oihoaihsfoiahsf

You think all or even most of your friends and colleagues are still going to live in the Bay Area in a few decades? :( Sorry, that ain't gonna happen. And it doesn't take decades to save up enough money to be financially independent elsewhere if you're getting paid in the Bay.

I don't think you're going to be able to attribute that to Bay Area compensation. Urbanization in general: yes. Bay Area? No.

This might be a problem for one or two of the top areas, but there are not enough Bay Area emigres to materially move the needle in the vast majority of non-Bay Area localities.

It's not pointless from the perspective of any given engineer. If a given engineer is willing to accept a lower relative quality of life in the Bay Area, the absolute amount they save as a result of that decision is larger at a larger absolute salary. This is relevant as long as the probability of living outside the Bay Area in the future is greater than zero.

Our family just uses a Google Photos album where we put pictures of ourselves and our son. We send the link to people who might be interested, and then they get notifications when we put in more pictures. The rest of our family often posts things to their own albums and we get notifications of that. And anybody can comment on any of the pictures. It's not perfect, but it's a reasonably good experience. I can only imagine it would be even better if there were a single album shared by the whole extended family.

> This underlying misapprehension is at the root of the self-driving car hubris.

I will basically guarantee you that no one working on self-driving cars thinks human perception is lackluster or an easily matched capability. Journos interpreting their work might impute that belief to self-driving engineers, but nobody could work on the problem for even the shortest amount of time without realizing that it is an incredibly hard problem.

My claim is not about what makes sense. My claim is about actual reality. People in general care more when powerful employees resign. It would be a huge deal if Sundar resigned over this, or Page. It is not a big deal that this rank and file research scientist resigned. I could propose a few hypotheses as to why, but I'm guessing you're capable of coming up with your own.

It is a much bigger deal if a VP or a CEO resigns over something than if a janitor does, even if they do so for the same reason.

The citizens might be idiots, or the human social system might be so broken such that no matter who you vote for they are game-theoretically forced to behave this way. Whatever the case may be, I don't blame Page for declining to inflict that experience on himself.

No need to guess. You can look at the treatment Jack and Sheryl received. A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards basically talked at them for a few hours, accomplishing nothing and expanding the pool of useful knowledge exactly zero.

I'm sure it's a little bit of both, right? If 99% of Gmail users had voluntarily migrated to Inbox, I'm quite certain it would not be getting shut down. That doesn't preclude that there is a significant contingent out there that loves Inbox.

(BTW the same goes for the old HN hobby-horse, Reader. If it had had a billion users, it would never have gotten shut down.)

Same reason I don't pay extra money to the treasury even though I think my tax rates should be raised.

They're identical to dictionaries/hash tables in pretty much any language, unless I'm missing something. Besides C, every language I've worked in comes with one of these things built-in. It's surprising to me that so many people consider this noteworthy today. Would someone please enlighten me as to why it is?

It's true that Arnold is quite a specimen. And on Reddit there was recently a video of a ninety year old man deadlifting 400lb. https://www.facebook.com/SPORTbible/videos/1131499677007260/ He doesn't quite get the full range of motion but it's still damnably impressive.

To be fair, the legs of healthy people who perform the same type of exercise do tend to have very similar shapes.

They could easily couch the statement in such a way that they would appear blameless, if they really wanted to make a positive statement. E.g. "We recognize the critical contribution of publishing companies to our society and want to do our part to ensure the continued existence of a strong publishing industry."

I read the articles as well, and this commenter is right that, on their face, they don't seem like they would apply to a site like Google News. That said, everyone, including Google, seems to think they do. And as far as I am aware, nobody at the EC has said anything to the contrary, even though it would be easy to do so. So it seems most likely to me that the naive reading of the text is incorrect, and that both this reddit commenter and myself are missing something.

I think it may be true that they may suffer the law better than their competitors. But I think if it was likely that they would benefit absolutely, they'd be in favor of the law, or at least ambivalent, rather than strongly opposed. Don't you?

Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these companies to suggest they are in favor of this law? I know Google, for example, has fought strongly against similar link tax and other laws related to Google News in the past. There is also a statement from them referenced in this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/plan-to-make-google-pay-for-...

> The Commission’s proposal “would hurt anyone who writes, reads or shares the news — including the many European startups working with the news sector to build sustainable business models online,” Google said in a statement.

Right. But I'd wager that index fund investors are more interested in profits than GDP, at least as it relates to their investments and the proposition at the top of this thread that index funds will be "ripped" (presumably disproportionately) in the next downturn.

I guess my thing is more of a reaction against paternalism and the infantilization of the public. I do think there need to be much more in the way of bank regulations. I don't think the public ought to absolve itself of all responsibility because of the absence of some regulations. I just don't think it's healthy or necessarily leads to better decisions being made in the future. I want an informed public, not a deluded one.

Y'all keep trying to explain the morality of what the banks and lenders did to me like I don't already know. I know. It's not good. That's irrelevant to the question of whether they were solely responsible.

According to this article [1], public firms account for about 80% of the pre-tax profit in the private sector. That's probably enough, given that public and private company returns are probably at least somewhat correlated.

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2012/09/21/private-co...

Yes, the banks were part of the cause. That is not in dispute, as you can see by reading my previous comments. But they would not have been able to commit their fraud without the aid of credulous buyers willing to purchase far more house than they could afford. That's all I'm saying.

If Joe Sixpack owned for twenty years, he was not underwater after the crisis. He might not be in as good of a shape as he was at the top, and I can understand how that would be disappointing, but he's still doing fine. If he got greedy and did a big cash out ARM refinance, well, that sucks, but people are told from a very young age that when something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Caveat emptor! And there are warnings ALL OVER the documents you have to sign to actually participate in such a transaction. I reject the notion that American adults should not or cannot be custodians of their own financial lives.

I'm certainly not saying that I expect the average American to understand what actually happened. The average American believes all kinds of things that aren't true, even in much simpler domains of knowledge. I am just saying what actually happened.

That's true, but also a non-sequitur, since nobody "stole" home equity from anyone. The value of homes went down across the board because of oversupply, and that is a phenomenon that required potential homeowners, financiers, builders, and other entities to tango. It's not something the banks caused to happen on their own, nor something they bear sole and unmitigated responsibility for.

> It caused a $5 trillion in transfer from wealthy away from the working classes to the investor class in that 2008 Mortgage crisis.

This sounds like a made up number. What is your source?

> The 2008 Mortgage crisis robbed the working classes

How? I.e. what did working class people own that was subsequently taken away by some other entity?

> Wall Street over leveragged had huge wealth handed to them in money printing that was giving directly to their balance sheets.

A common misconception. The government did recapitalize various Wall St. entities on favorable terms, and did, via quantitative easing, give owners of some securities more than they might have gotten in the market without intervention. But there were certainly not any "no strings attached" givings of cash to the big financial entities.

The other stuff about how working Americans were the ones most hurt by the financial crisis also sounds incorrect to me. If I had to categorize winners and losers, owners of mortgage debt and homeowners would be the biggest losers of the crisis. Working Americans suffered knock on effects, or direct effects to the extent they were in the other categories, but they were not the primary victims.

> I’m not saying it is likely, but you really can’t see a path?

For all X, there is a path from X to great harm. Likeliness is critically important in evaluating whether X is still a good thing or not. I grant that your scenario is possible, but I consider it very unlikely.

I don't foresee any likely path by which encouraging the adoption of a particular open source publishing technology is going to do serious damage to future generations.

Startup literature about MVPs is mostly relevant to software products, which are inexpensive to develop compared to almost anything else.