ItsMonkk

16 ms·

121.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
It's always important in these conversations to take into account the Downs–Thomson paradox[0]. If public transit gets stuck in traffic and takes longer than taking a car, people will take a car. And since taking a car is the least eff
122.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
This is also a natural result of how much more pleasant taking rail is compared to driving. Sort of a induced demand and Jevon's paradox effect going on here. Since you don't need to actively pay attention to the road you can mult
123.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
And when the typical voter who owns their own home votes in their best interest, they vote NIMBY. If you incentivize scarcity, scarcity is what you will get. Change needs to come from above the system, not within.
124.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
This is mostly what I believe to be the case, and as I argue here[0], it doesn't even make any sense. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31968482
125.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Yep, you have outlined the problems with grants. As they look forward, and due so in a one-time lump sum, they hold considerable risk, and thus the providers of the grant money need to ensure they pick correctly, but this just leaves us wit
126.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
It is. Capitalism relies on the basic system of supply and demand. When the marginal supply is free - the only proper price is zero - anything else isn't pure Capitalism. And so as free would mean no incentives, we give an even worse o
127.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
I mentioned this in my post - soccer moms who used to drop off their kid and go home, then pick up their kid and go home will save an entire trip. My argument is nothing more than a fairly obvious case of Jevon's paradox. If something
128.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The typical car is on the road 1% of the time. The typical driver-less car will be on the road whenever possible, so will see 100x usage. Just 1% of cars being driver-less will therefore double cars on the road. That will go to things that
129.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
20% of the Russell 3000 are considered Zombie companies. Without easy money they will be severely harmed and many will go under. And that 20% was based on numbers when debt was cheap, no doubt it's even worse as the rate increases keep
130.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Job listings is a terrible metric because it has never been cheaper to have a listing. Listings are nearly double pre-pandemic norms while actual hires are only up slightly from pre-pandemic norms. This implies that each job listing is much
131.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Yep, I actively have to fight both services to get the most value from the service, much more similar to how Twitter does it. I find having both views is a good idea, I'm not sure why these services tend to focus on only one view. On H
132.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
> kind of tax, versus increasing a percentage that already exists I mean, most places currently have a Land Value Tax, it's just included within the Property Tax that we pay. Conceptually all we are looking to do is raise this perce
133.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
It's really unfortunate that we had 140 years to get this into law but that we only ever care about it when it becomes an issue, and once it becomes an issue it's so entrenched we can't do anything about it. With that said, t
134.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
> Can you point out the timestamp 45:03 > right past the simple solutions and right to the hard-to-understand, change-the-paradigm solution Rich Hickey's 'Simple made Easy' talk[0](don't need to watch this, but I f
135.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The economist in the podcast was explicitly asked why doing things like "heavily tax all non-primary residence homes" wouldn't work. Do you have any argument as to why she was wrong? The many changes that you are proposing, a
136.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
A carbon tax is correcting the negative externality of using the carbon. So you are paying for the harm that you are doing to society. In that same exact way, a land value tax is correcting the capture of the positive externality that is co
137.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
There's a constant iterative feedback process. Learn -> Do -> Learn -> Do -> etc... If something is painful and then you read about how to make it less hard, that's immensely gratifying. At that point you learn how ben
138.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
There is a fundamental ratio between actual productivity and money. If new money is greater than productivity, then over time stuff is worth more. If productivity is greater than new money, then over time money is worth more. You typically
139.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
You seem to be describing LinkLonk[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28405643
140.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
One of the surprises I got when doing that was realizing that Y's code was terrible because of how X was interacting with it, and a rewrite of X allowed a rewrite of Y, and I was able to delete half the code in each. This has occurred
141.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Oh, you're right. I had in my head "A combination of MIT, Bell Labs and GE" and manually translated that to thousands but it was actually only about a hundred dedicated people. Thanks.
142.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. The ability to suss-out meaning behind those channels and come to a shared understanding pushes it to factorial. If A is speaking to B and C, A needs to also think
143.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
> tackling more complex problems This is the 'induced demand' argument. As perfection seems impossible, and mistakes inevitable, this seems likely. However, the more I look into issues, the more I realize that a very small numb
144.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
And just to be clear to you, the rest of the article was great. I think there was three or four points that I was going 'but ...' and then the next sentence you explicitly mentioned exactly that. Very well put together. > Issue
145.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Nice appeal to authority. And I'm not the one going "you think you do, but you don't" - the playtesters told him his core gameplay loop wasn't fun, and he ignored them. 'A Short Hike' has a meta-critic sco
146.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
I accept this criticism. I misspoke slightly when I said fun. Entertaining is closer. A game should know what it wants to invoke in the player, and the entire game should be built around that. In a game like Paper's Please, your moment
147.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Disagree strongly with the early argument in the article. If a gameplay element in your game is not fun, it should not be in the game. Games are about fun. If that gameplay element gate-keeps a fun element, then players will do it, but they
148.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
When I was building a prototype last year I went with XTDB and using it as relational database with additional super powers worked fairly well.
149.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
I think your intuition is getting there. Using DI always is an anti-pattern[0]. DI in general should only be used to nasty, circular-esque problems. If you can split your code between pure and impure code, and then just pass around the data
150.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
This speaks to the heart of the issue to me. Personally I always loved STEM topics, and would go out of my way to learn about them. This ended poorly for me in school, as I ended up being incredibly bored in the STEM classes, as they were f

More ›