frgtpsswrdlame

Just because 85% is environmental doesn't mean that there's hope for us all. It's a common mistake to think of genes as unable to be changed and environment to be changed. But, for example, maybe if your mother smokes during pregnancy, it inhibits the part of your brain that handles beat. In that case, the trait is environmental AND innate. For another example think of one-armedness. Most people with one arm will have lost it in an accident, the fact that the trait isn't genetic doesn't mean there is hope for them to have a second arm.

>In IRV, wouldn't someone whose first choice was a Republican candidate almost definitely pick another Republican candidate as their second choice?

Evidently not. Or at least many of them didn't in this case.

Yes, it would actually be so much simpler if the Fed was capable of acting on only one side of the equation but they necessarily touch both.

See a completely plausible causal chain:

Inflation up -> Rates up -> Housing purchases down -> rental demand up -> rental prices up -> inflation up

Maybe the problem is trying to understand this in terms of confidence and not in terms of accuracy. In fact, we might say that some are underconfident, some are overconfident but almost all are inaccurate in predicting the form and/or details of progress. In that case we don't have to care about the technologists who thought the recent wave of image generation would take 10+ years AND we don't have to care about the people who think evil AI will bury us under paperclips in the next 30.

Basically they're doing a utilitarian calculus. But since our calculus is basically all pretend, we can assign arbitrary importance to anything we want just by daydreaming the costs and percentages of these super unlikely, super catastrophic events.

I think there's a conflict here though:

>If what you're doing isn't likely to be censored by authorities then you're being incredibly wasteful by using blockchain

If the wasteful people doing non-crime activities on the blockchain weren't there it'd be incredibly easy for the authorities to crack down. In other words, if the only legitimate use cases of crypto is facilitating crime, it can only even achieve that goal as long as many people are using crypto for the other stuff you think is wasteful.

United States Semiconductor - aka spinning up a nationalized firm.

You make it sound like they're printing Lenin or something lol, they're a little left but certainly not 'very.'

Furthermore, why wouldn't a topic like private members' clubs be fair game for any sort of major journalistic outfit?

Did you read it? They explicitly do talk about Quantitative Easing following 2008...

Are excess reserves related to these large amounts in overnight repos I keep hearing about? If so, how do you pull that money out of the system so it returns to being responsive.

There's more than just monetary policy and war. Monetary policy would imply demand for gas is up, driving prices up. But demand for gas is still lower now than it was pre-covid.

Oil is on its way out the door. Oil companies all have projections that show demand for oil increasing in the short term and decreasing in the long term. The list of their options to (1) increase their profits by (2) increasing the supply of oil are all investments that only pay off in the long term. Hence, even as prices rise in the short term, they are making calculations off the long term and finding it not very profitable to increase supply. Simple economic theories of corporate response to supply and demand don't work nearly as well with this long-term, short-term incentive difference.

Why wouldn't you focus on both? What's needed are solutions, in the search for them you should be willing to look anywhere that could yield one.

If inflation is occurring in Oil & Gas because of the crisis in Ukraine and inflation is occurring in eggs and beef because of monopolistic price gouging, then what is the point of lowering government spending? End the crisis in Ukraine, bring Russian oil back on to the market for its correct price and discipline the companies currently making record profits off record prices for goods.

As someone who doesn't own a home but would like to in the future, reading this kind of stuff is making me sick.

>I agree that it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children. But if equity is the goal, we should be mandating that every eighth grader takes Algebra I—and then structure the entire pre-K to seventh grade student experience to ensure this is a legitimate possibility for every child. Since when does equity mean everyone gets nothing?

I think this is the key. Obviously eliminating gifted programs and just tossing those resources into the wind is bad. But if instead we eliminated gifted programs, shifting those resources into remedial programs and then made the normal classes more difficult that seems like a solution that would satisfy almost everyone.

>The people behind Tether sell tethers for $1

This is the problem. I don't believe all the tethers were sold in exchange for $1. If Tether wasn't receiving $1 for every tether then everything else falls apart.

You know we had 2008 and we learned that in high finance there were these complex derivatives that a lot of people understood in a loose sense, but rarely in a detailed sense. And that they were basing those complex instruments on credit ratings that were essentially fraudulent. And that structure of a fraudulent base and mounds of complexity on top can surf for a really long time before blowing up catastrophically.

