legolas2412

Yeah. Totally makes sense to compare a human driver driving an average 7 year old 30k$ car with not so good safety ratings driven by average person in snowy, rainy pothole ridden roads to a newish 70k$ luxury car with good airbags/crumple zones driven in mostly sunny California roads by mostly young drivers with a driver assistance system.

And then for you to argue that the driver assistance system is actually better than a human driver if given the car alone!

Wow

I'm not a FB employee, and nor a trump supporter. But I'd argue that fighting censorship is also a moral obligation for free speech.

It's not freedom of speech if reddit starts suppressing speech.

There are various other arguments to make, such as the rpevelance of posts encouraging violence that aren't covered under freedom of speech, or that reddit does not have to follow free speech rules in the first place.

Also the Tesla network. While they were happy to make it seem like it would be driverless and was covered so in the media. On the website it never cared to clarify that. It could have been just a rent your car to a stranger app.

And then saying that "all our cars have full self driving hardware". I know people who thought that they had it basically done, and only a few regulatory approvals were left.

Well, zero interest rates from federal reserve definitely allow such businesses to flourish. Where you try to corner a market with infinite money for a monopolistic position.

Also, caste discrimination is illegal. The government grants equal rights to all people.

Sure, I'm not contesting that. It is a different question if freedom of speech regulations apply to Twitter or not.

But freedom of reach is a part of freedom of speech.

Very much disagree. If I cut your reach to 0, I denied you the freedom of speech. If cut your reach in half, I still affected your freedom of speech.

The question is whether fb/Twitter should be subjected to freedom of speech restrictions or not

I would be fine with a public ministry of truth. Atleast we will have the free speech rights.

Wo have given too much power to these private companies.

So, discrimination on political lines is fine as it is based on the content of your character?

Btw, political discrimination is illegal.

> But we do. Any facts that cast certain religions (but not others!), or certain lifestyle choices (but not others!) in a bad light are considered _____-ophobic. Bad. Facts are routinely politicized and made out to be evil.

So true! People should consider why we call politically correctness that. We don't call them facts or truth, but that they can be said and not hurt "feelings".

> If these companies want us to take them seriously as champions of free speech, they have to play their role to help restore that balance of power, by being far more stringent about fact-checking the tweets of those global leaders than they would be for ordinary posters.

What about the executive and majority stockowners of these companies, and how they might abuse their power?

I would rather prefer a federated structure like email. Anybody can choose their own clients to generate their own biased/unbiased feeds, and with plugins for fact checking.

Elizabeth Warren had a position on making the big tech companies open platforms. That was along the same lines, and would provide a far better solution than handing off the power to control people off to FB and Twitter execs

N-gram based grammar rules for spell checking are by definition machine learning

I don't think it's fair to award opportunities to a person not on their own merit, but based on their nationality. I don't think it's fair to strive for equal number of Icelandic nationals and Indian nationals. It is not fair, but the very definition of unfair.

The mess that is h1b and eb3 for indian educated immigrants working in highly paid white collar jobs tells me that usa is not open for immigration.

What else do you call a 70 year waiting line for green card? Forget citizenship, people do not even get to enjoy the rights associated with permanent residency.

Surely you see the difference between explaining what dark matter is, and making solar cells cheaper.

Which one fits your definition of important scientific question that we should answer?

I'm afraid that soon any regulation action will be seen as a death knell for the stock market, and all the monopolies will be judged "too big to fail". Then we'll have regulations not controlling, but cementing these monopolies

But Swiggy etc pay 25-50k

https://www.livemint.com/Companies/cYbdfsYk93HFhMuC0XgaNN/Sw...

Not OP, but just adding source

https://www.livemint.com/Companies/cYbdfsYk93HFhMuC0XgaNN/Sw...

I might be misunderstanding you.

You said "Seven percent is generally accepted as the expected market return over a period of time sufficiently long enough to mitigate systemic risk, ". Also, When people say "historical return is 7%", they do not say it as a historical fact, but as a forward expectation like you did.

So, you need to provide why 7% is generally accepted, and why not 2%, or 70%.

Comparison to gdp and inflation definitely apply. Business profits in an index grow with Inflation and gdp growth, and stock value is the expectation of future profits discounted over time.

And why has that not been true for Japanese or Greek markets for decades?

Where does 7% come from? It is Inflation adjusted correct? 2-3% profits, 2-3% gdp growth? 2-3% others (growth at the cost of smaller companies, other countries etc). I'm not sure how this is all sustainable.

Looking at Japan, none of them are sustainable, not even Inflation. Even as bank of Japan prints immense amount of money and props up all the assets as liquidity injections.

I would be happier about capitalism if the government was not actively trying to increase profits and socialize the losses.

"Stop restricting the housing supply, and don't prop up house prices by buying mortgage bonds" I shout to noone in particular.

I don't think anybody will mind if the rent was say 1$. The concern is really about the size of the rent, astronomically increased by limiting supply.

We should increase supply. Oh, and wealth tax for rising inequality too.

Agreed, and nor is this point addressed in the dogmatic claim I see at many places that "markets always go up". They dont go up regularly for japan, greece, italy, australia in the previous decades. Also, all this growth at the cost of others has led to the "historic returns of 7% in s&p", another dogmatic claim in FIRE circles.

It is not clear how these two are sustainable.

> people doing that usually want to be compensated for their efforts.

Non profit does not mean free. People can be paid salary, but the business does not need a 30% Profit margin.

I never understand tesla fans.

Every accident, i hear them talk about how autopilot is not driverless, as fully self driving does not imply driverless. As it is a driver assistance system that requires human oversight and control.

On the other hand, there are constant claims of Tesla being the only one with driverless cars on the road.

And if people don't value your oranges that much, you close shop. It is not going to make the people suddenly value your oranges more.

Forced to sell at a higher price?

My dreams of being a millionaire are forcing me to sell this orange for a million dollars. Ergo, oranges will now retail for a million dollars.

Wow, never considered how a stagnating economy will hurt retirement. This was eye opening in terms of numbers