nawitus

Valuemotive | Developer / Data scientist / Designer | Finland | ONSITE | Full-time

At Valuemotive (https://www.valuemotive.com/) we work with organizations to help them reach better results. By leveraging the possibilities of technology in the right places, we build data-driven solutions and culture. Most challenges are tackled by a combination of technical and people skills – that’s why we nurture both. We do both consulting and develop our AI in-house products, focusing on NLP.

We are looking for full-stack developers, data scientists and designers.

Contact: contact@valuemotive.com - include "Hacker News" in the subject.

Plenty of millennials grew up with IRC.

It shows purchases in Finland too.

> it took an intern three weeks to do it.

What I see happening that even though productivity has increased by e.g. an order of magnitude, projects still remain big since there's a latent demand for more features.

>the value created in China from producing most of the physical items we consume gets parked in real estate and stocks in the West because the Chinese political system is too risky

Really? Chinese are notorious for investing in the Chinese real estate market, and investing in stocks is avoided. That's at least what most people seem to follow. The hyper-rich have probably better investing ideas..

>On the other hand, the supply is physically limited due to the geographic constraints.

Real estate is not expensive because of lack of land, since almost every country has large areas of cheap land. Real estate is becoming more (and already is) expensive for so many because the trend is to move into bigger cities, inside which supply is limited. (And the supply is typically limited by regulation, not lack of land per se).

Why not add the plan of attack to the issue in the issue tracker?

The main flaw with this article is that it's reasonable to think that since car transportation is already expensive for the poor that there shouldn't be even more costs for the poor. In "realpolitik" one can't really vote for "congestion charges but only if we remove tax A from the poor".

So yes, people can acknowledge that many things about transportation are inequitable while still believing that congestion charges are inequitable.

It's true that 2D is a lot easier than 3D. It would also require a lot of new technology. It is a solvable problem, though, and we need to solve it to some degree even today (due to airplanes). The need to solve coordination will only increase thanks to proliferation of drones, too.

Flying autonomous vehicles can reasonably be energy efficient, and clearly are space efficient (due to the three dimensions that provide plenty of space).

Travel time is the correct property to optimize for my values. I don't want to spend unnecessary time in transit. That's a subjective value, of course.

You can optimize for quality of life, health and short travel times at the same time. Copenhagen might be a good target with current level of technology, not necessarily the technology of future.

I don't care for imposed social interaction due to public transportation. People don't really interact with strangers in public transportation anyway (in my culture that is).

Even more ideally you can fly anywhere quickly instead of settling for either long transportation times or walking to whatever is nearby.

Agree with the current level of technology. That's why Boeing is developing new technology to solves these issues.

There's nothing preventing "flying cars" of delivering a lot of people to various locations. 3D space is quite large.

If the vehicle is flying and autonomus (like what Boeing is developing), then there's plenty of space in three dimensions. Coordination should be solvable with software. Energy use is an interesting factor, of course. There are possibilities (like cheap nuclear power) to solve that.

Flying cars are in theory more "efficient" than public transportation, because public transportation doesn't take you directly from your home to your destination unless by accident (e.g. you happen to travel to destination which is right at a public transportation stop). Even then, that route probably doesn't take the shortest path, but rather zigzags through major locations. In addition, it's not realistic to assume every single public transporation line runs 24/7 every 3 minutes, which means you need to plan ahead instead of leaving whenever you want to.

In fact, the ideal "public transportation" is a private vehicle, like this kind of a autonomous flying vehicle, which will transport you whenever and wherever you want. It's not a band-aid, it's solving the root cause. Public transportation is the band-aid, which cannot in practise solve the problem ideally.

You can get around 0.8% in Euro zone, but your local bank is unlikely to offer that.

What? Generalizations about Europe always seem to fail. Credit cards are widely used in Europe. In some European countries cash is starting be used rarely and payment is mostly done with a card or a phone.

One might argue that one benefit of the European system is that credit card processing fees imposed on the retailers are regulated, which ultimately causes credit card "points" to be uncommon. This in turn makes life simpler because there is no need to game the credit card benefits system. You can, however, get up to 0.5% cash back at least where I live.

If everyone earns 2x but everything costs 2x, what changes?

Wouldn't the cost of infrastructure scale with the increased tax revenue from the increased population? I would also assume that infrastructure is actually cheaper per capita if population density increases, which would imply lower tax rates.

The math is simple, but saving is hard.

Spending money on basic necessities like housing, food, electricity, water, health care etc. is still consumption. Also note that retirement can still contain some money for extra widgets and other fun stuff - just less than the average consumer.

"Capitalism" doesn't contain values like "you must spend money on something else than housing and food". It just happens that people do spend money on things other than housing and food, so the market system does provide these services in demand.

Maybe not 2 million, but early retirement can be based on savings rate, not any specific number of millions.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...

The article states "There will be humans available, but the idea is that they’ll get in touch only in case of absolute necessity.".

I would imagine there is a way to open a direct chat with customer service in these cases.

Finland has roughly similar rules (without any oil production), though the rules differ depending on the industry.

>There's just no good approach.

There's no silver bullet, that's why companies should offer alternative recruitment paths. Some prefer a take-home assignment, some a face-to-face interview etc.

>The alternatives are better. Nuclear is expensive even before you factor in the decommissioning costs.

Nuclear is very cheap for producing the base load. You also shouldn't compare the price of different energy sources in isolation. If an electricity market goes 100% solar and wind for example, it will get power outages soon. Storing the energy of varying power generators is expensive with current technology.

>Given these developments, why build new nuclear plants?

You can create cheap and clean eletricity.

>If (when?) we can design nuclear plants which are both economical, safe and don't have the externalized decommissioning costs then it would also be foolish not to include them in the mix.

Nuclear plants are economical and safe.

The housing market is hardly an example of free market economics.

This "implementing/setting up syncing of state" requires only a few lines of Terraform config.

Agree, some bloat is due to ads and trackers, some are other things (like lack of optimization).

Most websites are not optimized well because optimization costs money and software engineers are expensive. There probably is not a market failure here.