Did Ray DeGiorgio skip his ethics classes while earning his certified engineering degree? Did he further to wear his iron ring on the day he approved this part?
I'm trying to understand how all these safeguards failed.
15 karma · joined April 18, 2015
I'm trying to understand how all these safeguards failed.
Edit: actually it seems like they plan to rent it out to people funded by grants money and government contracts: Pegasus plans to rent the facility out to parties interested in conducting large-scale tests, and they’re anticipating demand.
But in any case, H1-B visas can lower the wages of engineers without H1-B holders earning less than Americans. It's just like any import. The import itself doesn't have to be sold for cheaper, it's just that the presence of the import lowers the price via competition, so that both the import and the local good are cheaper than the price before importing started.
As a consequence [of our hypothesis], people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).
The only reason to limit immigration is externalities. For example, Israel has very open immigration for Jews. It does not allow open immigration for African refugees because they believe it would have a negative impact on their society. For some strange reason, other nations are fearful of stating the same thing, but they clearly have something like this in mind when they limit immigration.
Cheap labor is a net positive. The only valid reason to oppose immigration (and I think it is very valid) is the negative social externalities that immigration causes.
If you make money "squarely" as described in I-IV, then you have created some value. Cashing out in section V is simply consuming that value.
All we can say (given the assumptions in I-IV) is that the person was a net positive (or zero) for the Congolese economy.
The technical mistake that the author makes is not realizing that adding value to the Congolese economy means increasing the total amount of physical wealth in the economy. When the person cashes out their yacht, they are simply exchanging cash for the physical wealth they helped create.
I don't think you can logically say that I-IV are "libertarian twaddle" and that V "brings it home", because V is predicated on I-IV being true. If you're interested in the theoretical basis behind "econ 101" I suggest you look into general equilibrium theory.
My only reservation was the artificial 10% interest rate. The current interest rate is 0%. Over the last 100 years interest rates averaged 5%. This is a concern to me because people on the Right tend to fetishize compound interest rates, while MMM seems to focus on true fundamentals.
See also the #cancelcolbert controversy[0]. Imagine if this had been any "oppressed" group instead.
[0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-campaign-to-canc...
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/27...
My position is that even with the current welfare system, technologies that increase productivity, but make some people unemployed, are still good from a utilitarian perspective. The trickle down effect (including through the existing welfare system), which benefits the entire poor population, makes up for the negative effect on the newly unemployed.
EDIT: as always, I have no problem with downvotes for my other opinions, but it's really sad to see downvotes for economic orthodoxy. If anyone reading this downvoted me, please educate yourself on mainstream economic thinking. You don't want to be remembered as an anti-vaccination advocate.
And the topics (the problematic ones of which I listed) clearly suggest they are anticipating similar content. If you want to defend both hackathons, please do so, but don't try to win this argument on an irrelevant technicality.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet...
[1] http://www.wired.com/2013/03/richards-affair-and-misogyny-in...
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-apologizes-for-cringe...
That's precisely my point. I don't think that it's ok that we have one set of standards for sex-deprived male cisgender nerds, and another for women of various ethnicities.
Saying that sexual content is inappropriate during all work/industry related events seems overly broad to me. After all, our industry is diverse and even includes respected companies like pornhub. There are bound to be people in this industry who are very comfortable with sexual content, and it's not my place to judge them for expressing that in an appropriate context.
That just highlights more hypocrisy. If you are against objectification, how can you consider the porn industry respectable?
Here is the content I thought would be considered offensive it it didn't come from a progressive source (repeated from [1]):
Here are some examples from the previous New York hackathon [2]:
Sexual content:
Golden Bitcoin Pasties, Focus Tools, Collaborative Fuck Bike, E.T. Strapon, Sado-Masochistic Macrame Planter, Tinder For Babies, "ok glass, vomit"
Making fun of mental health/development issues:
Stupid Font
Body shaming and objectification:
Intellectual Babes Calendar
And here are some prize categories in the current hackathon that are similarly offensive:
Peter Thiel, Scatological APIs, Targetting The "Hikikomori" Space
[0] http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-apologizes-for-cringe...
And if you check out the hackathons website [0] and the previous hackathon [1], they are showcasing exactly the offensive content that I was describing in my post.
[0] http://stupidhackathon.github.io/ [1] http://www.stupidhackathon.com/
Here are some examples from the previous New York hackathon [0]:
Sexual content (ordinary nerds would be told that any sexual content is inappropriate during work/industry related events):
Golden Bitcoin Pasties, Focus Tools, Collaborative Fuck Bike, E.T. Strapon, Sado-Masochistic Macrame Planter, Tinder For Babies, "ok glass, vomit"
Making fun of mental health/development issues:
Stupid Font,
Body shaming and objectification:
Intellectual Babes Calendar
And here are some prize categories in the current hackathon that are similarly offensive:
Peter Thiel, Scatological APIs, Targetting The "Hikikomori" Space
According to mainstream economics, jobs are not an externality (although they are during a recession). The total amount of money to go around after an efficiency increasing change, will be greater. With taxation, this means that in theory everyone can be made better off. In practice, the truckers will be worse off, but you could at least arrange taxes so that the percentage of people earning less than X decreased, for all X.
Then the only argument left is that the change is somehow unfair to truckers. But that viewpoint unfairly privileges the status quo.
One thing that is true is that the adjustment period will be hard.
EDIT:
[0] What I meant was that it is as if organizations like this hackathon have some kind of certification that allows them to have this kind of content, without being attacked by the social justice movement. E.g. if Microsoft had sexual content at one of its conferences, or organized a "fun" conference with sexual content, they would be immediately attacked and forced to apologize. My claim is that having progressive politics and being implicitly endorsed by the progressive community, acts like a kind of certification.
I read the article, my point was that you can't just ignore animal cruelty issues, or relegate their discussion to articles on artificial meat.