lrajlich

This sounds like a sort of Malthusian trap like argument. The economy is de-materializing while continuing to grow so I don’t think this paradox is a stable truth.

It’s to prevent flash crashes. If you don’t like the rules of the exchange you can always trade your securities elsewhere (eg otc)

housing is a market so low vacancy == price increases. That's the actual story. This is the case in markets more generally (eg, wage increases tend to be higher when unemployment is low).

Yea, exactly. Housing price increases and low vacancy rates "should" be correlated (eg, not enough supply in the market) and in fact are, which the original article's argument completely ignores and instead implies that the right vacancy rate is 0. If those circumstances ever happen, good luck finding a place to live.

Counter argument: SF has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo... This article is promoting a bad faith argument used by anti development activists.

This author made a small amount of fame a few years back (2012) claiming the dx format is dead. He was obviously wrong about that. He’s wrong about this, too.

this is a thing, happened to me today in fact on a neighborhood street.

in strictly legal sense you can if you dismount... There are other options (aka "box turn")

bootcamps have been around for only a few years so that's also likely filtering based on years of experience.

I'd suggest 90-100% creating software; 0-10% algorithms. The percentage on algorithms should be directly applicable to what you're working on. In practice, algorithmic knowledge primarily helps when dealing with performance issues or complex architectural decisions.

I wouldn't suggest totally ignoring algorithms, but it's at best secondary. Being proficient at solving performance problems or architectural issues are very valuable skills in the marketplace. That said, even those are mostly practical and about pattern recognition (which you get from writing software).

I assume he means something like the Moritz's article about China's "996" work hours expectation and its negative reception in silicon valley press.

what's the tl;dr? I only read the primae facie rights section and 1) this is reasoning by analogy, 2) the analogies don't make sense..

The issue is that distributional losses historically have been significantly underestimated in terms of scale and persistence or glossed over as insignificant. Economists traditionally have held that workers who lose their jobs to free trade, while losing their job in the short term, find a new job elsewhere and ultimately are better off. This is turning out to not be the case, some workers persistently remain worse off.

While no economist is yet advocating tariffs, except perhaps Peter Navarro (who's not taken that seriously), the attitude among economists that free trade is unequivocally a good thing is starting to change. There is traction for the work of David Autor where he argues that the effects of trade are unevenly distributed and thus some people do not benefit from free trade. The policy ramifications of this gaining traction could wind up with economists favoring tariffs in some cases.

The grocer example isn't really applicable. We both use the same currency so the grocer can use the local currency I pay for groceries to buy goods elsewhere or pay their employees. With foreign trade you have different currencies and a current account, the trade equation isn't as straightforward. An accurate analogy would be buying groceries via a barter system where I'd exchange good or services for groceries or a promise for future goods or services (eg, "luke-bucks") in exchange for groceries.

> There will always be demand for interest bearing risk free government debt.

This is really naive. Question is always at what price? I could argue there is always a demand for the common stock of a company in bankruptcy, just at a really poor price :-). More pertinent, Late 70s US bond market saw a huge decline in the value of government bonds... Though they were never defaulted upon, holding them was not exactly risk free. Fluctuations in price of "risk free" govt bonds can bankrupt traders/investors, eg, LTCM.

> higher interest rates lead to higher net income to the private sector which is a bit inflationary.

There a paper for this? low interest rates tend to be associated with poor economic conditions, in the extreme liquidity trap or secular stagnation, so this conclusion makes sense though the causal effect is the opposite of what is suggested by your comment... As an example, interest rates (ex fed funds) were really low during the great depression!

Foreign demand for USD does in effect lower US govt borrowing costs given our situation of having a fairly large trade deficit as well. Petroleum is one example of foreign USD demand (china buys oil with USD, for example), as are central bank reserve holdings, real estate transactions in Argentina, and I'm sure there are other examples as well. These foreign demands for USD in effect lower our borrowing cost as it prevents the USD from being dumped, eg, prevent a devaluation of the USD by foreign holders of USD, which allows us to keep interest rates low and thus finance a large deficit cheaply (so the govt keeps doing it).

