raven105x

Irresponsible disclosure is releasing products and services with flaws like these onto the open market - the rest is corporate doublespeak.

I think I was sorely misunderstood ...the point is to not spend on what you don't need - whether that's 15% of your income, or 80%, it was there to illustrate just that. When I started working at 18, my living expenses could've been 100% of my income if I even tried to live "like average". I lived like I was on welfare and saved my money and because of that, avoided the typical mid-20s credit card sinkhole, the fancy cars, and all the other crap nobody really needs. Career trajectory aside, the savings from the years when it was the hardest to save were the only way to get to this point.

We are at roughly the same compensation. If you save 60k a year vs 120k a year, the time it takes to own a house is cut in half, the rent and interest bleed stops twice as fast.

Now you're saving 180k a year by reducing bleed even though your expenses are the same, etc etc. Compound finance is a helluva drug

Because when I moved to America at 16 and had nothing, and was homeless so I could pay for college, I didn't give care about how I looked relative to others. And if I spent my money impulsively or even worse cared about impressing anyone other than myself, I'd likely be in crushing debt right now just like most people who appear to be "living the life". Last I checked, hard work is not privilege.

Nobody likes to talk about how the "self made people who need their privelege checked" did before they were well off. Not the pitfalls, not the multiple years of 90 hour work weeks.

Cheapest rent is about $1,800/mo in my area (California, eh) - my car is by far the worse one around. To me, it's about what trajectory you funnel your income in to generate wealth - tangible, liquid, appreciating assets as well as ETFs, bonds & recurring revenue. The notion of someone who's my age looking at a luxury or exotic car which is a chump change spend for someone who's had 1-3 more decades to generate wealth and concluding that wrecking their own long-term trajectory by incurring depreciation & loan interest - all for the sake of superficial equality, is absolutely insane to me.

Why is this a thing? My total, all-encompassing expenses are less than 15% of my income annually and I have zero debt. I rent a modest apartment because I am in my 20s & the loss on rent is, for now, less than the would-be loss of property taxes + HOA + home loan interest. I drive a nine year old Prius I bought when I was 18 - and I know that statistically everyone my age driving a luxury vehicle is either in debt, has outside income, or simply out-performed me financially - all of which are okay. This is just a youthful and inexperienced opinion, but it sure as hell seems like the root of the issue is not income inequality, or social theory, or any other problem requiring a solution but our national obsession of not minding our own business since people aren't at peace with themselves.

Mind you, these are sentient, presumably self-aware, humans doing this - this isn't the behavior of a bot in a game, but actual people. Yikes

To classify mutation as "artificial" or "natural" is a fool's errand. Nature makes mistakes all the time, just like us humans - the only difference is we don't have hundreds of millions of years to even ours out. In the current age this may still be a "but religion and ethics" argument. This is conjecture, alas it will be a "if your nation isn't doing this, it is obsolete" fact by no later than 2100.

I said nothing of Western history and am familiar with the subject. Also, this is completely unrelated to my point so you will receive no further responses on it.

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

If a data set is flawed, it should be fixed, but when ML finds objective patterns our culture finds subjectively unpalatable and we choose to "fix" them, we fall prey to and re-enact the same grade of self-delusion exhibited by, for example, "the church" in the dark ages. Computer science is already low in terms of accountability & rigor compared to other fields without these kinds of suggestions.

If it took you three billion dollars and five years to conceptualize an apple that cured something, and suddenly it was commonwealth, nobody would look for apples that cured something, and we'd go back to the dark ages. Ideologies must be evaluated on what they functionally incentivize in a society - and this proposition makes R&D investment equivalent to financial suicide.

This isn't true. Their own government created the pre-requisite conditions for this, and then their parents acted on those by breaking the law.

If you are an insane or mentally incapable parent, your kids will be, essentially 'put in a camp'. The US government is doing what it should be.

Identity politics zealots can down-vote, of course, but I fought a decade for my green card - the right way. And every time people who skirt the law are allowed to stay in this country the wrong way it disrespects, belittles and is a slap in the fact to everyone who came here the right way, respectfully waiting even while my own family was living in basically a war zone.

Anyone who comes here illegally to benefit themselves at the expense of the state is an enemy - forget this, or sacrifice this principle, and your progeny will very likely be born into a living hell of a similar kind that those people (god bless them, I'm not heartless - I grew up in it) are trying to run away from. I thought this before I had my green card as well: it's about integrity.

There is so much armchair theory and bullshit surrounding economics (especially in the news) that it's hard to tell what's valid anymore.

For clarification: Monopolies can result from anti-competitive practices, or an overwhelming competitive advantage. Talking about the latter here

The 'anti-trust' and 'monopoly' arguments strike me as hypocritical and self-contradictory in the context of capitalism. We encourage businesses to compete and succeed, yet when they do so disproportionally, everyone suddenly feels entitled to intervene in their structure, policies & processes - and best of all, we have no objective guidelines or criteria for when this should happen.

