amw

8 ms·

31.
by amw 4y ago
I haven't yet seen a compelling reason to think it is either Chinese or an espionage craft anyway,other than news reporting "the Pentagon sure thinks so"
32.
by amw 4y ago
It is strange, to me, to make a caveat about how some peoples' taste might appreciate the buildings just shown, and then immediately launch into a "universal" principle for why those examples "look bad". The one sta
33.
by amw 4y ago
Conflating a holistic approach that acknowledges the material effect of the context around a person with the assertion that those things existing nullifies the contribution of said person's agency is one of the very stupidest contribut
34.
by amw 4y ago
"investigating systems in their totality rather than focusing on isolated interactions within them" is not inherently conspiratorial. It's far weirder to suggest that "more people want to party for no particular reason&q
35.
by amw 4y ago
I just want to pipe in with a personal standout from when I used to play more IF, which is _King of Shreds and Patches_, Lovecraft in the London of Shakespeare, and worth a playthrough.
36.
by amw 4y ago
The problem with "energy too cheap to meter" is that it has to very quickly become "energy too cheap to make a profit from". And that is the _real_ obstacle to prolific nuclear.
37.
by amw 4y ago
You are treating "because it doesn't generate profit" and "because it's obsolete" as equivalent conditions. This is pretty normal, but let me suggest that the two don't have to exist together, because the
38.
by amw 4y ago
Nuclear definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy future. This article briefly alludes to its "social and political" challenges, but that undersells how nuclear is subject to more impact study per watt than any fossil fue
39.
by amw 4y ago
For the unfamiliar, dialectical materialism tends to do this a lot (that is, understand and explain exploitative facets of our economy long before mainstream press gives the particular problem in question any notice).
40.
by amw 5y ago
Agree, this sounds like no less of an attempt to own the employee's time, it's just better at recognizing the value of open-source contribution to Alphabet's bottom line.
41.
by amw 5y ago
There's a switching cost inherent to employment that some people simply can't or won't risk. The only way to give people total freedom to accept or not accept a policy like this is to make it so their fundamental needs are al
42.
by amw 5y ago
The kind of dummy who enjoys having things like rent, food and healthcare.
43.
by amw 6y ago
It's a sign of how crazy our society is that you have to work this hard to frame (and justify) a question that is essentially, "How do I reverse the coercive impact companies have on wage to get more of the real value of my time?&
44.
by amw 6y ago
That's only true in that particular hypothetical. There are a lot of possible circumstances without such a clear conflict of interest. Also, in the lawyer example, someone's freedom or livelihood is on the line. In the company exa
45.
by amw 6y ago
MIT ends up just as political, it just does so by assuming society's default politics. It "just so happens" those default politics are great for billionaires.
46.
by amw 6y ago
I can't help but read this article dwell on how everyone but Ken stated their misgivings about the deal. If ownership and decision-making of the company were more equitable, then this specific decision would have gone the opposite way,
47.
by amw 6y ago
Pretty sure all the comments above you are intimating is that there's no such thing as "better designed" without a "to what (specific) goal?". If the goal was enjoyment, then Sierra games were well-loved by lots of
48.
by amw 6y ago
Can't bulk-kill processes, for one. Not searchable, for two.
49.
by amw 6y ago
Seconded. I had no choice but to say, "Well, I guess I'll just imagine what was in that image".
50.
by amw 6y ago
Nicely done, would love to contribute some bugfixen, source code hosted anywhere?
51.
by amw 7y ago
So that brings us to the next question: Why on earth are we putting the entirety of those (business) life and death decisionsinto the hands of essentially a single person? Why is the effort not spread out over a broad swath of management-ca
52.
by amw 7y ago
Gotta jump on this specifically, first: >First of “neurotic” is a psychological term. He was using it in the scientific way, not the colloquial way. Whether or not it was used scientifically doesn't mean much. If I say all HN users
53.
by amw 7y ago
The backlash against Crichton was well-founded. He used the grain of truth that it's sometimes hard to get new ideas in science funded to build a crazy denialist foundation on that made for exciting fiction, but terrible description of
54.
by amw 7y ago
I agree that the title is pure clickbait, I disagree that the article completely divorces itself from the premise the title implies. This whole thing where science journalism drums up this huge controversy after the fact when enough science
55.
by amw 7y ago
> They went "all in" on bad science. They went "all in" on science, that happens with hindsight to maybe not have been an accurate model for reality. Nobody can know that a particular explanation is bad without actual
56.
by amw 7y ago
I have a huge problem with someone who says, "We should just make compensation merit-based rather than based on accidents of birth", because it refuses to acknowledge that we already live in that system. It's just that the &q
57.
by amw 7y ago
There's a difference between "conspiracy" and "class solidarity among the wealthy". You're totally right that it's probably silly to attribute this to all management/ownership explicitly collaborating
58.
by amw 7y ago
It feels an awful lot like the people putting out this statement want to position themselves as the actual driving force behind the focus on shareholder value in the 80s, and thus use that branding to also posit an authority to change futur
59.
by amw 8y ago
You could argue that the "one big reason" is "healthcare companies exist to make a profit, not a healthier society".
60.
by amw 8y ago
The result of successful banking API fraud is "I get a lot of money". The result of successful science publication fraud is, "I get some papers published, and as long as I don't get too famous and people don't look

More ›