It requires ~250W. Most portable USB batteries you can buy put out like 20W or so, this idea isn't really feasible.

There's a saying "90% of life just showing up". Being consistent is more important than anything else, so the only suggestion I can give is to find something you actually do consistently, even if it's as low intensity as walking. Over time the reward / misery ratio, even as you workout, should get better.

Of course luck and any inherited privilege matter a ton when considering all factors.

I'm thinking of trajectory, some people keep on advancing in their careers, others get stuck or spin their wheels. Over time this difference adds up, though, as you say, it is not completely fair to the those who never got a shot in the first place because of circumstances.

re: "tough, persistent, high-character, talented people are poor & suffering"

This is covered in the article about how the educational system is failing the poor and points it back to an overemphasis on cognitive ability / IQ smarts.

ex: "Even if we refuse to prevent poverty or provide superb early education, we might consider one other means of addressing the average person’s plight. Some of the money pouring into educational reform might be diverted to creating more top-notch vocational-education programs"

Yes, big 5 is a good model for disposition.

However, to be precise, conscientiousness isn't the same thing as grit. To illustrate the distinction, look at John McCain - he embodies a sort of tenacity and resilience I would call "grit" (thumbs down at 2am), but isn't the most conscientious (didn't vet Sarah Palin).

I'm sure there's studies to say charisma and social intelligence correlate with intelligence, or some academic would argue those are a form of intelligence, etc. The article specifically calls out IQ / test taking intelligence as being overvalued by society in general, which is what I mean in my comment as well. Eg, The SAT doesn't test you for these traits and these traits will not make much of a difference in an academic setting.

You're (mostly) missing the point. This is, more or less, the point...

"Yes, some careers do require smarts. But even as high intelligence is increasingly treated as a job prerequisite, evidence suggests that it is not the unalloyed advantage it’s assumed to be."

When I was young I tended to equate academic performance & raw smarts with success, but as I've gotten older I've notice that long term success is less correlated with raw intelligence and more with disposition: charisma, grit, and emotional intelligence.

In some ways, in the current academic system, being extremely smart is almost like being able to cheat. You can skip the studying, take a test that others will struggle with, and still ace it. Real life is less like that and more of a slog where having a high IQ gives you a 20% advantage instead of a 150% advantage (these numbers are obviously pulled out of thin air).

The takeaway I got is that it seems like the React stack has worse or non-existent separation of concerns and thus it'll affect how your frontend engineers work, possibly to their detriment if they're not proficient in javascript.

the irony is that you're far more likely to get killed in a car accident than by a serial killer on public transit.

I agree with this summary assessment of the article.

I like docker and I believe it's potential is huge, but I don't like this article. At all. It's based on a false dichotomy and it's intentionally divisive. Trying to get a rankle out of people who disagree with you by trying to pin them as irrational "haters" is not discourse, it's propaganda.

"At the same time, most of the software industry makes its decisions like a high school teenager: they obsessively check for what’s cool in their clique, maybe look around at what’s on Instagram and Facebook, and then follow blindly where they are led"

I think my reaction to this is... this is definitely true, but how do I know you're not yet another lemming like the rest of us?

What's the use case for deploying a database in a container instead of a VM? If I want dedicated resources for my database (anything else would be undesirable in a live production environment), that implies running it on a dedicated host.

The cause would be due to weather patterns changing - For example, we've currently got a drought in CA due to a high pressure zone being parked off of California for last 2 years in winter (the "ridiculously resilient ridge") and if the formation of this ridge is aided by higher sea or land temps (this is not proven but speculated), then certainly drought can be a result

Not all caches have the cache invalidation problem that Karlton is referring to (memcache doesn't). He was talking about invalidation of multiple copies of an object in a cache.

If you plop a big limit buy order at $26.40 and the market's at $26.20, you will wind up paying close to $26.40 because you'll eat through all the sell offers and transact inefficiently. It's called slippage.

However, what's preventing you from getting f*ed is that this is a market, so basically you have 10+ HF shops fighting who can be on the other side of that slippage. The fact that it's a competitive market ensures you don't get raped like the guy claims.

all the more reason to understand it...