The question then becomes: who gets to decide when to bring forth these concerns, and what's their agenda? Food for thought.

These are essentially 'super-technologies', much like government-requested back doors and master keys. It's not an overstatement to say that the potential they hold is on par with human genetic engineering - something the civilized world has thus far agreed is a road best avoided. Sure, the ethical dilemma of them is enough to give pause - but are the following not much greater risks?

* These systems will crowdsource "evidence", and by proxy, accountability - what happens when a mistake is made?

* Increased centralization will eventually enable 'single point of failure' scenarios in systems of a national/international scale.

* What happens when someone misuses or gains unauthorized access to such systems? Will the damage be reversible?

Such technologies will be deployed before accountability for them is defined, leading to a temporary absence thereof. Systems of the past (digital or otherwise) were inherently tolerant to misuse, malfunctions & misfires because only so much damage could be done before the errant behavior was discovered & handled. Today, how many seconds would it take to plunge a country into chaos?

Would this not be an excellent design cue for friction-based water heaters?

This is what happens when the 3900/3950X are on TSMC's 7nm FINFET while Intel's still on 14nm base Lithography

That's cryptography at scale in a nutshell, thus far it seems to be a fair enough countermeasure. Cryptography on an individual item with an unknown cipher/salt/hash can be treated as security via entropy - but with a big enough data set and some idea of the target content, things quickly devolve into security via obscurity since the target content is discoverable with enough time and computational resources. Security via "untamperability" (quantum bits/state) is better, alas we're not quite there yet.

My biggest worry is that all currently known classical "secure" data sets, including encrypted but recorded internet communication, will become an open book a few decades from now. What insights will the powers that be choose draw from it then, and how will that impact our future society? Food for thought.

The best part of an emergent global economy is that any single government can only over-reach so much before the country's GDP plummets in the global ranking, leading to revolution or collapse.

Personally, yes. Like many posters here I am an Engineer not in the medical field, so take my opinion with a grain (read: mound) of salt.

Most "free" healthcare systems have either (1) horrible quality of service or (2) impossibly long waits unless your life is in danger or close to it. The latter is a systemic issue I've noticed in that healthcare, regardless of pricing or structure, does not aim to foster optimal health, but merely to prevent mortality - so if you go with a 'minor' issue such as recurring headaches or chronic fatigue, it will be dismissed entirely.

I don't have the right answer here and am all for people having affordable options from 'free, wait 3 months' to '20K, full service now', but once again, personally speaking, I'm not rich enough for 'free' things. I'd rather pay and know exactly what (and in this case, much more importantly, when) I'm getting. And from what I've noticed, my personal beliefs that people should strive for optimal health rather than mere preservation of life, is a popular opinion deemed 'unrealistic' by experts.

Prices will not plummet due to oversupply, they will increase as demand decreases to increase profitability. Electricity prices reflect only one thing: how high they can be while still being "affordable". Even now, in most major cities, residential pricing is 10x-50x of business/industrial pricing ...in the same zip code. The cost of production of electricity is almost enitely irrelevant to its' pricing.

After fighting for a decade of my adult life to even get a green card, the corollary of "Sneak into our country and have sex here for free citizenship" is not appealing.

It took the death of someone catering to diversity, women and minorities to even bring this subject into any measure of media spotlight.

When you classify issues into "trendy" and "real", the disproportionate focus distribution between the two reveals a key metric of society.

You don't need marketing moves with a net worth of over 90B USD. If he wants to act, he'll buy the required companies/patents & do it.

How would this, as a "marketing move", make any sense for him - or even be worth his time to do in the first place?

Funny, all this contention around technology that simply doesn't exist yet. When automakers market SAE Autonomy L2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Classification) certified vehicles as "self-driving" in official marketing media, and even more so when their sales reps blatantly lie to customers (both of which should be illegal), they're responsible for lost lives and undermining their companies' image, ethics and financials.

There's only one car certified for SAE L3 / "eyes off" and it's the 2018 Audi A8, only up to 60kmph - this is still not self-driving.

The primary concern here is false advertising as pervasive as it is blatant.

The bar isn't "too" high, it's somewhere in the 347th E8 lie algebra dimension high. We already live among "ministries of truth", they're just called science journals and studies. No matter how objective a field may seem to outsiders (mathematics, physics, astrology and life sciences), it is often plagued by dogma. The best people can do is pick their battles on what to educate themselves about, and even then the validity of information they find is often suspect. This is the natural outcome of living in the gap after the information explosion yet before fully autonomous verification.

Top-down direction (feedback) can only be effective when grounded in reality, and to do this you must be approachable to your direct reports, hence fairly hands-off during day to day operations so that your presence in a meeting impacts it minimally - only then can you gather accurate information to give effective direction and feedback.

