stalcottsmith

Internal features (as you describe them, they sound like virtues) of grit, empathy (or lack thereof) and patience are second-order modifiers of base ability which is largely fixed at birth or at least by early childhood. Some amount of virtue can overcome a limited deficit of potential but it is more the exception than the rule.

We have had hereditary social stratification for basically all of human history. Only in recent centuries and only in the most developed parts of the world have we taken a brief detour away from some form of feudalism which is observed pretty much everywhere people settled down to practice agriculture and produce surpluses. It seems like today, we are busy recreating Feudalism 2.0 with American characteristics.

The wealth inequality we observe today seems fairly indistinguishable from that which we might observe in a world where genetically heritable features (not necessarily or only IQ) largely determine financial outcomes and where wealth is inherited, compounding effects through generations. Whether nature or nurture, advantages will be passed along even if we implement a 100% inheritance tax.

Bill Gates said something interesting a few years ago vis a vis the greatest change in the world since he grew up -- that in the middle of the last century, it was better to be born a person of average intelligence in a place like Buffalo, NY than it was to be born a genius in Calcutta. Today, this is no longer true.

A poor child of high intelligence, born in the U.S. (or indeed almost anywhere in the top 80% of the world) has greater access to knowledge and the tools of self-improvement than ever before.

Nowhere does this article mention difference in ability or intelligence. Search the article -- the words "ability" and "intelligence" do not appear. You cannot address the subject of income or social mobility in an intellectually honest way without engaging this subject or controlling for or studying these variables either on an individual level or across groups or populations you wish to study.

It's more complicated than that. As a first approximation inflation is a transfer of wealth from from savers to debtors. However, there are many under-appreciated details based on tax implications of such things as paying real taxes on illusory income. (nominal gains which result in an real-after-tax loss) I learned a lot about this from this guy: http://danielamerman.com/

In my observation, when opposite-sex dating occurs between coworkers in all but the largest enterprises where contact cannot be avoided after a breakup, one or the other employee will end up leaving -- usually the person with lower status or value. Even if they tie the knot, you may find one or the other partner wanting to work "somewhere else."

As a manager, you should be prepared for this eventuality once you become aware of the activity. It is unreasonable to forbid all dating since many happy marriages were established between people who met in the workplace. It is reasonable to let people know that they may face dismissal if their dating issues enter the workplace and prove a distraction for themselves or others.

On a practical level managers wish to avoid unnecessary turnover or drama in the workplace. Knowing that employee dating will almost inevitably lead to one or both of these things, I understand the "frown upon" aspect. The employees themselves should be adult enough to know that they are gambling with their jobs.

I think belief in the "founding fathers" comes down to a faith in systems design or the idea that there exists in theory a system which some sufficiently brilliant folks may devise which addresses the enduring human problem of "how do we all live together and get along" in some optimal way. The American system bequeathed to us by the so called founding fathers and refined over more than two centuries was an experiment that its participants and sponsors have largely portrayed as ideal, or at least flawed but superior to others, and always improving.

When a "geek" or systemically-thinking person wakes up politically, having realized that much is going deeply wrong, the first thing he or she is likely to do is to consult the founding documents which most of us were taught in civics class or for our various merit badges comprise the guide and inspiration for our civil governance. Seeing obvious departures from the design, it is not hard to seize onto the idea that to correct things we merely need to return to the design and follow the rules. Indeed that might improve things.

The difficulty of the various struggles to implement substantial changes is hardly an indictment of the system laid out by the founding fathers. Conservatism is the rule. It is wise to temper the passions of the people for radical changes which they may press to address temporary needs. The ultimate success of campaigns to extend suffrage, abolish child labor, end slavery and segregation, and even to rollback prohibition testify to the effectiveness of the system devised. It presumably worked as intended in those instances. It failed to prevent a war between the states, the death of 600,000 men, and much other injustice in more recent times.

