whybroke

>If you are more concerned with rules and respecting other applications by not standing out, you are just playing the game poorly.

So say sleeping with people from HR is ok?

Either we have social norms, fairness and an (attempt at) a rational system or we don't.

And btw, the behavior you reward is the one you get. So expect a hell of a lot of donuts over the next year.

Well it's easier than a facelift and memorizing comic books to maybe help an engineer qualify on culture fit.

Or you could just announce you have such a technology and thereby slightly inhibit the organization of uprisings via the Panopticon effect. All for the cost of sending a few emails.

Of course the reason what I say is unlikely is because actually building the system, functional or not, would justify an ever expanding budget.

Perhaps so, I did not screenshot the posts of the last week. Certainly scores that were very positive yesterday are now negative. And certainly it began immediately after a post to wikipedia's marginal utility page which apparently disturbed someone's ideology. And it seems to have been aggravated further by this[1] post.

But perhaps this is desired result. Either way the issue is no longer interesting to me.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12664519

Downvoting currently sure is broken. An hour ago, when daring to suggest the Russians might actually be responsible for the DNC hacks, everything I've posted for the last week silently earned a down vote.

And while I don't particularly care since this is junk account and its not my website, I imagine it could be interesting to someone.

I recently had about a dozen old posts silently downvoted without comment because I linked to a wikipedia article about marginal utility which apparently deeply annoyed an ideologe.

So the de facto workings of the site make me wear downvotes with pride.

So The Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security are conspiring to provoke a serious intentional problem solely to distract from an already admitted to and apologized for personal server that is only important to Trump voters (ie won't change the election outcome)?

Doesn't that sound just a tad wild even for a conspiracy theory?

An even more interesting problem is how HN will deal with 55 Savushkina Street

I am infinitely glad there are people with your sprint putting effort into making things work at burning man or anywhere else. I sincerely wish you the best.

I hope you are right about some culture production still going on, I can not speak to the whole event or even a statistically significant amount. Perhaps limiting ticket sales to a tiny time window has helped.

Yes, the bulk of the community is gay friendly. The cops (which were not there in the early days) sure as hell are not. Aside form being told of other harassment by them, I personally witnessed an event in 2006 when two friends of mine were detained for the weekend in Reno on some ludicrous indecency charge and released on Monday without charge.

So good luck to the event and its narrative but I and every one I know are sure as hell out of it.

The confusion stems from the idea that Burning Man is still a cultural phenomenon rather than just entertainment/art installation. An erroneous belief that the promoters seem to have internalized to their own confusion. Indeed, part of the entertainment value is the perception that just showing up in costume means you are engaged in significant culture production. So easy!

Disappointment stems from attendees expecting a cultural phenomenon and getting a show; the expectation that Burning Man is still important but finding it's just a show. You don't get this problem at Disneyland because and talk of 'Disney spirit' is tongue in cheek.

Here are some more substantial questions than the sort of feel good straw-man in the article. What new ideas have come out of it in the last 15 years? How do you create culture by showing up for a weekend to a catered camp ground and show? Is there any overlap at all to what attendees think about the meaning/point of Burning Man? So if you come west just add it to the Vegas-Disneyland circuit because that is all it is now.

Indeed there is one advantage to Vegas and Disney, the cops don't shamelessly hassle gay people.

We work in a surreal field were knowing a bit of Node.js and nothing else is considered superior to knowing a bit of Node.js and alot of .NET

Obviously you may substitute any fashionable/unfashionable language pair in the above.

You are using high school math incorrectly which is what results in the many obvious contractions I have listed above.

In the unlikely event you are actually interested in the correct formulation, you start to find the answer here [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Quantified_ma...

No it does not. If you received no utility for your work but instead a 1:1000,000 chance of a million incomes, you would starve to death. The math you are using does not describe reality and rational people, since about Galileo anyway, have known better than to insist on broken models.

There is a reason people are willing to buy $1 lottery tickets but not $1000 tickets. (hint: a certainty of misery or high chance of death is not compensated by a remote chance of enormous wealth of ever decreasing marginal utility)

You are simply misunderstanding the use cost benefit, I assume because it clashes with some ideological point.

But if you want to buy a one in a million chance for a trillion dollars, I have a bitcoin address you could send a million bucks too.

And the necessary next question: how fast did ideas travel at the time given technical, linguistic and cultural borders. I'd love to know the first mention of Galileo's (or Copernicus') ideas in Moscow, Terran, Mumbai, Mexico City, Beijing etc

Or by that logic you could cut your pay from $100K to $1K and give your CEO $10M and be just as happy. There are plenty of people who live on $1K a year after all.

Although in the CEO's case, often no further harm is done, if half of a population has a massive increase in wealth while the other half does not then then poorer half must compete for limited resources with a group that will not only drive prices up but can now purchase assets as a form of rent seeking. So in fact, greater inequality acts as currency devaluation for the disadvantaged group.

