zealand) allow us to extract protien we all need without destroying ecosystems. Same goes for captured game but that scales significantly worse.

Fish farms are in a unique position because unlike farming animals on land, it can be done without radically changing the part of the ocean the fish are farmed in.

I think recently there have been some problems with fish farms and antibiotic / illness spreading but I really think these can be overcome and that long term aquaculture would be the most environmentally conscious option. (In a similar position to electric cars today).

What’s the point if the other story has no discussion, other than to kill the topic again?

That’a great. I totally understand that. I just see people that dislike the actions but like the... personality?

I get it if you are a fan of Manning because you believe in the work Wikileaks does, but I don’t understand why institutions and individuals that have been largely critical of Wikileaks during the 2016 election cycle also characterize Manning as a hero (not referring to Harvard but mostly the media). Perhaps we need more / different Transgender role models.

This has been how most Apple News stories have worked for a while.

I wonder if it's the same page generation for Apple News as AMP?

Did you even read the article?

Certbot defaults to a path on your system that requires root, and sets permissions so non-root users can't look at your private keys.

If you would like to use it without root/sudo, you can pass flags changing the directory it uses. For example:

    certbot --logs-dir ~/SSL --work-dir ~/SSL --config-dir ~/SSL

Required jobs scale very very poorly with population. I wouldn't be surprised if the rate was something less than 1 additional person in the workforce for every 10 additional people in the population.

Perhaps this open source project was posted on Hacker News not only to garner users, but contributors?

As a Seattle Norwegian I think it's too bad what's happened to Ballard! At least we still have our parade, although it's not as nice as it used to be (a lot more drinking and non-norwegian stuff) and my family isn't sure if we'll still go.