She said she would like to teach critical thinking. How unbelievably rich. The host made the excellent point that in this market, the hardest you will work is determined by how hard people in general are willing to work. The market decides how hard you are expected to work, not your boss or the Illuminati. It’s the same something-for-nothing logic-vacuum that led to communism and the massive corruption that followed.
>The market decides how hard you are expected to work
That's like saying house prices in San Francisco are set by how much people are willing to pay. It's true but hides the real problem which is housing is unaffordable for many in that area.
Some people own multiple homes. Some people rent out those second homes. Some turn them into glorified hotels via AirBnB and the like. Some merely sit on them as an investment vehicle or a tax avoidance scheme. These people are leeches on society, artificially increasing housing prices while providing no real value.
> The only "solution" is to create ghettos of human hives which lead to classes of problems on their own.
As a general rule, one can assume that anybody who refers to humans as an infestation or their homes as hives is not a good person. Have the day you deserve.
> As a general rule, one can assume that anybody who refers to humans as an infestation or their homes as hives is not a good person. Have the day you deserve.
Anything concrete to say, aside from weak ad-hominem?
I grew up in post-USSR, I'm pretty sure I know much more about human hives than you do. And I never said anything about infestation. Every family should have their own home.
It doesn’t hide anything. If the price is too high then something is wrong. In your case it’s restraint on supply and in labor the problem is people who don’t know the value of what they have and never put any consideration into making themselves difficult to push around. They jump into precarious financial circumstances, but expensive things and pump out babies and when it comes time to negotiate they have zero leverage. The behavior of the average American is retarded and spoiled. That’s why people from Asia come here and shoot straight to the top — because their parents actually make deliberate decisions to advance their socioeconomic position.
Perhaps, but also for those that simply want to try to improve their lives without the baggage of constantly feeling that the world is oppressing them.
Personally, whatever little I have is probably 1/3 luck, 1/3 hard work, 1/3 good decision making. I've never inherited a single $1, don't have a CEO relative to hire me, etc... but what good would it do to blame the world for any of that? Life _isn't_ always fair, whatever.
Exactly. I have had several opportunities in life to get a significant advancement in income, but it would have meant doing something unethical, so I passed.
Not really, life _isn't_ fair, so do what you can to make the most of it.
No matter who you talk to, everyone will have their hardships, but complaining about it rarely makes things change for the better. I'm not saying one shouldn't advocate for change or try to change a broken system, but for your situation to improve, often the only thing you can do is just try harder and hope for a little luck.
I support the "work reform, unionize, know what you're worth" camp of this "antiwork" crowd, I 100% agree that workers should be more open about wages, try to organise and show solidarity... I'm a salaried worker myself and my quality of life is very much correlated to that of the AVG worker. That doesn't mean I believe that I can fix the world and all of its ills, nor do I care to.
It still falls under the general free market principles. Distribution runs on a very thin profit margin, and if it wasn't Amazon in the lead, it would be Walmart, or others.
Bosses have a way of deflating wages by demanding more hours and effort, too.
The market is like a programming design pattern; kind of a hand wavy concept to fuel discourse. It’s still easily corrupted biology in charge. Repeating the same old semantics is keeping you from seeing the corruption already there.
While I agree on substance with your comment you seem to have a strange interpretation of communism. I very much recommend to read e.g. the brief, very readable and very illuminating Communist Manifesto if you would really like to understand where it came from and what its ideas were before Stalin and Mao made it just a veneer on top of a dictatorship. I'm in no way a communist but I can fully appreciate its ideals and aims (e.g. the idea that everyone should receive resources according to their needs).
Sidenote: it is also worth to actually read Smith (especially books 2+3 of the wealth of nations) to understand that rather than a believer in an invisible hand he was deeply critical of laissez-faire capitalism and saw a need for the state to intervene and manage its excesses and abuses.
Plus one. Kids should absolutely be allowed to do certain work. They banned it with literal “save the children” dogma and pictures of children in copper mines and working the looms. Let the fucking kids toss a news paper. That’s such bullshit to outlaw the fucking concept of people working before the age of 16 or whatever.
