susijdjdjxa

I’m having a hard time squaring reasons 1 and 2. If legacy admits struggle, are they really being coddled? Personally, I didn’t apply to Hopkins because it sounded like boot camp. So your reason 2 seems a lot more plausible.

The funding for this research is minuscule fraction compared to the agriculture industry. Exploring this part of the potential solution space is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t end up being the best way forward. We need to look into all the options to have a chance at finding out what works best. This article is actually about research of an an alternative agricultural process so it’s odd to naysay it in the same comment.

Sure you could choose to define the terms that way, but I think it would cause confusion given the wide understanding that climate change refers specifically to the phenomenon formerly known as global warming.

Running a company such as this is like living in a shark tank. Powerful, convincing people are going to lobby you to do what they think you ought to be doing. See the recent privatization of .org for how things can go wrong. You need the right person at the helm with strong convictions.

The Ivy no-loan policies are a relatively recent development.

Trading based on inside information? This is verging on “not even wrong”. Are you aware that Theranos was not a public company?

Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?

Currently there is a very high rate of HOV lane violations. I wonder if they’ll enforce it more when it becomes a toll lane too.

I think this argument fails because “firm-space” is sparse. There are many companies, but there are way more possible companies given all the degrees of freedom. Also, the number of “competition events” is small. Companies don’t have the opportunity to run gradient descent to optimize themselves. A bunch of companies can make the same bad decision for the same bad reason, and they will each succeed or fail because of a bunch of unrelated factors.

I think the “outcompeted” argument proves too much. Nobody does anything wrong, otherwise they would be outcompeted.

Think about how when an announcement is made, a bunch of detailed news stories drop at the same moment. This is pre-arranged. Companies employ PR professionals (or contract with PR firms) who have relationships with news outlets and they pitch stories via those relationships. The news outlet does need to be careful about whether to take these stories at face value if it has a reputation to protect. It also goes for politicians, sports teams, all sorts of entities who care about public relations.

> Plus, the rules that interacted with establishment support to facilitate Clinton's win in 2016 were abolishes almost immediately due largely to the influence the Sanders factions gained in the DNC despite not winning the nomination, so even a Clinton clone with an electorate with no hindsight to 2016 failures would have a harder time.

Hillary won the primary with 16.9M votes to Sanders’ 13.2M, are you telling me Democratic Party has changed its rules such that someone wins the vote like that won’t win the nomination?

Our moral intuitions are almost entirely determined by the society we live in. 30 years ago, 30% of people in the US supported gay marriage, and now it’s over 60%. Do you believe the number of good people doubled during that time?

I’m gay, and to me the animal farming industry is obviously more wrong than banning same-sex marriage. Yet almost everyone in both of the political tribes eats meat.

My values fall in line with the left in most areas, so I generally associate and agree with left-wingers. This means I get exposed to a lot of left-wing perspectives and media, so to me, it appears that the Republicans are constantly being evil. But then again, everyone on both sides is eating meat, so how different can they possibly be?

I don’t understand, can you elaborate? Hiding some of your income reduces your tax paid regardless of whether you take the standard deduction.

I think it’s not a meaningful comparison because you aren’t growing your own hops.

In my experience nobody can tell what you’re doing at your desk (even if they can see the screen over your shoulder). So you can get face-time while learning for your own benefit.

I wouldn’t count it as productive when the outcome is he has to spend time in court explaining himself later. I’d venture to guess the time spends directing his employees is whether all the productivity happens.

This sounds like moving the goalposts for the definition of work.

>never run out of battery or require charging

On this point, wireless headphones are massively superior. You only need to plug in wireless headphones when you’re not using them. You need to plug in wired headphones all the time when using them. This enables things like “using two hands to carry an object across a room, without wearing a pocket, while listening to headphones”. This is a huge practical upgrade that most people find impossible to give up once habituated.

LSD is sedating? Spoken like someone who never tried LSD.

It is really weird to be called a bro when I’ve been bullied by bros for half of my life. I came here to get away from the bros, and based on the behavior of people I encounter on a daily basis, this was successful.

If you’re going to go and blame Mexico, you ought to have at least a bit of evidence.

Good question!

I think “pretentious” means “they are doing this to impress me, and it doesn’t seem authentic.”

I’d say this is a consequence of our outsourcing the manufacture of these products. Repairing electronics is a related skill to developing/manufacturing them. It makes sense that the economy we hire to build these products would also be best at repairing them.

I don’t buy this claim that Microsoft has good support for all their products. If my Windows machine is running slow will Microsoft support help me? Why do my family members keep asking me for help with their computers if Microsoft support is so great?

To me, the idea of getting good support on any consumer software is laughable, and has no bearing on Google.

My problem with policies that require employers to give benefits to part time workers is that they massively increase the marginal cost of labor. There should be a smooth curve relating hours worked to compensation provided. Increasing the minimum wage raises the entire curve, preserving a uniform relationship. Benefits for gig workers radically distorts the curve, which will probably cause a bunch of economic activity to cease entirely. This seems likely to harm everyone involved (laborers, consumers).

I claim it’s good for society that Uber can pay otherwise idle workers to use their otherwise idle cars to drive drunk people home when the bars close, even if that activity is only profitable for 10 hours a week.

The right way for the government to provide benefits is for it to provide benefits, not to shoehorn those benefits into an unrelated labor market transaction.

I’m a little confused on your overall point here - are you saying that it’s only good to reduce gun homicides, not suicides?

People affected by this bill are all over Twitter talking about it. Where is your skepticism? You don’t believe that there are freelancers in California that don’t have full-time jobs?

Many of the freelancers impacted by this bill do not have a full time job, and this bill won’t give them that, it will just take what they have away.

Those people also aren’t helped by having their employment taken away by this legislation.

I have a friend with health issues that mean that he’s only able to work some of the time, and can’t predict when. Gig economy jobs are the first time that he’s been able to earn any income beyond his disability check. I hope this bill that tries to enforce the “normal” full-time employment relationship doesn’t deprive him of that.