utexaspunk

That's a separate issue, but I imagine there's probably a way to collect the demand while keeping the individual anonymous. Besides, in the world of capitalism we have the same concern- Amazon, Google, my bank, and Verizon could all probably tell me things about myself and my habits that even I don't know.

I think it would pretty much require taking humans out of the decision-making process as much as possible, and maximal transparency where they are involved. Humans provide input as far as what they want and what they are willing to pay for it, and everything else is algorithms.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how central planning makes money superfluous. Central planning doesn't mean you're beyond scarcity. Money quantifies the worker's share of the production and their spending communicates demands and priorities for subsequent production. There's no getting around having prices for things, the prices are just lower because they are not calculated to be as high as possible to maximize profits for investors and because the redundant production, marketing, and financing expenses associated with competition are eliminated.

Or, like, I order the quail dish with my phone, or use my phone to let it be known that I would be interested in quail dishes costing less than $15 or something, and you'd do the same for oysters. That demand and potential demand would then be aggregated with everyone else's by the big central computer, which would calculate a price based upon the supply capacity and cost of production (including how those costs are affected by other demands in the economy). That price determination occurs organically in a free market, but it's not perfectly efficient and involves a lot of redundancy and waste. With sufficient computational power it might be possible to formalize that process and make it more efficient.

It wasn't my intent to imply this didn't involve money. You can have central planning and still have money, no? I would not disagree that it's nigh impossible to have a functional economy without money...

Eh, people have lots of friends that hold different beliefs than them. The problem with Facebook is it offers no way of registering your disagreement beyond commenting and starting a conversation which will have no depth because the lack of real comment threading renders any real dialogue impossible.

Since most people don't feel like repeatedly getting involved in pointless debates with their friends, and are frustrated seeing posts they disagree with without any simple way of voicing their disapproval, they either use Facebook's tools to filter out those posts or just unfollow that friend entirely.

The most misguided consumer and propagator of fake news will still mostly just see likes of their friends who are also misguided. They might get a brave friend chiming in here or there to disagree, but their comments are easily dismissed because they will have no depth. The majority of their friends may disagree, but they'll never know because those who disagree (if they haven't filtered/unfollowed them already) have no good way to show that they disagree. Facebook as it is currently designed mostly just serves to affirm whatever the user wants to believe. That's where the bubble effect comes from.

I think Facebook could actually be really great for democracy, but for a couple of huge flaws:

First, the lack of a real threaded comment system. When replies below the first level all appear at the same depth, it becomes extremely difficult to have a real back-and-forth debate and nigh impossible to read/participate in someone else's discussion. It is not conducive to substantive dialogue.

Second, the lack of a dislike/downvote, particularly an anonymous one. When one shares something they agree with and only see that some (if any) of their friends like it, they might figure that the rest just didn't see it. Very rarely will someone register their disagreement with a comment because, even when you're receptive to discussion, a real discussion cannot be had because of the aforementioned shitty comment system. Worst of all, when you disagree with most of what a friend posts (and aren't the type to carry on pointless arguments all the time, or don't feel comfortable sharing your disagreement), having no way to easily register your disapproval, you quickly tire of seeing their stupid posts in your feed and the temptation is to unfollow them, further insulating them from dissent.

If people who post crap saw that many of their friends gave it a thumbs down, they might not think themselves right all the time. If you could hold a real back-and-forth discussion with someone and have it be readable by others, and see everyone's approval/disapproval of those comments, you might feel more inclined to participate. The conversations would better reflect the opinions of one's social group. There would still be some bubble effect, but it would be greatly moderated because hardly anyone has only friends who agree with them about everything and their friends who disagree would have a way to make their disagreement known by engaging in a substantive conversation or at the very least in the form of adding a dislike to their post.

>The calculation problem with central planning isn't​ really a calculation problem, it's a missing input problem. You can't optimize utility without a good input on utility.

