iofj

As someone who made the mistake in working for an international office, and caught the train out almost 10 years ago now, I agree. I escaped one set of layoffs and then kept thinking I'm next.

I was next.

Got fired at end of financial year, along with a couple thousand others. Had a new job before the day was out (another result of said anxiety).

Curiouser and curiouser.

Another luxury goods market that's reporting a significant decline. Private planes are also down a lot, real estate in Manhattan is dropping. SF real estate not dropping, but not increasing as it used to either. Spending on luxury goods down a lot. Let's go down the list:

Gold prices up ... check. Lots of money flowing (or attempting to) into government bonds ... check. Corporate profits down ... check. Corporate lending up by a LOT ... check. Energy down (demand-side problem) ... check. Goods shipping down (a lot) ... check. Lending standards tightening ... check (except for central bank lending). Spending down ... check. Bankruptcies up ... check. Luxury goods markets down ... check. Asset prices generally going donw ... check. "Sin" stocks rising (alcohol, gambling, ...) ... hmmm ... yes, sort of ... not yet totally pervasive (although CSH is doing almost suspiciously well)

We're in a recession ! Also : f*ck, I was looking at changing my job around.

And ... major wtf: stock prices ... all time high. That's weird.

Maybe people simply have different goals. For instance, it seems pretty obvious to me that no mass-layoffs (and thus a limit on productivity increases in that company) was a condition of the Obama administration's helping out of GM, and the same goes for the various Euro governments who did the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...

Doesn't that mean that there are serious limitations when it comes to 3d games or video watching on the bigger screen ?

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria.

And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I believe.

Now we may (maybe) be back up to one. Big whoop. Not going to last.

The problem is that evolution is out-researching us, the problem is that we're losing the war, not any particular battle. Antibiotics used to last 3-5 decades. Now we're down to years. While we do find new antibiotics on a regular basis, the problem is the speed of adaptation. The problem is that science is losing/has lost the "battle with darkness" as it was called 700 years ago. We are now in the situation that there are people dying because they entered hospitals for unrelated reasons (where they were exposed to these bacteria).

The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly or risk a Spanish flu like incident that can be reasonably expected to kill somewhere between 500 million and a billion humans today.

Well, when you pass a variable around, it doesn't and cannot change. This means that different threads can't get in eachothers' way anymore, for instance, but also that you can't make a big chunk of mistakes at all.

They also have serious disadvantages : they can't be memory managed in the traditional way (since they tend to reuse other instances' memory in complex ways), and thus require a GC (refcounting can work, but ...). They are VERY allocation intensive, and they are worse than most non-persistent data structures. Assuming an O(1) allocator they can match non-persistent data structures in O-ness (ie. when making an invalid assumption that is quite popular in academia. In practice memory allocation is O(1) for small values, then O(n^2) once you get close to the system's memory capacity (scanning for holes in a long list) but don't go over it, and then O(oh fuck it let's just reboot this bloody BOAT ANCHOR) when crossing that line).

Clojure is famous for having good persistent data structures. Rich Hickey went touring academia touting the benefits of immutable/persistent/functional data structures : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGVqrGmwOAw&feature=youtu.be...

There's also a famous book: https://www.amazon.com/Purely-Functional-Structures-Chris-Ok...

Why would anyone use machine learning if not to create systems they don't understand ? That's the whole point of doing it. Not having to understand complex system to understand -or even predict- them is a very good thing indeed. I don't know anything about how to mathematically analyze pixel values to read text, but I can create such a formula using machine learning. After creating the formula I know nothing more about it. So the same person can create programs to read text, transcribe audio, predict loan repayment, ...

And when it comes to the bias in the data - bias in the system thing, well, same thing goes for human judgement. Another way of putting this would be garbage in-garbage out. Humans might be able to tell you of bias in the inputs, rather than just using it, but this ability rapidly deteriorates when the dimensionality of the inputs rises. You can tell if there's something weird about combinations of 3 numbers, but you can't tell if there is something off about 150 number sequences.

Look at the interest rate. Now look at inflation (not "core" inflation, the one you pay). Saving, money in bank, is not a good investment atm. Or put differently, it's at best as good as gold bars under the bed.

I believe it still comes with a version of Kylix. But sadly, yes, "no linux support" is pretty accurate, mostly because it sucks badly.

Sounds like it's pretty much the same as the 4 weeks of fasting into Easter, Lent, which is also based on the lunar calendar. I guess that's where ramadom comes from too, and I hear that one comes from the jewish religion, to remember the flight out of Egypt, away from their religion and slavery. So maybe your prophet got it from the jews. Basically when I was a kid the family would spend pretty much the entire afternoon being together, working on the food for the evening, which was usually delicious because of that. Many days there was church, and church activities. The school would help out with the fast.

