philipps

The comment you replied to didn’t mention a specific rate, but in general, linking price to cost of production (including human time) makes a lot of sense. I don’t understand why the two comments before yours are getting downvoted.

A key aspect of the scientific method is that claims can be demonstrated to be not true (it doesn’t matter if the demonstration is done in a lab or not).

20 C > 68 F

30 C > 86 F

What company/service are you using in Boston?

Policies can always be improved but the relationship between stronger regulation in health care and more access (lower cost) is pretty robust across the world. Nobody openly argues for policies that will lead to higher cost and less access.

The evidence from health care systems in other countries suggests that this type of excessive rent seeking does not exist in regulated markets. It’s the lack of regulation in the US that is the problem, not the other way around.

I believe the difference is that you “move on with your life” which I assume means you take down the video. If you had written/produced the song and were trying to monetize it, it would be a different story. There was an article on HN recently where someone remixed a song they found on youtube and then used the remix to claim they had the copyright. YT assigned the rights of the ad revenue to the claimant despite the fact that the rightful author denied all allegations.

You are absolutely correct that while the solutions don’t work that is only part of the problem - the fact that engineers think they can come in and „fix“ communication for the deaf community is a bigger issue. Directly involving your users (as you did) is so important when designing for someone with different needs and preferences. I hope other well meaning talented engineers read your comment and will take it to heart.

Same design in the downtown Boston branch. Line snakes through entire store with lots of opportunity to pick up things along the way.

Yes. Is that only an issue in German passports or generally applies to all passports?

For anyone interested in the importance of maintenance I highly recommend the article “Hail the maintainers (Innovation is overvalued)” and the Freakonokics podcast episode that builds on the article. I gained a new appreciation for maintenance from them.

[1]https://aeon.co/essays/innovation-is-overvalued-maintenance-...

[2]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-praise-of-maintenance/

I am curious about other interpretations of the impact this law will have. Would it encourage the development of more peer-to-peer sharing networks, which lack a central space to upload?

I wish we had the kind of concerted effort that the copyright lobby is able to launch, but focused on issues that reduce the net benefit of these platform more than copyright infringement: hate speech or intentional misinformation.

Another important factor was blatant disregard for other country’s intellectual property - something the US now criticizes China for. A well researched book that covers how the UK and later the US “borrowed” technology from other countries to fuel their economic development is “Kicking away the ladder”.

The key point is that you need tax revenue to manage (build, own, operate, or regulate) public infrastructure well.

Expecting great rail, road, or internet service without paying high taxes and strong government involvement hasn’t worked out. Nothing in your post contradicts that.

In many cases, public funding was even required to put in place the core infrastructure and conditions for privately operated companies to succeed. That’s certainly the case for high speed rail in Germany.

Markets can work. But often they don’t. I live in the center of Boston and have access to Verizon (not FIOS!) or Comcast. I’ve spent more time on the RCN website than I’d like to admit and they do not cover my building.

If you need more evidence that in this case the market does not lead to desirable outcomes, Verizon charges a monthly 5$ fee to NOT list your phone number (this is for the phone number you are required to sign up for in order to get internet service).

Democrats in the US would be considered center right in many European countries. The highest income tax rate in Denmark is around 80%. If you want excellent public infrastructure, you need to be willing to invest into the commons (not hand it over to the private sector - there is no example I am familiar with where that has led to better outcomes in the long run).

Comparing the price and quality of Comcast internet in the US with service in other developed countries (and some developing countries) clearly shows how poor a job Comcast is doing.

The fact that you find Comcast quality or price reasonable is further evidence that market-based outcomes for internet service in the US are not efficient.

> I was born in '93 so what happened 100 years ago isn't much of a concern for me.

Newtonian physics. World War II. Penicillin. A lot of things that happened a long time ago shape your reality today. This is not related to the Huawei case, but I wish more people would take into account how their actions might affect those living 100 years in the future.

“Global warming may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario.”

I think you’re trying to rationalize the position of the protesters, but this is a dangerous rationalization.

Arguing that it “may or may not” lead to catastrophic consequences leaves the door open for doubt.

I understand if poor people or nations are frustrated, and I agree that the rich have a responsibility to show leadership, but there should be no doubt that climate change will most negatively affect the poor.

Thank you for sharing this. I love the logo, but IMHO the overall look of the 2014 design (type, grid, illustrations) is a little too similar to theguardian.com aesthetic.

Edit: I was commenting on the 2014 design.

I have been a fan of Sean Wood’s photography - https://50mm.jp (check out the older shots of nighttime Tokyo).

The concept of carrying capacity estimates human consumption versus the planet’s ability to regenerate resources. Have a look at the reports and data cited on the Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

I think you are suggesting that earth can carry many more people than 10B. I’d like to understand how you think that is possible.

Furthermore, even at the current population size human activity is causing potentially irreversible climate change. The scientific consensus is that even a small increase of 1.5C will have severe consequences on the planet. Limiting the increase to 1.5 C will require significant action by all of us. Addding many more people makes this much harder.

http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

I hope the links can help convince you that we are facing a serious crisis that is causally related to the size of the human population.

There are two reasons why we can’t: We live within a finite ecosystem of resources and finite systems can by definition not sustain infinite consumption. And we are currently consuming an unsustainable and growing rate of resources. Maybe at some point our aggregate consumption will slow, but all credible models of population growth (leveling off around 11B) and associated consumption suggest that it would be far too late.

Not only is it not a good argument. It is a dangerous argument. We need innovation and maybe it will come in the form of “whacky” ideas, but please don’t replace the work that climate scientists have been doing for decades with a few “back of the napkin” calculations.

I didn’t make the claim that population is the biggest problem. I responded to the incorrect suggestion that population size is not a problem (which you repeat without offering any evidence that we could sustain ourselves). Growth is by no means a “solved” problem. Growth is expected to slow, but even at our current population size we are consuming an unsustainable amount of resources. And growth will slow as a result of increased wealth > higher consumption. Given that we live within the finite ecosystem of of our planet, this means we need to make significant changes and we need to make them now.

It’s neither hysteria nor something you can “move on” from. Please either provide facts or other evidence for your opinion or don’t comment. There is no basis for the suggestion that we can sustain a growing population on this planet, even with technology and science continuing to progress.

There is no scientific basis for the claim that the earth could sustain 100+ billion people. These types of unsubstantiated claims are not just false but dangerous, as they suggest there is no need for significant action and change.

I’m not sure if you are suggesting FB should face similar consequences as VW or that FB’s conduct is excusable because others do similar things.

Some differences are that VW plead guilty and paid a 2.8B $ fine, the CEO resigned, executives have been facing criminal charges, and a slew of international cases are still outstanding. Another difference is that VW’s deceit had direct human health consequences.

Thank you for sharing this. I’ve donated (small amounts of) money to Mozilla and Wikipedia in the past. Your post makes me consider donating to archive.org this year.

Edit: typo

Both this and the previous discussion show that HN readers believe facts (or information) can and do change peoples’ minds. The way I understand the article (and the books it refers to) it suggests that social factors have a stronger effect on opinions than facts. I find this hypothesis plausible when I look at the polarized discussions I see playing out at the societal level, as well as interactions with other people individually. And maybe, rather than refute it, the HN reaction to the article is further evidence for the mechanism the article describes?

Edit: typo