The term that would cover what you mean here is regular. And that is only in regards to correct spelling. Is obviously complicated when considering that we don't have official pronunciation across all dialects for the same word. Even if we do agree on a spelling.
But it is a complete non-sequitur to lead to the modern idea that English isn't phonetic.
This seems to be claiming something different, though? You are pointing at that development slows as prices go down. Which seems somewhat expected?
That is, adding supply lowers prices. And lowering price reduces potential profit such that fewer people will build. With fewer people building, prices should go up again.
Stated differently, thin margins reduce the number of people offering products in a market. Ironically, the main way to get more building is with bigger builders in that scenario.
Well I'm saying that in practice adding supply hasn't lowered practice it has merely slowed the increase in prices. And that's mathematically essentially the same thing, but it's importantly different in two big ways:
1) If people see their costs going up while they also see new construction, the correlation machine's gonna jump to the wrong conclusions
2) If costs are still going up people are still going to be unhappy and worse off
Supply can increase AND price can still go up, and so for people to be won over and convinced you need to crack the second part, not just the first part. In a libertarian "just reduce regulation" approach that's often pitched, the natural equilibrium will be closer to "supply increase and price go up slowly", and people skeptical of "just reduce regulation" as a solution are more accurate than they're given credit for. Gotta actively intervene to make supply increase enough for any sustained period of time - we only see it in cases of macro shocks. Like the 2008 recession, or the post-Covid-bullwhip.
Ah, fair. And I see how this goes in with your idea of government spending.
It is frustrating, as that feels like an easy argument to show why a lot of things decreased in price. You had governments spending a ton of money. Or incentivizing the spend. Usually both?
I think my approach there would be to say you can't use profit as incentive to lower housing prices? For the exact cycle we both spoke to.
This is my big "abundance pill" that I've swallowed. It isn't necessarily deregulation you need. But if you want a goal, you have to spend towards it. And "lower prices" is a goal. To get there, governments will have to spend money.
I mean, with limiting the allowed use of force to guard secrets, we are probably nowhere near as at risk for the worst of the past? As you said, the competition to guard secrets could be quite severe, and they were not exactly good at knowing actual leaks of their secrets versus someone else independently arriving at them.
That is, I think having the assumption of independent discovery would go a long way to preventing abuse.
I could see some hazard that small shops can't protect their secrets from partner manufacturers and such. But that is exactly where we are with a lot of stuff today?
That is silly. My point was that we have better law enforcement period. Are we currently perfect? Of course not. But to use that as your argument is, amusingly, a silly premise for an argument.
Yes, that's why the people behind the United whistle blower "suicide" or the Epstein "suicide" we promptly brought to justice /s
Our law enforcement is "better" when it comes to enforcing the law against the lower 99%. When it comes to enforcing it against the kind of people who're actually likely to kill to protect their secrets...good luck
Neat read that I think I will have to come back to.
I think it should be clear that religion clearly was not a historical road block to progress. If only because of how religious many of the names we can remember were.
I have grown to read a lot of modern criticisms of Christianity with difficulty. Too many people pushing the criticisms seem to take the view that the ills of the past were unique to Christianity. Which, again, we have plenty of evidence that people do bad things. In many contexts.
I would be interested to know what has given rise to some of the modern conflict with religions. To this day, I can't come up with a reason for people not directly studying it to care how old the earth is. And I'm always at a complete loss for people that don't believe in dinosaurs. Or the flat earth stuff. Just how is that spreading?
500 a month sounds steep. I'm assuming you live somewhere that requires AC every day?
The article referred to driving prices up from 2020 due to making the infrastructure stronger by as much as 30%. Which, yeah, about 150ish of your bill.
It is less clear on how much it will need to go up because of increased demand? The prediction is 8%. Which, again, not nothing. But it is telling that there is more increase from infrastructure than there is generation? I don't know that that will change?
My bill last month was $450 and I don’t own an AC, it was around $350 before I got a plug in hybrid but every year it goes up double digit percentages.
Ish? I'm still not clear where you would be using that much electricity.
I'm not claiming that you don't. Or that you shouldn't. I'm genuinely curious on where the main use of electricity is.
To add numbers, an AC can use up to 5000 watts. That is literally 10x a refrigerator. Over 100x what a TV uses. The car, I'd guess is using a lot. But where are you using that much energy without AC?
That is, even compared to your 5x energy costs, I should have been paying more to keep a decent sized house running with AC in GA since I almost certainly had more than that multiplier on my usage?
This seems somewhat disproven by the existence of places like this? Strict moderation really does work wonders to prevent some of the worst behaviors.
Not that you won't have problems, even here, from time to time. But it is hard to argue that things aren't kept much more civil than in other spots?
And, in general, avoiding direct capital incentives to drive any questionable behavior seems a pretty safe route?
I would think this would be a lot like public parks and such. Disallow some commercial behaviors and actually enforce rules, and you can keep some pretty nice places?
I generally agree that strict moderation is the key but there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible - ycombinator user activity is next to nothing compared to sites like Facebook/twitter/reddit. Even on Reddit, you see smaller subreddits able to achieve this.
But just like a public park, if 2 million people rock up it's going to be next to impossible to police effectively.
> there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible
Not really. If 5 people can moderate 1000, surely 5000 can moderate 1 million. Divide et impera, it's not a new idea.
Just keep in mind that in a free market there is supposed to be no profit. If there is, then something is wrong. In this case the companies just don't feel like moderating and following laws.
I'm sure that some of this is influenced by the behavior of the people being moderated? Back to the parks example, it is usually assumed most visitors are in good faith. If there is expectation otherwise, things are usually a bit tougher.
For parks, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that people have to physically be there. That alone is a bit of a moderating factor, I would presume. With online, even 5 people can't moderate 1000 bad faith collaborators?
I don't know that we truly have a way to ensure "person is on other side of this account." And in places that are made to be interfaced from corporations, that isn't even strictly the desire.
What I was arguing was that employing enough people to moderate should be just cost of business. If that would cost to much there should simply be no business. However the big social media business are right now far from going bankrupt.
I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue.
When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to avoid a brawl. Even then, heated arguments aren’t uncommon.
In an environment where one person’s truth can be another’s misinformation, I’m not sure moderation can ever be applied in a way that satisfies everyone involved.
I think a key facet of good moderation is that it doesn't have to be on content, specifically. Behavior is often more troublesome. We can smirk about "tone police," but it really can make a huge difference.
Yes, but that too is nuanced. There are, of course, clear-cut cases of unacceptable behavior that are already moderated as such. However, when you have people coming together from hundreds, if not thousands, of cultures and backgrounds, I doubt there’s a single set of rules that works for everyone. It ultimately becomes another question of where we draw the line.
The big miss here is that "compile time" is typically understood to be "batch compilation" time for languages. For Common LISP, macros run at read time. Which is often doable during runtime.
Fair that I was definitely mixing them in my thinking. My general point was supposed to be simply that "compile time" is probably not what people are thinking of when coming from other languages. I was clearly a bit too eager to try and say that, though. :(
> you'd be surprised at how many people would have told pollsters
Yeah, when my son was in middle school, they ran a poll. I was surprised by how many kids at his school had artificial limbs. Terrible carnage, just terrible.
Yeah, I have a hard time thinking this is specifically a good thing. A better relationship with drinking is not something to argue against, of course. But I find the dysfunction in so many people that take a strong stance against it rather hard to ignore, as well.
reply