Team directives are "here are our goals, what's the best way to make them happen?, alas at the individual level, "management style" doesn't fly. Your team will be full of people each of whom take feedback differently and must be approached differently if you want to be as effective as possible.

Your goals as a manager are almost always best met by enabling your team via reducing their stress levels and providing them with the tools they need.

Do this, and they will meet whatever (usually pointless) goals or KPI's the brass uses to evaluate your performance.

H1Bs are a form of corporate welfare that has to stop. Let me TL;DR this for you.

Q. "B-b-but there's a shortage of skilled workers!"

A. Good, let supply-demand make you pay what you should be paying for it. Let our colleges give meaningful education to people they're putting in debt for jobs they can actually get later on.

Our economy is bleeding to death while corporations rack in record profits because of outsourcing.

Few simple rules that would help a lot.

* Want an H1B? Pay them in the top 10th percentile of similar domestic professionals' wages. * Want an H1B? Great, but once you sponsor it, they're free to work for anyone in the U.S. * Want an H1B? Great, but you'll be limited to no more than 5% of your total employees. * That 5% limit includes overseas offices and "international" owned ventures.

If a company is domestic, they should stay domestic. If it's international, they have no need for H1Bs.

I'm writing this as a disgruntled software engineer turned into a business owner.

People getting away with crap like this is infuriating.

Probably going to get down-voted to hell for this on a place like HN, but here comes reality.

The legal and idealistic views of how people should act like have nothing to do with how they (we) actually act and behave. Humans are animals. We want to be around and work with people we like, who happen to be people that are most similar to us. Cultural fit is more than a thing, it's an instinct. You can reason about how it might be wrong but you can't shut it down. When are people most productive? When they feel part of an "inner circle", a company "us" vs "them" (competition) mentality. Teams with the strongest sense of unity tend to be among the most productive and group cohesion depends on the human factor. You can inspire cohesion by telling people how they should love and get along with everyone and having non-stop team building activities, which works - kind of. Or you can put together a group of people that will naturally form strong bonds and work well together.

Interestingly, only bigger corporations reap the best of both worlds: satisfying the trendy PC urges while still having optimally (naturally) functioning teams by forming many offices / silos of "identity groups". For people who think this is rubbish or work in a mash-up of an office, you will notice that people naturally gravitate towards those who are most similar to them and spend their after-hours / lunch break with them. Not saying it's right, but this is how things work. More importantly, it's rubbish that we are required by law to do the opposite. If you start a company with a couple of guys you grew up with and it works great, all of you are pulling 12 hour days because you genuinely enjoy being there, have open conflict in the office so you can get it out of the way and move on, etc.

The next thing you know this product you and your friends built is racking in 5 digits a month, so you hire a few more people - usually friends of friends - to help out. A year or two later, you're up to 6 digits and you need to hire more people, but now you are required by law to hire one of every minority and center out the gender ratio 50/50. For all the talk of race and gender "blindness" / "equality", mandates to have certain numbers and percentages of each are extremely hypocritical. The real question is are these people really racist / sexist / [trendy label here] or do they just want to be able to work with people they enjoy being around? In the end, "Cultural fit" is the last bastion of maybe having some wiggle room to hire people you actually want to hire into a company you built.

> There are no "brain enhancers"

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the article is indeed one big garbage advertisement, alas there is a large number of non-stimulatory substances which reliably enhance cognition in measures that can be readily quantified and telling people otherwise is spreading ignorance and misinformation.

First of all, virtually all Adaptogens are non-stimulant cognition enhancers, of which these are the most notable:

Bacopa - http://examine.com/supplements/Bacopa+monnieri/ Rhodiola - http://examine.com/supplements/Rhodiola+Rosea/

Second, there are the profound alas very situational cognition enhancers, such as:

Piracetam & Noopept in stroke victims, former Alcoholics (quite common) and as you pointed out the elderly. NSI-189 & PRL-8-53 for poverty-stricken adults who grew up sleep deprived and/or malnutritioned (common).

Then there are substances widely reported as helpful in healthy subjects, alas with insufficient studies:

Tianeptine, Centro & CDP/GPC Cholines, Sulbutiamine ...hell even Creatine is a slight cognitive enhancer.

Now - to your point: are any of these life changing? In damaged individuals, perhaps. Alas like you said in healthy young adults, many of these substances will produce either mild improvements or no improvements at all save for extreme neurological outliers.

But to claim that Stimulants are the only cognitive enhancers especially when you seem to've done some basic research... why?

Just registered, looking forward to seeing how this will be used. A free, legally admissible (still skeptical of that point) service like this is sure to tip the scales in favor of individual inventors and innovators at least somewhat - which is always a good thing (let's pretend the U.S. throw money at people to win "legal" system doesn't exist).