I really appreciated this advice. It's vague enough that if it relates to your life, you'll probably see how when you hear it.
I think I can apply it to both my work life, thinking about times where I overworked myself at a company where nobody else cared enough, and to my personal life, thinking about times where I invested myself fully into relationships where it wasn't certain to be requited.
His house is very ugly. I hate it when architects think they are painting an abstract picture with wood and marble. Good architecture feels good to live in — it’s not an accessory or a statement.
It's like, your opinion, bro. I for one, love architecture, and find his a very warm, clean space. You may simply not like modernist minimalistic style, but this is where good architecture shines: it's hard to design something good with very little. Designs like this are timeless. Just lookup the mid-century modern California (LA, Palm Springs) houses or even the 1920 revolutionary concepts of Bauhaus or Le Corbusier et al.
On the opposite of spectrum lies what I personally call "every 'luxurious' NYC condo": the cacophony of styles, overloaded with art, heavy, without personal touches, mostly designed to show the wealth of the owners, but not designed by themselves. Those interiors are ridiculously tacky, and each of them will become outdated within next 5-10 years.
Just like de Saint-Exupery said himself: 'Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.'
Heavy is such a good word to describe those things. But I disagree about this house. I think minimalism depends on materials. The wood lap attempts to demonstrate a material but it’s way too clean and it screams “MATERIAL.” In my eyes it’s a bit heavy. The island that’s made to look like a solid block of granite is terrible to me. It causes me to imagine how unpleasant it must be to use a cube of granite for anything. And I don’t think a loud piece of granite is minimalist.
He is designing office campuses so it's natural that his house looks like this. It's his house, his family is probably confortable in it. I don'l like this style but it's actually quite good concept-wise with an original twist.
Please do not respond to a bad comment by posting one yourself. Commenters here need to follow the site guidelines, regardless of how other commenters are behaving.
We've had to ask you this kind of thing multiple times before. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The weak point of this article is that they never explain in depth what the laws would do. The liberals do this all the time saying that conservative bills are “anti voter rights” when in reality they just require ID to vote which is standard in many places that are more civilized than the US.
Do you ever wonder why the conservative party in the US is pushing so strongly for Voter IDs and arguing them being mandatory when voter fraud is virtually non- existent?
Always take time to understand why people push strongly for a solution to a problem that isn't occurring. And usually when you do, you'll find there are second order effects that cause that group to benefit.
Looking into that gets to the root of the issue and the reason why people are correctly labeling it as anti-voter rights.
Did you ever wonder why conservatives are so against the compulsory national ID systems that make those requirements feasible? If everyone had easy access to an ID, they wouldn't be able to make some people second class citizens so easily.
They offer free IDs at some office far away with restricted hours ( what Texas did when they started requiring IDs, and just coincidentally closing up a bunch of D!V offices and restricting hours). They have experience from when they did the same things during Jim Crow, they know what they are doing.
Again your missing or avoiding the point. Voter ID in Europe, is entirely different from what is being pushed in the US. The key question is Why is a group pushing for a solution to a problem that isn't happening?
There is almost zero voter fraud in this country. And it has been that way for decades. Do you acknowledge this? You can look back at countless research for the elections for 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004 ... As well as mid-terms.
Before discussing what we should do, we must estabilish the facts in common. This has been estabilished time and time and time again in the US over all 50 states, presidential, senatorial elections. There is absolutely miniscule voter fraud - and the very few instances over the past decades.
There have been on the order of only 50 fraudulent votes over the past two decades of elections. Yet hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters have been blocked from voting due to the new laws.
Then we get to the second question of why is ID being pushed so hard if there is no actual fraud it is preventing?
The reason is that it's being intentionally used make it easier and harder for different groups to vote. For example states have allowed gun licenses for voter id, but not college student ID. These two groups traditionally vote for different parties. Or the number of license stations and their are limited in areas that certain groups live to only being open once per month.
This is the reason for the push for the Voter ID. It provides a party with an advantage by trimming voter roles by raising the barries to get IDs specifically with groups that vote for one party over the other.