How is this not just the exact same formula? "Oh you see it's stable because there's this exchange mechanism and it's attached to this floating currency, blah blah blah." It all sounds very complex but then it breaks and you look underneath and it seems like anyone who understood what the mechanics actually were would've always been a little sketched out by it. Is this whole ecosystem not just small-time hobbyists and programmers trying to create this exact dangerous dynamic over and over?

Even if you think the main reason crypto is bad is the environmental damage I think it's probably more convincing to normal people to talk about how stupid it is ala these fees than to talk about the environmental damage.

Feels a lot like 'Real free markets have never been tried!' which we all know from its standard form on the left. If, at this point in history, real free markets have been unable to sustain themselves in the areas of the economy that people depend on the most (healthcare as a major example) then perhaps we ought to consider whether they're able to sustain themselves at all. I believe free markets and meritocracy are two systems commonly pointed to today that may be 'ideal' in one sense or another but which in practice cannot help but sow the seeds of their own destruction.

Markets exist by virtue of laws created by governments - property law being the primary example - expecting actors in a free market who aggregate enough wealth to affect those governments not to just strikes me as unrealistic. It reminds me a bit of gaming. Everyone agrees that in a competitive game the most fun part is early on before a 'meta' can be established. But of course that meta will always end up established and it's basically dumb to be mad at people for metagaming or to otherwise expect them not to.

I doubt Marx could have thought of something more capitalist than $THC or $HCA.

You're trying to do math in a scenario where you have no real numbers. Of course you can pull some stuff out of your butt (+10%, 1 year) to say it's going to save lives but unless you can justify those numbers it's meaningless.

Casualties per miles driven is a terrible stat for current self-driving technology because as it stands, it forces drivers to take over in the most dangerous situations. And you can't generalize for all miles in cars capable of self-driving because the population who own cars like that are not representative of the average. It's a very tricky thing to accurately measure whether it's safer for an individual to drive themselves or let the car do it for them.

>I read somewhere pay transparency just lowers the amount of pay for disagreeable people who try to earn more. It makes things cheaper for businesses in general because it's harder to get a rise.

Then wouldn't you see businesses fighting for it instead of against it?

>But maybe in the days of phrenology, people thought a hooked nose had a plausible connection to personality as well?

Phrenology is bumps on the head right? I think hook nose would be physiognomy. But yes, the idea was that your behavior was due to your brain and your brain was composed of many different parts that each controlled different propensities or abilities. Then it was just a matter of identifying where those propensities lived, in relation to the head and then you could feel for the differences from person to person across the surface of the head. From the naive viewpoint it is plausible, oh, you say the back right section of my head, above the ear is a bit larger so the self-control portion of my brain is well developed? I've always thought so!

Setting aside the marshmallow test, you can easily see how scientific theories about this sort of thing, both right and wrong, easily integrate.

Can you expand on this point?

>It's very, very expensive, and their purchasing model seems designed to prevent people from realising this.

How is it expensive in a way that's not transparent?

>Surely this makes a difference in the lives of these people but on large scales, how much of a difference have you actually made?

Judging by the article, quite a large difference.

>there must be better solutions than solidifying the systematic problems which capture this segment of the population.

We're talking about poor children here. The systemic problem of this segment of the population is that they are poor. It's easy to talk about poor adults and prescribe behavioral adjustments, it's a way of assigning desert. It's much harder to talk about poor children because it's obvious that no child deserves to be poor.

But I didn't say all stealing was okay, I said some stealing definitely is okay. I still think that's true. Some things in life are more important than property.

Stealing is okay in all sorts of situations. Many things in life are more important than the rule of property.

>and serious work is being done to get it right

Like what?

>“Whether a [Level 2] automated driving system is engaged or not, every available vehicle requires the human driver to be in control at all times, and all state laws hold the human driver responsible for the operation of their vehicles,” a NHTSA spokesperson said.

This is going to be the interesting part. To my mind this is where partial automated driving systems are basically incompatible with people and cars. There is just no way a person who is behind the wheel but who isn't driving can be in control and highly attentive in the same way as a person who is actually driving.