throwaway76543

Yes, but not just from the transplant. The immunosuppressant drugs following a transplant also increase your risk of cancer. Dramatically for certain types of cancers.

The horse market is like the piano market. Exceptional specimens are exceedingly expensive but at the low end you can probably just find one for free that no one wants anymore.

Look, this is absurd. Yes, it's illegal but so what? Plenty of people have MMJ cards, have scanned their ID at a dispensary, or have applied for state cultivation licenses.

The idea that academia is somehow prevented from engaging in this field because it's federally illegal is not credible and it tarnishes the integrity of the field.

Taxi service regulation in the US are why those systems are unusable. I can't get a taxi if there aren't enough medallions issued.

There's no regulatory body preventing me from getting into the car I purchased. It makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that suddenly we need regulation simply because I rented the car in a particular way instead of driving it myself.

The regulations that matter with respect to taxi services are those that protect consumers -- there is no basis for using regulation to limit a consumer's access to the service.

Slatestarcodex wrote a fantastic blog on exactly this subject: "The Toxoplasma of Rage" http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

I don't think it's true that "everything helps." I think many of these grandstanding initiatives are received with open mockery and I think they serve to undermine the credibility of the larger environmental effort.

Recently we have had some rather large political shifts which move the needle considerably further away from our ecological goals. If you look at what people are saying within these political circles you will see derisive phrases like "virtue signaling," referring to exactly this sort of thing.

When you "send a message" you take work which might be perceived as mutually beneficial and you turn it into a fight. You should expect the response to be the inverse: People will begin to intentionally destroy the environment to send you a message in return. This has been part of Trump's schtick over the last year. This is why there is a culture around "rolling coal." This is actually happening.

This is extremely bad policy and it hurts the environment.

If the context here is the development of human history leading up to notions of private employment then our timeline is in the tens of thousands of years and variations within past decades become almost irrelevant. Comparing hunter-gatherers or roaming tribes with modern city dwellers? Enough said.

I'm not sure I disagree with you about the last 50 years. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to dissect because the notion of a "workday" is relative and changes over time. I think a day of work is a lot easier now than in the 1950s and I think the ancillary work we perform to care for ourselves and our homes is reduced. By how much, I'm not sure how to quantify.

I recall Hans Rosling did a great talk along these lines, "The Magic Washing Machine." It's mostly talking about the mechanization of household labor in the mid century which we agree took place. I think since then we no longer spend as much time cooking, or cleaning, maintaining our appliances or cars. I think improvements in communication systems save a surprising amount of time -- consider how many hours a month you might waste if cell phones didn't exist? If you had to drive to a place to sign paperwork instead of fill out an online form?

There's nothing so large as the washing machine in the last 50 years but I think we have a significant amount of small improvements. Coupled with work becoming more palatable (part of why work/life becomes blurred is that some large percentage of us enjoy working) I think there's a possibility that labor has shrank in the last 50 years even if people work longer hours. Which they may not, factoring in household labor.

I know many people who do not need to work as hard as they do -- some who do not need to work at all. Yet they still do, even when the requirement is removed.

My opinion about the last 50 years is fairly weakly held, I'm basically just thinking freely. My strong comments above are in reference to the development of much more basic notions like "private employment."

The cost of UBI depends entirely on the magnitude of the benefit; your position is indefensible given we haven't established the magnitude.

Obviously increasing welfare implies increased taxes. I don't see anything controversial there? I do agree the USA currently lacks the political will to move much in this direction.

No, it's not speculation. I have a cite: literally the entire progression of human history and societal development.

Steady (and in the last century, enormous) progression toward more leisure time, with more wealth and latitude at our disposal than ever before.

UBI is good. You're going to fund UBI by working for other people.

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see.

It's a net win overall.

Your comment reminds me of the paradoxical fact that countries with high "life satisfaction" scores have higher rates of suicide: http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-state...

This trend is also seen throughout the socio-economic strata: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/why-suicides-are-more-co... . To wit: Poor people kill each other, rich people kill themselves.

It's a very curious dynamic.

Yeah. I should say "virtually no one." The tax did apply to a very tiny proportion of high end income.

It didn't really, though. That's the marginal income rate, not capital gains -- it's a tax rate for an empty bracket. It was super effective wartime grandstanding which is still fooling everyone decades later.

Capital gains -- the rate the upper class actually pays -- has never risen above 35% at the federal level. And that's within a few points of 2018 marginal rates when we factor in state level taxes for places like California. The tax moved from federal to state (or to earmarked federal, like NIIT)

Capital gains:

1945: 35% federal + 6% state = 41%

2018: 25% federal + 3.8% NIIT + 13.1% state = 41.9%

Prior to losing SALT, wealthy Californians paid slightly lower marginal rates than in 1945. Trump's changes cause the current marginal tax rate for wealthy Californians to be higher than in 1945 -- the year you're calling out as a peak.

No one really paid 94%.

> Yes they are!

No, they are not.

> The FHA specifically applies to housing ads!