There have been less than 50 invalid votes over tens of elections over two decades, while VoterID laws have prevented hundreds of thousands of legitament people from voting. Why are we preventing hundreds of thousands of people with the right to vote from voting, to stop 50 people from voting illegally. It's not to improving election quality, becaues improving election quality would be ensuring those hundreds of thousands with the right to vote can. So blocking that many, to avoid a problem measured in the tens in not about election integrity. It's about favoring one political group over another. And the data strongly backs that up. [And if you have any data showing otherwise, please do share.]
Again, when you see a solution to a problem that isn't happening, dig in to see who benfits from that change. This rule applies to life in general.
You missed the point of his comment, which is that political context matters. Most european countries aren’t dealing with an authoritarian movement which is trying to subvert democracy itself[1].
Where do you need a vaccine card to leave the house? There may be private business premises that you can't enter without a vaccine card, but entering those premises isn't a constitutional right, whereas voting is, so restricting one but not the other makes sense.
In any case, the resistance isn't against voter ID itself, it's against the policies that are inevitably put in place to make those IDs harder to obtain for supporters of one party in comparison to another. If there weren't so many recent examples of states selectively closing down polling places[0][1] then maybe you could claim with a straight face that the ID requirements won't be abused, but there is no excuse for such naivety now.
> In New York, isn't it mandatory to show your vaccine card to go into any building that isn't your house?
That doesn't prevent you leaving your house, and are people really checking the vaccine passes of friends who visit their home? I suspect the rules are much less strict than the original comment suggested.
> Which policies are these?
By making the issuance (and renewal) of IDs require attending a government building, and limiting the locations of those buildings and the times they are open, it can be made disproportionately difficult for poor and working people to obtain those IDs, just like the removal of polling places. A state can also invent entirely new types of excuses, like "paper shortages".[0]
I think the difference between being allowed to leave your house and being allowed to go into buildings that aren't your house is minor enough that the analogy still works.
> are people really checking the vaccine passes of friends who visit their home?
If bad laws are okay just because some people will ignore them, then even if voter ID is a bad law, then let's just pass it anyway and let the pollworkers ignore it.
> A state can also invent entirely new types of excuses, like "paper shortages".
The reason I asked if people are checking vaccine passes when their friends visit them is because I don't actually believe this law exists at all, not because I think people are breaking it. It's possible that New York does require this, but if it doesn't, I think "You're prevented from accessing some non-essential buildings" isn't fairly analogized to "You can't leave your house".
> If you needed that paper form to register to vote, then I'd agree that's a problem.
If people's right to vote is contingent on the availability and non-discrimination of a web service (which can and will change without the need for any further legislation to pass) then we've already lost the battle against disenfranchisement.
> The reason I asked if people are checking vaccine passes when their friends visit them is because I don't actually believe this law exists at all, not because I think people are breaking it. It's possible that New York does require this, but if it doesn't, I think "You're prevented from accessing some non-essential buildings" isn't fairly analogized to "You can't leave your house".
To be clear, just showing the vaccine card isn't good enough. You need to show a photo ID too, to prove that you're the person the vaccine card belongs to. And how much of society is it acceptable to lock people without IDs out of if we insist that it's necessary to let people vote without one?
> non-discrimination of a web service
How is a Web version of a form more subject to discrimination than a paper one is?
> How is a Web version of a form more subject to discrimination than a paper one is?
I'm sure it would be possible to "accidentally" introduce bugs where the fonts don't render on older platforms (owned by poorer people), for example, and there could be some geo-IP "caching" system that ends up slowing down requests for people in certain parts of the state.
In any case, the web version doesn't have to be more subject to discrimination, just as subject to discrimination as the (selectively available) paper form already is. Also, if the party in power found that their voters were more likely to register using the online form than the paper form, you can bet they would make the paper form harder to acquire (and vice versa).
> “anti voter rights” when in reality they just require ID to vote which is standard in many places that are more civilized than the US.