One can find much wisdom and value in the writings, thinking and dialog that went on at the founding of the United States and surely a measure of nonsense too. It seems clear however leaders of that time sought to grapple with the problems of governance and cooperation sincerely and with a great deal of intellect and ability. They treated these issues as matters of vital importance in a way that seems quaint and removed from our decadent era -- that is unless you live in one of the many countries lacking material comforts, safety and political stability.

The problems they sought to address have not changed much since then. Human beings are what they are, technology not withstanding.

America is and remains an experiment on many levels. Ben Franklin's remark coming out of the constitutional convention about "A republic, madam, if you can keep it" is relevant today. This surveillance business could be the end of it. So could imperial overstretch and fiscal profligacy precipitating a collapse. Its also possible that the very different demographics of the country two and a half centuries after its founding render it simply ungovernable in the way or fashion imagined by the founders.

With particular regard to the Constitution and its merits, I believe I paraphrase Lysander Spooner in saying, it either has failed to prevent tyranny or in fact provides for it. If it is so, then the verdict would be the same either way. I am not certain I have better proposition but I do not have a blind faith that in order to cure our ills all we need to do is exhibit greater fidelity to the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

Macminicolo. Best deal. Been a customer since 05

> The U.S. central banking system ranks among the finest of its kind.

I agree...

> Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation.

This is a most deceptive and inherently political statement. Sanitation is a great invention for everyone. Central banking not so much.

Central banking and centralised control of the money supply serve to concentrate the greatest opportunity for skimming the surplus generated by vast productive populations into the hands a very few people to direct as they wish. Whether this process is controlled democratically or not (and in the US it most certainly is not) is not the point.

The way this is done in the US is no different in principle to the way it is done by elite in more obviously "corrupt" countries. In the US, it is more sophisticated and over the last century it has attained the patina of established respectability. In the US they have managed to set this system up without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. (the surplus-producing population)

The skimming in the US is accomplished first through powerful central taxation which requires centralised record keeping and control of the banking sector. Secondly wealth and accumulated surplus is skimmed (redistributed upwards) through the control of credit extended by banks to generally expand and potentially to "contract" the money (credit) supply. Inflation generally rewards large debtors and punishes savers.

Skimming is also accomplished by helping to grow and trade in government debt (granting incredibly valuable concessions to favoured dealers), assisting in managing capital flows into and out of the country, extending vast credits to powerful interest groups (mostly bankers) thereby helping powerful private borrowers to lean on the public credit for private gain, and most importantly and tragically to make possible and in fact encourage wars of choice which are clearly to the benefit of private interests and clearly not of any benefit to the general public. Is it any wonder that the Fed was created by bankers and war financiers, for the benefit of bankers and war financiers? This goes back to Morgan and others and their intimate involvement in the financing of Britain and France and subsequent agitation for American entry into WWI.

Central banking is most convenient and necessary for anyone wishing to control or direct economic activity and hence the lives of others. That is why it appeals to statists of all persuasions who perceive it as powerful lever or tool they hope employ in their fantasies of control. Prominent early communists saw state-controlled central banking as an essential step for converting a capitalist system to a communist one. That is also why most "crazy libertarians" find their way to a stance opposing central banking. Central banking is anathema to Liberty. Jefferson killed the first Bank of the United States and exposed it as an agent of foreign interests. (The capital for the first bank was created by an early scam which had people talk down the debts of the continental congress and buy up the IOUs from the poor soldiers who fought for the revolution for a few pennies on the dollar, and then lobby successfully for the debts to be assumed and honored at face value by the new constitutional government. This was a similar scam to the way the oligarchs in Russia convinced newly enriched peasants to sell their shares in state assets for cheap.) Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States for much the same reasons as Jefferson had a generation before. Seventy years later, a true, well documented conspiracy of financiers, gave the US its third central bank.