I don't agree with you at all that it increases your energy. And yeah it came with lots of completely ridiculous rules, like anything religious. If I was a muslim, with that many rules that onerous, I'd refuse to do it just for that reason alone. Such rules only serve to prove someone else's power over you and nothing more. There is no use or purpose other than that. At one point I actually thought different, and so I simply tested it. Nothing, of course, as there is no God that is so extremely petty and meddling as that.

The argument I was making is not about more or less targets, it is that securing one point against terrorists by creating a new point that's very weak against terrorists is somewhere between useless and stupid.

That there are other targets is obviously correct, but I do not feel it really addresses the point.

And putting 600 people tightly packed in a queue in an enclosed space makes this better how ? As demonstrated, you can get a bomb in there and kill ~50 people. With 2 or 3 I bet you could get that number up quite a bit.

Security that works by simply creating a juicier target is obviously not security at all.

So at Istanbul airport terrorists attacked the airport screening lanes at the entrance to the airport. Instead^H^H^H^H^H^H In addition to normal security screenings, Istanbul also makes people queue at the entrance, and has a security screening there. A terrorist apparently waited in that line, blew himself up, about 30 dead.

What happens to security when a bomb goes off ? Well, apparently it is abandoned, and fails open. So you can walk straight through, unopposed. The 2 remaining terrorists (and hundreds of civilians) did just that, and while a police officer shot one of them before he could run into a crowd and that bomb went off in the middle of an open space, apparently without victims [1]. The other one, however did succeed.

According to this article the solution to this is what Baghdad airport does ... which is to have vehicle screening before the vehicles get near the airport building. One can only imagine what a nightmare it would be to do this at a high traffic airport but ...

How about we do the other alternative ? Obviously static defenses with long queues effectively make it easier, not harder, for terrorists to strike (talk about obvious). Let's use this opportunity to make sure people don't ever have to wait in security screening, avoiding creating a vulnerable point, and making air travel far more attractive for everybody concerned while we're at it.

[1] (note: VERY graphic violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKYBK04AmA )

For one thing, it lookslike the car kept driving after the crash, hit 2 fences and a pole, then tried to get back on the road before it shut down. Sounds like pretty big screwup.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2016/0...

The left is currently identified with Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons. The right is identified with Donald Trump, for the same reason.

It's not going to be a good year for either of their images.

This article has a nice breakdown:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/down-and-o...

2 things stand out:

Younger people voted remain

The richer you are, the more likely you voted remain. The working class is solidly on the side of Brexit (65%). Middle class is slightly on the Brexit side.

I wonder which of these is the bigger effect. Waiters in central London, for instance, who commute out far to get to their jobs. How did they vote ?

The EU has it's scapegoat: they're blaming the whole thing on David Cameron, for allowing a vote in the first place, in a supreme display of utter disdain for democracy. Of course, every vote save one about whether people wanted the EU saw people reject the EU, so I guess you can't expect Europe to like voters. Scarily a lot of people are going along with them. I don't understand why. Democracy is the central guarantee that protects workers and anything but the largest entrepreneurs from exploitation.

Also I don't understand why Hacker News, who mostly seem to be leaning to the left, are taking such a pro-capital stance. London's wealth is built at least in part, like Luxembourg's, on being a tax haven in the center of Europe, inside the EU but not paying most taxes. That's borderline criminal.

Does anyone here really think that playing on the side of big capital will work out well for you personally ? For 99.99% of the readers here it is simple: you are not a billionaire temporarily embarrassed by a misplaced comma on your bank account balance, you are either working or (maybe) middle class. Unless big capital, and the EU itself loses out big time you will die in poverty (just calculate out what your pension fund performance is when non-core inflation is 3% and interest rates are 0.25%).

As widely reported, Greece has no access to the financial aid for Greece. Those amounts are deposited directly to EU banks which bought Greek debt because of the ECB guarantee.

No more than 5-15% ever passes through Greek hands.

The thing about Black Swans is that they're easy to see, yet very, very hard to time.

There is an asset bubble, for instance, at the moment (houses and a lot of other things are more expensive than justified). Gold price seems suppressed. And a government debt bubble. And a China bubble (China is exporting more than is justified by the economics, probably due to state subsidies). There was an oil price bubble, that could reflate (it would take a 5% difference in oil supply, maybe less, for the price to go back to $100 at least temporarily). Renewables could destroy the energy economy (this is happening, could accelerate. E.g. we could find a fantastic new battery principle, easy cheap large scale energy storage. The world would change to accommodate that faster than anyone can imagine). EU disintegration, and related shocks : e.g. a Deutsche Bank bankruptcy. Central banks switching tactics (either to helikopter money or the other way, interest rates back to 4%). More US states/territories cities going bankrupt. Large scale terror attacks.