Historically that has been true, but couldn't technology help? Like, issuing everyone a smartphone and having them register all demand and make all purchases through it. The rest is a problem of keeping capital from aggregating at the top.

>but demands are easy to underestimate

Certainly during the USSR's time. But now you could issue every citizen a smartphone through which they could register their demand.

>the optimization then will lead to planning only for the type of production that can ensure basic survival and not much more.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing how this follows logically.

>A very brief summary of its conclusions is: central planning can only perform as well as or better than the market when the economy is completely stagnant.

I'd hardly say that was either proven or agreed upon

>"centrally planned economy managed by the government" by definition leaves no space for "an open market" for "more productive or talented citizens" to "choose to earn more wealth and purchase from."

I don't see this a being "by definition" either. You can have a centrally planned economy with people who are independent (or at least as independent as they are in any other economic system) in what job they choose, where they choose to work and what they choose to buy. The government could assess the demand for a product at a given price, determine the resources (material or human) necessary to produce that product as well as all other demands for those resources. When the demands exceed resource availability, you then raise the price for that resource, refactor that into the price of the final product and then assess the demand for it at that new price. You raise the price for each constraining resource until the demand drops to a level that can be fulfilled. This would include specialized labor, so if a job is in high demand and short supply, the wage for that job would go up until the supply increases and/or demand decreases to reach equilibrium.

All of this already happens in an ad-hoc way in a free market, but in a free market it can take a long time for changes in input prices to be reflected in output prices, and it can take even longer to determine how those will affect demand. I don't see why that couldn't be formalized and worked out centrally. I'm imagining an economy where everyone is issued a smartphone through which they make all of their purchases and through which they find and respond to bids for employment. Demand could then be assessed fairly accurately and instantaneously. It seems like it would be way more efficient in terms of reductions in redundancy, overproduction, costs incurred attempting to generate demand that does not exist or siphon demand from competitors' products, and price increases solely for profit-maximization in cases where demand is inelastic and supplies are sufficient (like epi-pens or insulin).

Modeling it would probably be extremely complex and might still exceed our current computational capacity, I dunno, but I don't see any reason to call it impossible.

>Custom desktops are relatively easy to build, even for customers.

An ordinary desktop, perhaps, but a truly innovative product not so much. Consider something like Microsoft's Surface Studio and Surface Dial:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-stud...

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/accessories/surface-...

A Linux desktop with similarly novel modes of interaction would be awesome, and might be just the thing to bring the masses to Linux.

It's funny I remember this magazine cover as a kid:

http://s7.computerhistory.org/is/image/CHM/500004286-03-01?$...

The machine pictured (Intel Touchstone Delta) performed 30GFLOPs and cost upward of $10m. Now a computer 400x as powerful fits on a card and can be yours for $1.2k.

I dunno- Houston is notorious for its lack of zoning, yet it still grew the same sprawling manner. The fact is most of our cities did most of their growth after WWII. A baby boom, affordable automobiles, the interstate highway system, advertising, and FHA subsidies made mass suburban developments like Levittown profitable and desirable.

Well, the humans could be tools...

I have to say this reminds me of my 1st generation Scion xB- it's a 1.7L engine, the only car of its size that I (6'4") can sit in the back seat comfortably, and its vertical sides and fold-down seats make it capable of carrying a ridiculous amount of stuff, and quite comfortable for camping in, too. It's an entirely utilitarian car.

http://www.scionxb.org/xbreviews.htm

I don't know if I'd call the output of that a music "video". I was expecting something that perhaps splices together video segments from youtube in tempo with the music.

Support for Israel isn't just about pandering to Jews. There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who believe Israel's existence is necessary for Christ's return, that allying ourselves with Israel is being on God's side, etc.. I doubt it would be worth making political hay out of it if Jews were the only ones who cared.