I agree with other posters, that one must look at the actions and histories of many different central banks in different countries to understand the nature of the beast. The US is only the most competent in obfuscating its nature, purpose and origin. It has "won" at the central banking game for almost 100 years. Your praise of the US's central bank comes at the zenith of its power. I suspect over the next 10 years, it will resemble its cousins in less competent regimes and juridictions more and more.

The US central bank, aka the Fed, is a brilliant creation. It is a brilliant creation of the fevered minds of oligarchs to defend and advance their oligarchy. It has lasted 100 years. I hope it will not last another 100. With Idiocracy increasingly fast upon us, the prospects for change are not good. Bitcoin to the moon.

No, it is a widespread and very dangerous misconception. Rights as conceived at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution are not granted but rather inherent. The Bill of Rights enumerated rights the founders believed all people had. It was a list but not meant to be complete. In fact one strong argument against enumerating them at all was that people would come to believe the list was complete or that it somehow granted the enumerated rights.

The religious ones thought these rights came from God but in any case most all agreed these are "Natural Rights" that you have because you are a human being. Such rights can only be violated by governments. They cannot be granted or taken away.

This attitude that rights only adhere to citizens of the US, common among united statesians, is a pathetic indicator of the level of indoctrination. It's also morally and philosophically appalling. It's the same attitude that allows united statesians to support bombing brown people on the other side of the world for whatever reasons their leaders give them.

Well structured relational databases are an awesome tool. I have built and used hundreds. But they are a bit of cargo cult architecture. Deciding to use one means adding lots of code. It adds a lot of complexity around testing. All of it multiplies. It's another big Artifact to maintain and you may have to decide how you will scale it, replicate it, make it highly-available, etc. NOSQL was the first crack in the seemingly unassailable assumption that you need to use a DB. Now I think a few of us are questioning whether to use a datastore at all. After all, once you've dropped SQL for some functions, why stuff them into yet another opaque datastore? You might end up having to use a relational database anyway at some point and then you're stuck with another piece of junk and all its conceptual overhead and extra code. Start with files and introduce a relational database only when necessary.

Formats are straight forward these days. Just write out JSON, XML, HTML5 w/ microformats or even Yaml. The art is in the "schema" or how you store the files. Choose wisely with some knowledge of your requirements and it seems like it can work well.

Files on disk mean you can use all your great UNIX tooling to do all sorts of complex operations that would take you many many hours of skilled development to do with a database. Then there are all the possible things you could do with Git or (imagine!) ZFS! Versioning everything for free? Keep an activity log within a hierarchy. What kind of cool stuff can you do with that? I aim to find out.

Slowly the "web" seems to be rediscovering desktop UI development techniques from 15 years ago or re-implenting things Adobe had elegantly working in Flex 5-10 years ago.

Binding UI to the state of a data structure seems like magic in Javascript land until you realize Flex had it and Java had it and a bunch of native platforms had it... probably even GEOS had it in 1986. Javascript still has to bend over backwards to make this work it seems.

I've seen a lot of dumb Rails server configs and even dumber usages of Rails without any tuning at all.

With a couple weeks or a month of work I could shrink the hosting fees or resources consumed by a factor of 5 out of most Rails apps that are sitting up around 30 servers... and probably a factor of 10. Leaving aside whatever rookie or even intermediate mistakes were made in their Ruby code or their database, this post indicates a lack of understanding of what happened when their server fell over. Proper tuning of a deployment should not trigger a 100% failure mode like this.

These folks were itching to get off of Ruby for whatever reason... after all their roots were in Java. If your goal is to do a rewrite and learn a new language and gain some notoriety why waste time learning what you did wrong with Ruby or your server config?

Do not underestimate your importance and the impact you can have for the category 3) students.

My first year Calculus professor 20 years ago had very similar feelings and frustrations, but through his passion he connected with some of us. Lots of great students don't apply to the best schools and for whatever reason end up stuck somewhere close to home. He eventually encouraged me to take his Modern Algebra class and that opened my mind to a whole world of Mathematical beauty.

Enjoy the opportunity to touch young minds as long as you can.