All of these would be large to massive financial shocks. They're also very likely all going to happen. Most of them are going to be caused by another one in that very list, like domino blocks all lined up, but currently standing up. Only one will really be set off in truly unpredictable fashion, and cause the other dominoes to topple. The question is, how to find (and time) the drop that overflows the bucket. That is not a trivial question and the answer could be that said drop won't fall for another decade (or two, why not). That's unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

Whilst not many people were expecting the Brexit scenario to pass, ever since the Greek crisis (5-7 years ago now, depending on what event you think set it off) people have been worried about EU disintegration. That the EU, for various reasons, from languages, over border protections to finance habits does not have what it takes to stay together. Apparently they were right. The real fear is that it will cause bank bankruptcies. That may be underway. That may already have happened (a lot of EU banks aren't far from bankruptcy)

The EU did to Greece what it did because it was feared that the bankruptcy of the least member of the EU would topple German banks into bankruptcy. That non-payment on 1.3% of total government debt would cause a disaster.

Now the second-biggest economy is leaving the EU, with unknown implications for lots of financial instruments ...

There is at least a serious case to be made that this could be bad.

I think that anyone who's seen what the EU/Eurozone/ECB/Comission/Eurogroup did to Greece knows that staying in the EU is not in their interest at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZOAroRgIbY

Problem of course is that muslim countries, and plenty of muslims, are extremely intolerant of things like freedom of religion, opinion, and are in favor of things like killing gays and the like ?

Tolerating intolerant ideologies is not good, it is not social, it does not "fight racism". It it quite the opposite of that.

(5) Extend "awful and disgusting" to anything that -however mildly- goes against your commercial interests or personal interests of anyone placed high enough in the organization.

(6) Still claim you're a bastion of free speech.

and -lately-

(7) Monetize other's expressions of correct free speech.

Ironically people actually seem to think this is worth doing. Compare youtube comments and people's opinions of them with, say reddit or wikipedia, both of which boast political moderators.

> The poor turn out to vote at lower rates than the rich. Why should anyone care what they think? > Those without college degrees turn out to vote at lower rates than those with college degrees. Why should anyone care what they think?

It's the reverse. That's the whole point of "one person one vote", which was kind of a big deal in the beginning of the 20th century. People died for that.

Besides, I find your entire idea flawed.

Why ? To put it bluntly because the choice has always been between "the 51% oppress the 49%" and "the 0.01% oppress the 99.99%". If you want to experience the other end, be a construction worker in the middle east for a while. I think I know which you prefer.

Secondly, when push comes to shove the globalization represented by the EU has systematically worsened the economic situation of most Britons. Tech and finance industries in central London don't seem to see this, but ... If you compare actual living conditions provided by a tech wage in central London with living conditions afforded by a Ford job 30 years ago at Dagenham you might be surprised, not in a good way - especially by the size of realistically available accommodation. Which might give one aspect of a far more reasonable explanation for why Britons aren't having kids then what is usually trotted up by the press - speaking as someone who has done so. Now compare 99% jobs ... waiter or cleaner in central London, and what living conditions that provides. Because that's what most of the service sector jobs are.

The short of it is, the globalization movement has -to put it mildly- not delivered the promised economic prosperity, and should be thrown into the bin. Pensions getting cut, systematically worsening medical care, constant mass firings replaced by "do you want fries with that" jobs that pay a third, ...

Let's go out on a limb here and say that a lot of Britons aren't happy with the evolutions of the past 30 years. Free capitalism and free markets are "winner take all" systems and work by throwing workers under the bus.

The thing is, loans come with risk. That's why they pay interest. Loans to a sovereign entity come with the risk that they can simply choose not to repay their debt and call it a day. Countries have in fact done that, even in large batches. A country has a constitution that supercedes debt payments. So if a sovereign defaults, nothing happens.

The real issue that German banks were overleveraged before 2008, so normally the crisis would have destroyed them. Germany did not want inflation, so in order to fix their banks they removed the limits on leverage, and Deutsche Bank (not the German national bank, just a very big German bank). Greece defaulting would bring the banks to the very edge of bankruptcy, perhaps to the point where one big customer default would kill them. Then they forced QE (do you know that every European loans ~100 euro to banks and large companies every month ? That's what it currently seems to take to prevent German (and other) banks from falling over, and Draghi has already announced "a massive increase" to compensate for Brexit). Of course it was all for naught: the stock market performance of the last year or so has done that anyway.

So now they're in "double or nothing" mode. They're doubling down. Tripling down. Just to avoid default. Germany has done malinvestment on a huge scale, and now they're using their political and financial power to fix it. But they're long past the point where they won't get repaid. They're at the point where they're trying to avoid an immediate total crisis, and it certainly looks like they're losing the battle. I doubt this Brexit event helped.