This has to be viewed in context. In these other "more civilized" countries that require voter ID, how easy is it to get a national ID? In the US, getting valid ID is complicated, requires going somewhere in person (and often for people in rural areas a significant distance) and cost. In Switzerland on the other hand, one can order a valid national ID online and receive it in the mail for free.
How can you order a valid national ID online and receive it in the mail, while making sure that someone who's not you can't do the same pretending to be you?
You can't, the information above is either deliberately or unintentionally misleading.
Yes, you can order an ID card online. But part of this "order" process is to make an appointment to visit a government office where your photo, signature and fingerprints will be taken.
Right, so you don't just want national ID laws like other countries, you want significantly more restrictive ones.
Perhaps, instead of asking
> How can you order a valid national ID online and receive it in the mail, while making sure that someone who's not you can't do the same pretending to be you?
Ask "If many US states, and many, to quote GP 'more civilized' countries don't use such restrictive voter ID laws, but still have essentially no voter fraud, what is the point of such restrictions?"
Let me try my question again: if Switzerland really makes it as easy to get an ID card as you claim they do, then why don't they have a rampant identity theft problem, even for things unrelated to voting?
I'll reply with a question: why would they? What does having an ID card (that notably isn't a passport so doesn't allow you to travel) get you? People don't commit crimes for fun, they usually have some goal in mind. How does someone profit from having a national ID with someone else's name on it?
Like, jumping back to the US for a moment, if I handed you my driver's license and we changed the photo and description on it so that it matched my own, what could you do with that? You don't have, and can't get my SSID with that, so you can't cause financial harm to me. You could buy alcohol I guess if you were underage, but there's just not a whole lot you can do.
The same applies to the crime of voter impersonation in general. If, like, we decriminalized it entirely, I don't really expect the rate would be that high, because there's just...really no value to voting two or three times. It's not going to change anything unless lots of people do it, in which case you'd need to assume that all the people doing it are voting in the same way which is unlikely. Right like you can barely convince people that their one vote matters. Do you really think going through more than 2x the effort to vote again is going to appeal to many people?
This is not true. The "ordering" includes making an appointment to visit a government office where your photo, signature and fingerprints will be taken.
> The liberals do this all the time saying that conservative bills are “anti voter rights” when in reality they just require ID to vote which is standard in many places that are more civilized than the US.
This issue in particular is very interesting. I saw an article [1] which seems to indicate voter ID laws have little effect in either direction on fraud or turnout. Does that mean Democrats should "give it away" to the Republicans in exchange for something else? Or would that be dishonest?
Well, I guess this whole contest is about trading political blows, not anything to do with the real world. Even if a policy has no or positive effect, giving a win to your opponents is bad.
It's worth reading the abstract of the paper you indirectly cite:
> The lack of negative impact on voter turnout cannot be attributed to voters’ reaction against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.
Or in other words, the authors conclude that voting laws don't ultimately affect turnout, but that's confounded by a nearly 5% increase in GOTV efforts. While it's probably wrong to conclude that a 5% decrease in GOTV would reduce turnout by 5%, there's almost certainly some offsetting impact there.
> The liberals do this all the time saying that conservative bills are “anti voter rights” when in reality they just require ID to vote
The problem with voter ID laws is not that they require an ID to vote. It's that they do nothing at all to address the problem of getting IDs into the hands of voters. If those same laws made IDs free, easily accessible, and gave every eligible voter enough time to get their hands on one, there wouldn't by any problem with voter ID laws. Research shows that voter ID laws in today's conditions would prevent a large number of legal voters from being able to vote. The true goal of voter ID laws being proposed right now is voter suppression.
> easily accessible, and gave every eligible voter enough time to get their hands on one
Is there any voter ID requirement, or even a proposal for one, that doesn't accept drivers' licenses? You can get that at 16, and most people get it well before 18, the minimum voting age.
> Research shows that voter ID laws in today's conditions would prevent a large number of legal voters from being able to vote.
Can you link to this research? In particular, is it making the assumption that people who can get an ID would just choose not to for some reason? Because I can't think of anyone who's allowed to vote but not allowed any form of ID that would let them.
