fredophile

Out of curiosity, what's the size of vectors you're using (# of dimensions) and what distance metric are you using? Euclidean?

I'm going to rephrase your position to make sure I understand it correctly. Please feel free to correct anything I get wrong below.

Tariffs result in higher costs to consumers in the short term due to the additional tax consumers have to pay. This extra tax is harmful to the economy. The reduction in economic growth is deflationary and sufficient to counter inflationary pressure from higher prices on tariffed goods. As a result, tariffs should lead to deflation or have at most a neutral effect on inflation.

Did I sum that up correctly?

I was able to find an article[0] showing job losses from Trump's first term tariffs but nothing concrete about inflation.

Despite not having concrete proof, I think there's a fairly plausible chain of events from tariffs to broader price increases. Trump's tariffs include a 10% tariff on Canadian oil and gas. If you're in a region that relies heavily on these things coming from Canada you're going to see prices go up on your monthly energy bills, fuel for your vehicle, etc. This also affects local businesses and directly increases their costs. Businesses can only absorb so much of an increase before they raise prices. Now you're able to buy even less between your increased monthly expenses and the higher prices in stores. This makes you go to your boss and ask for a raise just so you can keep up with what your purchasing power used to be. If your boss gives you that raise, the business sees their expenses go up again and may need to raise prices as a result.

In the scenario I described above, what step do you think won't happen that allows us to prevent higher energy prices from leading to inflation?

[0] https://carnegieendowment.org/china-financial-markets/2021/0...

Can you clarify the definitions you're using? How is inflation different from increasing prices?

When the talk about tariffs started I wondered why no one was doing something like this. With exporting there's a risk that people will find ways around it but infrastructure for power, oil, gas, etc takes years to build so it's not like the US has a viable short term alternative for some of these.

Do you think there are no costs to getting these things wrong?

If your boss fired you today and then called you up next week saying they'd made a mistake and offering you your old job back how charitable would you feel?

When funding for cancer research gets cut, do you think the studies that lost their funding can all suddenly pick up where they left off if funding comes back at some point in the future?

When jobs ensuring safety are cut, even if they're brought back, are you ok with the additional risk during the time period they're off the job?

I spend way more time troubleshooting than I do building new things. I'm a lead programmer on my team. I regularly hop on impromptu zoom calls to help people out with thorny problems or jump into slack conversations. I don't get a lot of focused time for building new stuff. I'm more valuable to my team keeping them running smoothly and enforcing standards that avoid some of the nastier troubleshooting.

That doesn't sound terrible but honestly I don't think DOGE has the right staffing to do this. All the DOGE employees I've heard about are very young and come from programming backgrounds. Do they have any accountants? Anyone with experience in auditing or logistics? At best, any attempt to do what you suggested would end up like a bad reality show and I wouldn't expect long term improvement.

They didn't say the entire workforce is essential and there are no redundancies. They said the way DOGE is approaching this isn't designed to effectively identify and deal with actual waste. There are already multiple instances of DOGE having to backtrack because they fired or tried to fire employees who are essential.

There are companies pursuing CAR-T for veterinary treatments that are driving the costs down. One example I'm aware of is LEAH Labs (https://leahlabs.com) that is working on using CAR-T to make affordable cancer treatments in dogs.

Full Disclosure: I am an investor in LEAH Labs.

Is that relevant to this discussion? I don't see how it impacts the fact that you're drawing unfounded conclusions based on a cherry picked data set. The percentage of times those phrases appear in this data set tell us very little about the overall situation for grant funding.

First, the dataset we're discussing doesn't prove what you're suggesting. We'd need to look at a much larger dataset that includes awarded grants without this language as well as proposals that failed to receive grants to see if this is really the case.

Second, is this a problem? Should all government grants have a strict goal of advancing science? Doesn't the government have a interest in spending money in ways that promote equitable outcomes?

I think you overstated the percentage of grants that include these "woke" terms. This dataset is going to be heavily biased towards grants that include lines like that. Without knowing what percent of total grants this dataset represents we don't have a good starting point to see how widespread this is. To get a really good sense of this, we'd need to also look at data from research proposals that didn't get funded.