I have to say Microsoft really nailed it with the Surface Studio (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-stud...). It's what Apple would have made already if they were "committed to the desktop" and wanted to stay true to their roots as the computer for creative work. They out-Appled Apple. Including the price, unfortunately.

I still say Windows 7 is the best OS they've put out. The whole Metro UI is a disaster.

Could it be air? Like, they physically structured the sugar granules to have tiny air pockets inside them? It doesn't necessarily have to be restructured at the molecular level...

Arduinos do not have HDMI ports. You're thinking of a Raspberry Pi

Good question... I'd imagine your standard QUERTY makes up a sizeable majority of programmers, but then I have no data to back that up... :)

True- levenshtein isn't the best algorithm for the purpose. Is there an algorithm that takes key proximity into account? Like, 'libm' and 'libc' are sufficiently different to preclude typos, but 'lib[n/j/k]' or 'lib[x/d/f/v]' are not?

Might it work to mandate that the name of an uploaded package have a minimum levenshtein distance (or similar calculation) from the names of all the existing packages? Then you wouldn't have to worry about maintaining a blacklist.

I never realized Qaddafi was in that!

That's how my grandfather went, at the end of years of steadily worsening Alzheimer's. We kept suggesting to my parents that they suggest to the staff that he was "in pain", but they wouldn't. It took him over 2 weeks to die. It was a terrible thing to watch, and seemed completely pointless- you've already decided that he's going to die, why prolong it? Somehow doing something to "help him along" is killing him, but withholding food and water is not. :(

My grandfather had Alzheimer's and after several years of accelerating decline, he fell and broke his hip and over the course of another year slowly deteriorated into him being wheelchair-bound and basically catatonic, until he developed a wound which would not heal.

It finally got bad enough that he was moved to hospice. The doctors and nurses at his hospital did not make any sort of suggestions about "helping him along" and it was my wife (whose mother works for a probate/guardianship attorney and has observed the process many times) who suggested that they use the code words to "help him along". My parents and grandmother, ever in denial, would not consider it.

So instead he lay there being given palliative care but no food or drink, only water sponged on his lips to keep them moist, for 2 weeks before he finally died of either starvation or dehydration. It was awful- his urine turned a dark purple and it was like he melted from the inside.

I wish the doctors had been a little more forward about it. There was absolutely no purpose in making him endure that. I can only hope his mind was by then too far gone to suffer, but it sure looked like suffering to me. My wife and I have discussed it and both know that's we would prefer a little help. Sometimes it really is the most humane thing to do.

Reminded me of this Chris Burden installation I once saw:

http://www.feldmangallery.com/pages/exhsolo/exhbur79.html

While cronyism and nepotism are probably significant factors, beyond those I don't know if what your parents earn matters as much as it may be an indicator of your manners, knowledge of social customs, proper grammar, etc.. Perhaps those raised in wealthy homes tend to know better how to behave among wealthy people than those who come from poor backgrounds. All else being equal, those who comport themselves better are more likely to get ahead.

I think you're all missing the biggest flaw in Digg- lack of true conversation threading. When your comments have a max depth of 2, any sort of meaningful back-and-forth becomes impossible. For that reason, the comment sections on Digg were as worthless as comments on YouTube or Facebook. People fled to Digg because Slashdot's moderation kept the flow of new links to a trickle, but the conversations on Slashdot were much better. Then came Reddit with a nice comment system and open submission and everyone went there. Reddit was really nice when it was mostly just former slashdot people and other like-minded nerds, but then the hoi polloi who had caught on to Digg jumped ship to Reddit and the conversation has gone downhill ever since.

Perhaps if Reddit's comment moderation system were a little more sophisticated- Slashdot's Funny/Informative/Interesting/Etc and meta-moderation may seem a little cumbersome, but it definitely seems to have helped keep the conversation above a junior high level.

Hacker news ain't bad, either, mostly because the people who know about this place seem to be fairly intelligent and educated. The interface could maybe be a little better, but I can put up with it to read better, more informed comments.