As I explained, the FHA applies to certain /kinds/ of housing ads. The determination of whether the FHA applies at all is dependent on a multitude of factors which an advertising middle-man cannot easily know.

Some advertisers opt to respond by applying broad content bans, but this is not reflective of the underlying law.

You will not develop an accurate understanding of the law by trying to reverse engineer it through reading various corporate policies.

> No, discriminatory ads are illegal (other than sex in a roommate situation) even though discrimination in selection is legal in some cases.

This is flatly incorrect. There is no differentiation whatsoever in the FHA between different types of discrimination. They are all uniformly referenced and exempted. See 42 U.S. Code § 3604 Sec 804.

The exemptions mean the FHA restrictions do not apply at all. Nowhere is gender discrimination carved out differently from any other type.

> No, it's not legal.

Yeah, it is. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is a fact not a preference.

You are making a common error by ascribing common sense and reasonability to the law. Sometimes this can help frame broad tenets but in this particular case it is leading you to a demonstrably false conclusion.

It's a strictly incorrect metaphor. Radio stations aren't liable in this scenario. Neither are newspapers with illegal personal ads for discriminatory housing.

There's no way they can be liable because they can't know if the ads are illegal or not. The legality of a given ad depends on many factors not always present in the ad itself -- such as whether the landlord lives in one of the units. All of the above selection criteria are perfectly OK to filter by if a landlord occupies a unit in a building with less than 4 units.

This is why it's legal to advertise for particular genders in a shared apartment scenario. It's also legal to advertise for other criteria like race in these cases -- though it's not socially acceptable.

It's impossible for Facebook to know whether a given ad is legal because of these hidden criteria.

"Worth the time" is relative. Some people really enjoy shows which other people consider to be "junk."

I suspect Netflix realizes this. I don't mind them not being suggested, but I'd be really upset if "junk" shows became unavailable. There's a bunch of popular content which I don't enjoy and I wouldn't be surprised if a sizable portion of content I do consume is "junk" according to popular opinion.

"You're basically anthropomorphizing, thinking that there just has to be a way for humans to screw this resource up because humans are just that icky and gross"

I said nothing of the sort. You are, perhaps, confusing me with another poster.

"There's no spacetime equivalent"

Nonsense. The obvious example is emitted radiation, though any type of energy, matter or field byproduct might fit the bill.

Much of our terrestrial pollution took place in "uninhabited areas" which decades later became inhabited. Your comment is reminiscent of 19th and early 20th century attitudes toward pollution.

It's true that it isn't a problem -- until it is.

"In what preferred reference frame does your "pollution" take place in?"

Pollution would be any undesirable side effect and there are plenty to be imagined in these scenarios.

Your comment strikes me a bit like a chemist denying environmental pollution as it's all "just chemicals."

It's strange to worry about a $10k investment while we're both acknowledging the investment by way of accepting a below market salary is an order of magnitude higher.

If you can't afford dropping $10k to buy your equity then you can't afford taking a $10k lower base salary -- let alone a $100k lower base.

It depends entirely on the cost to purchase. If it's a fraction of the opportunity cost you're probably crazy not to early exercise.

There are major benefits beyond tax savings. If you quit before a liquidity event you can easily keep the vested equity without worrying about paying taxes on unrealized gain.

Your objection is that he earned a 30% return and only donated 5%?

It is happening today. We've always had some vanpool-ish type companies, though they haven't always been easy to work with. There are some startups trying to change that, like https://www.chariot.com/ -- I've been keeping an eye on them and when they start operating along my commute line I will likely switch away from BART.

The big problem with vanpools is scheduling. Everyone wants flexibility and smarter scheduling systems in a manner very similar to what uber has provided for individual rides.

We know generally what the rates are and the statement above is accurate: "Most people that care get a substantial portion of those fees back (either as cash or rewards)"

Merchants raise prices to compensate. That is why it is "the poor, the un-creditworthy, and the financially illiterate" who ultimately pay.

Don't forget to take ride sharing into account. I'd be happy to be in a vanpool picking up a half dozen people as it drives into SF. Six people per vehicle makes even $1.70/mile cost competitive with BART.

Sure, but that's handled by subrogation.

The liable party has little to do with insurance structures. An employer is liable for injuries even if they aren't providing health care insurance.

Is this because, as I recall, a DIR object is opaque while a FILE is not? Allowing the former to be expanded without breaking the API?

edit: Nevermind, that shouldn't matter should it? The important thing is that they're both by reference.

Ah yes, I was thinking about the system call interfaces but if we start looking at libc damn near nothing was reentrant until relatively recently (the late 90s and early 00s count as recent right? ... right?)

Just take a gander at all those _r functions where an extra parameter needed to be added for reentrancy.

"Unix SMP" is not synonymous with a system threading interface -- processes give parallelism as well and predate the introduction of threading interfaces. The pthread interface came about in the 1990s.

The unix interface is broken with respect to threads in many places besides this. Signals. Forking. Problems abound because the concept was bolted on decades later.