I'm still not clear why you think this would be a good idea. Obviously you have opinions on what is "legitimate" in these situations. Can you explain more about this and how it wouldn't be a first ammendment violation to create such a law?

What "facts and circumstances" are we interested in? Your original post mentioned ending business relationships due to political stances. Did you mean the political stance of the advertisers, the platform hosting ads, some third party or parties, a combination of the above, or something I've missed?

Who decides what reasons are legitimate?

My uniformed guess is that this is profitable to Apple in the same way that money spent on lobbyists is profitable.

I looked into waste water heat recovery a few months back and it is a thing you can buy. You buy a special section of pipe that has a straight pipe with another pipe coiled around it. Some of the heat from the waste water gets transferred to the water coming in as they flow past each other in the pipes. They cost a few hundred bucks. I have no idea if the long term savings justify the cost (if you're looking purely at money for benefits).

That doesn't narrow it down. Who isn't on Facebook these days?

> > It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with.

> What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible.

It means the supreme court just gutted the agencies ability to make and enforce regulations. The agencies have lots of experts who know what they're supposed to be regulating they just aren't allowed to do that in many cases now. Unless congress writes things explicitly into law you can expect legal challenges to just about any regulation the agencies try to put forward.

> The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now?

Why do you think these two issues are opposed? The answer to weak and lax regulation isn't to remove the ability to regulate.

> Why are there no solutions?

What solutions are you proposing? Do you think your solutions have any chance of getting anywhere in the current political climate? Who benefits from the status quo and how much effort will they put in to block a solution?

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power.

What would such a law look like?

Let's pretend we're in congress and want to pass a law limiting pollution in lakes and rivers.

One option would be to have a bunch of experts tell us what we should explicitly ban and write those into the law. This option would mean we need to revisit the law every few years as the science changes and new harmful chemicals are developed or identified.

If instead we want the agency to be able to adapt to new situations, how do we word it in a way that won't be overturned? Congress is in charge of legislating. When does writing rules for what is and isn't pollution cross the line to legislating? Can congress turn any of that power over to executive branch agencies without a separation of powers argument coming up?

I have some views on this supreme court and believe they're driven by ideology and not a consistent legal framework. Even if you believe they are completely impartial how would you protect these laws against a future court that may not be?

I believe the median progression-free survival is the length of time where 50% of people are still free from progression. The numbers you mentioned would mean that we don't know how long that is for this treatment but it's definitely longer than 5 years. That sounds pretty good depending on the type of cancer and stage when treatment started.

What does 100 stolen credit card numbers cost?

The US government has a debt limit. The government is going to run out of options for not exceeding that limit in a few months unless it is raised. There are people in congress suggesting that they should let the limit get hit. If the debt limit is hit, do you e pectin the government to be able to pay out FDIC money in a timely manner?

In English that's correct but this is a common mistake for ESL people.

A major problem with arbitration is who pays for it. Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator. Arbitrators aren't stupid and know that if they rule against the employer too often the employer will hire someone else.

There probably isn't a handy pre-made list but there should be court filings that are relatively easy to search. Typically it would be something like Foo vs $xx,xxx since the seized money is on trial, not a person. I'm sure a company as big as Google or Apple could figure out some way to gather and parse that data if they wanted to.

My number one request would be a way to avoid counties with a history of civil asset forfeiture. Hopefully having the option would draw attention to the issue and I don't want to stop for food, gas, etc in places that use it.

> The parent group compiled the ban list by trawling the large law firms website for images .. and the parent group knows which offices and groups of personnel are involved in a specific case.

Do they? I don't work in law but at every company I've worked we adjust who is working on what based on needs at the time. Why wouldn't a law office temporarily shift more people to a case if they needed some extra manpower?

As someone who uses visual studio almost every day I'd say it isn't complete on its own. I can't navigate around a vanilla install that doesn't have visual assist installed as well anymore. If you want a cheaper alternative, workspace whiz is also decent.

In the last 6 months Tesla is down over 25%. Ford and GM are up 15-20% over the same time period. They're a lot closer to Tesla than Meta or Zoom is.