The CEO example was not meant to cause unjustified envy but to show that according to your logic, instead of ever giving employees a raise you could simply give all raises to the CEO and tell employees that by cost benefit analysis the effect is the same, that they are better off.

To put it concretely, from now on, every time you ask for a raise just ask that your boss get that extra compensation instead. I think you will find the effect is not remotely the same.

Or from now on, ask for all of your pay check that exceeds poverty line for chances at a completely fair trillion dollar lottery.

Simple cost benefit multiplication is being erroneously applied in these cases (and often is)

>Our industrialized food system nourishes more people, at lower cost, than any comparable system in history...

It does puzzle me though why in Spain, among most other food, bread is 1/5 and Tomatoes 1/10 the price. Particularly odd is that US boxed cereal and California wine are also cheaper.

But that is off topic I'm sure.

No, the result of increased wealth inequality, even if you maintained the same level of social mobility, will worsen not improve situation. The description of a rise in absolute mobility would be a misunderstanding of the issue.

If that is too theoretic, consider the analogy of a lottery where one group of children win automatically and an other group has say a 10% chance of winning during their life. Increasing the prize (i.e. a rise in inequity among classes) serves only to worsens the situation not only for the median and average members but the vast bulk of the lower class since those who don't rise (the vast majority) are now even worse off relatively.

Or indeed by your logic simply raising the salary of a CEO by a massive amount also raises the "absolute mobility" of all other employees

So unless mobility also raises by at least a corresponding amount, any worsening of inequality at birth will only worsen the situation by every meaningful standard. And even then it is probably a bad idea.

So the main team that made KSP is now all available on the job market?

Who dose not immediately hire that team en masse has missed a huge opportunity.

After wearing cameras, police then stopped wearing them but complaints continues to be low even when there were no cameras.

The likely explination is that the police's behavior had changed and continued in the changed state after the camera was removed.

The behavior of newly detained suspects, those detained after body cameras were removed and so without experience of the body cameras in the past, could not have been changed by an experiment they had no part in nor knowledge of. Thus false complaints would continue at the same rate.

That too would be a good result although given that complaints remained lower after the cameras were removed, it would seem false complaints weren't the problem.

But either way, it seems to work

>The second question which required a choice between killing homeless people and wealthier ones made me too disgusted to continue.

Then you're not going to like this factoid. In wrongful death civil suits in the US, the monetary award is based on the current income and earning potential of the deceased; the courts place vastly lower monetary value on the live of homeless people than on the wealthy.

You do know you can calculate the likelihood of a proposition from inductive evidence.

While you statement is hyperbole and your logic is Tu Quoque, it's clear the US does some very bad things.

But you can be absolutely certain that anything that Putin is trying to do is absolutely guaranteed to vastly worsen that both inside and outside the country.

>..imaginary..

um, no

A hostile foreign power hacking a government related server containing potential sensitive data and then spewing that data such as to disrupt a US election is vastly more significant than putting that data on the server in the first place.

One casts light on a candidates decision making process, the other is pretty close to an act of war.

My imagination isn't that good but I'm more than willing to take the risk of an ego bruise if seceding states wanted to go.

In fact, I'd be willing to pay for them to leave. Even willing to fund a wall on the Mason-Dixon line if they wanted one when the got independence.

And the first world part of the country wouldn't have to do such 'priggish' things as ending Jim Crow or endlessly fighting disenfranchisement. And those who feel oppressed by such outrageous intrusions as teaching evolution in schools, would have their own country to move to. Why they could have their war with Iran and a president who's testosterone levels are announced on the Dr Oz show while the rest of the country could move on. Everyone wins!

With no historic federal interference, Mississippi would out do Switzerland in happiness, education, prosperity and general liberty? Somehow I doubt that.

If anything, the Federal government is overly distracted bringing the slow parts of the country kicking and screaming into the 21st century and by those same parts randomly derailing it.

But anyone ever want to secede again, I won't object.

Those negative cultural attitudes that can hold back a vast country packed with resource that has oceans separating it form two world wars maybe should be fixed.

Otherwise one must wonder what is the point in remaining a single nation if the end result is always less happiness, education and "competitiveness".

And anyway I think you'll find it just as 'impossible' to do any zoning change that reduce any asset on the mortgage holder's books: Anything that actually reduces land price is equally politically 'impossible'. One may as well try do something that is going to work broadly and fairly rather than a random patchwork of small superficial zoning fixes.

And incidentally it's probably easier to argue for fairness and fiscal responsibility than to argue for bulldozing open space to put in a high-rise apartment.

I know unions are a popular whipping boy on hn but blaming them for today's overpriced housing? And up-voting this nonsense? wow