This is pretty common in elderly and disabled people who can no longer drive. They often see no reason to keep renewing a state ID. If we had a national ID card that every citizen was required to have from the time they were children until the day that they died it wouldn't as big an issue, but that's not the case. Groups that help support the elderly and disabled have been dealing with the problem for many years.
> You can get that at 16, and most people get it well before 18, the minimum voting age.
Most people can get an ID, but doing that might be extremely difficult. It's getting better as local governments increasingly move services online but historically the US hasn't been so great about record keeping or making the needed documents easy to get. The first time I had to get a state ID I first had to travel across the country to the county in which I was born and hand over a stack of other documents I'd spend a bunch of money and effort to get my hands on and then still pay a fee on top of it once I got back to my own state.
> Can you link to this research? In particular, is it making the assumption that people who can get an ID would just choose not to for some reason? Because I can't think of anyone who's allowed to vote but not allowed any form of ID that would let them.
This isn't new news. There are literally years of research into the problems with voter ID laws in the US but I'll link to a few studies if you'd like more information. The fact is you don't have to make it "impossible" to get an ID to make it disproportionately difficult for certain people to get one. The GOP has spent decades working to make it harder for "the wrong people" to vote in order to gain an unfair advantage. Court rulings have often found that their attempts to prevent Americans from voting were discriminatory and placed an undue burden on various groups. Even concluding at times that this discrimination was intentional. see this one for example:
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-...
I feel our democracy depends on us doing our best to ensure that every American citizen has equal access to the polls. The laws in Texas right now are having an impact on legitimate voters there, especially with disabled voters because communications hasn't been clear, voters are confused, and the deadline for requesting mail-in ballots is weeks away. The restrictions they put in place in Texas were not balanced by the burden it would place on the Americans least able to carry those burdens and now American citizens feel their right to vote is in jeopardy and they are correct. It's disgusting that such a fundamental right is being taken from people just because the GOP thinks it will win them more elections.
For what it's worth, I'm not against ID being required to vote. I just think we need to make sure that those laws also keep things fair. Whatever the barriers to voting are, they should be as equal as possible for every American citizen who is eligible to cast a vote no matter what their race, age, area code, or income level. Anything less than that is an attack on our democracy.
I was a part of a group of people who obtained and took ISRIB a year ago. We made contact with another group from the Baltic’s who had a chemist in their ranks who had already synthesized and taken it, before we took delivery of ours.
The most important thing I learned is that you form a tolerance to it. At least that’s what the experiential effects indicated.
One person took it and developed heart rhythm problems.
Another person took it and became full of energy. Some people reported being much smarter and being able to socialize at a much higher level than before. Some people said they had hyper realistic dreams and compared it to schizophrenia. There were many stories but I can’t remember them all. I’m the end nobody took it long term.
The NMR results made it clear that everyone was taking pure ISRIB and not some adulterant.
One person said he gave it to his grandmother with Alzheimer’s and it made her better but she died shortly afterward. Some people said this is normal and it was a coincidence. We don’t know.
I never took it because right before we had secured a supplier I had a bad reaction to another experimental drug which has given me a permanent injury.
I think it’s better when you have to remember to go back and check for replies. Why would you want to entertain a petty argument that you can’t even remember
People don’t get it. The sole purpose of patents and intellectual property is to give a reward function to large capital allocators. Capital is heart and sole of any society, it is what builds skyscrapers, cars, toothbrushes, shopping centers, internet backbones and everything you can think of. If that capital does not have a reward function, it will build the wrong shit. It would be like a cell making the wrong proteins — you don’t want that.
Like everything, it’s only as good as it’s implementation. I think it would be better if a patent was awarded only after a profitable demonstration was built and running maybe with a pre-patent filed beforehand. It’s insane that a guy can sit at his desk and patent things arbitrarily — how is that providing guidance to capital? And I think the patent should withstand ongoing demonstrations of actual implementation.
And also, we need to get rid of arbitrary litigation because that just makes everyone afraid of other peoples patents. It would be easy to get rid of that.