Like many other countries, Germany has a vastly underfunded bank default insurance scheme. It might surprise you to learn that no country has ever paid out their default insurance for a big bank. So I'm being harder on Germany here than I should be : the US has taken crazy measures to prevent bank defaults as well.

As you say, Greece's debt until this German exploitation began was not that spectacular (comparable to Italy and Spain, and not that much worse than German debt even). So criticizing their spending habits delivers arguments that you can hold against almost every western country. Obama, for instance, has not been very concerned with getting into more debt. And a US territory (not sure what the difference is with a state) has gone bankrupt (Puerto Rico). This definitely cost the US treasury. At least the US still has enough financial sense and backing to allow for a default (because there'll be US states going bankrupt in the years to come)

And for a sovereign state, bankruptcy means ... nothing. Yes they couldn't borrow for a while (judging by the Cyprus experience ... about 6 months), but they can't borrow right now either. A lot of banks would close off financial channels for a while, as a bargaining chip to get their own finances in order. This would be bad for rich Greek citizens, but would be fine for normal people who don't deal with non-Greek companies directly.

And of course, the ECB would have to write off a massive amount of debt (about 1.5% of Eurozone total debt), which would devalue the Euro. A lot of Euro banks that bought Greece's debt because it was backed by the Eurozone and still had high interest rates (in a sort of carry trade) would go bankrupt. Because that's the big secret, of course. A Greek bankruptcy would be far worse for other countries, especially Eurozone countries, then it would be for Greece [1].

As an American you should appreciate the situation Greece is in. Greece's economy is destroyed, because of externally imposed taxes that cannot possibly work. I am saying, maybe Greece should have a little Tea Party. I am scared to think of how badly Europe is currently being perceived in any of the PIIGS countries, but in Greece it's probably by far the worst.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxXKDaIKkhk (worth watching, even if you don't care about the reference itself)

True, the illegal ones come from Turkey, Algeria, Afghanistan and Morocco (and I'm sure a dozen other countries).

They do work in the construction sector.

They don't even mention some real disasters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

But the "basic income" proposals are completely unrealistic. The real proposals, generally referred to as "helicopter money" are about just forgiving central-bank owned government debt, then using the free cash to embark on large infrastructure projects.

You won't see any of that cash unless you're involved in the building industry.

I don't think many UK citizens see big financial flows as being to their advantage. For 90%+ of them, I think that assessment is correct. Globalization has been dealt a serious blow here, and if you're pro-equality, that should be a good thing.

Take an obvious and very direct example. Cleaning staff. Not having to compete with EU illegal immigrants will improve their labor conditions. Building workers and Polish guest workers who send all money back home and live in extremely poor conditions, same. Yes that probably means the next time you need your toilet repaired, you'll pay more, but you'll pay more so the plumber can have a better life.

Even for tech startups, this may be an improvement. I know over 4 London-based startups that don't directly sell to customers. They "consult" for a foreign entity (a US company in 50% of the cases, other 2 use Asian proxies), which then sells to EU customers because selling digital products to EU customers from outside of the EU is far cheaper and simpler than doing it from inside the EU.

One thing I absolutely do not get is why socialists and even those left-inclined are so massively pro globalization. That just makes no sense whatsoever. There are constant complaints about globalization here. How Monsanto/Big finance/Suez/... convinced congress/EU/ECB/... that X is going to happen/be legal which means state/city/even small town Y gets shafted in Y way. For once, that becomes a little harder.

But yes, it's probably the wrong thing for center London tech and finance workers and managers.

The EU is reacting, imho, in the worst possible way. The press in France, Netherlands and Belgium is full of articles on how it was stupid, boneheaded, evil, weak for Cameron to allow the vote in the first place. It's generally all being blamed on Cameron, and his mistake is allowing people to vote in the first place. Very EU, being so overtly anti-democratic.

But let's face facts here: the EU will try to make this work the same way the other referendums worked [1][2]. When the votes turned against the EU, they canceled the rest of the voting ("postponed" the term used, but they never happened). And then they cheated (the referendum happened because the law said it should happen before the law was changed. The law was changed without referenda). So I'm giving the odds of a Brexit happening at best 30-40%. Granted, that's far better odds than I gave it yesterday, so maybe I'll be wrong again. But the EU has a long history of ignoring democratic votes.

The sky is not falling, this is not the worst thing to ever happen, and frankly, the market is wrong. This is a massive overreaction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_re...

Given that interest rates are 0.25% and inflation (non-core, the one you'll be paying) is >3% ... what is your alternative ?

A pension is the only chance you have of a decent life when you get old. There is nothing else.