bhupy

92 ms·

901.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Most voters are not paying to the nitty-gritty of legislation that their representative votes on. Sure, nobody suggested that they were. Voters pay attention to the high-level policy platforms of their representatives. > As you said
902.
by bhupy 6y ago
It's a good example of the Tragedy of the Commons. We mostly solved that problem on land, and even ended up with industrial farming by allowing people to own pieces of land to run their own farming operations. Would be nice to be able
903.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Having money to hire lobbyists lets people influence legislation to their benefit. Sure, but ultimately the legislators are accountable to the voters, not the lobbyists. Most voters elect the candidate they think is most likely to repr
904.
by bhupy 6y ago
That’s just not true, in practice, though. Laws are written by legislators who ultimately need to win the confidence of their constituents. No amount of money will install a representative who cannot win a democratic election. We’ve seen th
905.
by bhupy 6y ago
> What _specific_ problems do you believe privatization would solve? For starters, unlike what we’re seeing today, mail-in ballots would be processed without issue because there isn’t a political incentive to hobble it. As long as there
906.
by bhupy 6y ago
> 40% don't have the money to cover a $400 emergency expense This is an often cited statistic that's been essentially debunked for being flawed and misleading[1][2]. > And yet 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
907.
by bhupy 6y ago
Who cares about inequality — poverty is down: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26532 . The difference between the rich and the poor is less important than making sure that the poor are rich enough. Real median income is up:
908.
by bhupy 6y ago
s/US/California. The US is decentralized (especially as it relates to electricity). Most of the rest of the Union is doing just fine.
909.
by bhupy 6y ago
> A good solution is probably a redundant solution, but pushing the solution too far towards only government versus privatization likely decreases the service that underserved populations can expect. You hit the nail on the head: you nee
910.
by bhupy 6y ago
And those kids keep coming back, because the US is comprised of a large/heterogenous population that isn’t really going away. Power has reliably flip-flopped every 4-8 years, and “the bad guys” have nearly always come back into power.
911.
by bhupy 6y ago
Easy: privatization of a thing almost always decouples its administration and operation from politics. Private corporations are almost never self-sabotaging because they can’t afford to be, and when they are, they quickly die and get replac
912.
by bhupy 6y ago
> The Republicans normally make this a truism by sabotaging government programs Yes, but you have to contend with the reality that you are participating in the same government as they are. It's like constantly insisting on sharing a
913.
by bhupy 6y ago
Executive appointees are not unilateral, they have to be approved by the legislature. And setting aside appointments, you also have politicized budget appropriations, i.e. how can you be certain that the government will adequately fund an a
914.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Not for small businesses, they're not. I don't know of a single small business that has ever been audited under PCI-DSS. And these are the ones that will keep your CVC code in the unencrypted spreadsheet on the unprotected la
915.
by bhupy 6y ago
> It is a simple view that summarizes really well what happens when public services are privatized. There is more nuance to it, but the main effects are "de-investment", "increase in price", "reduction of service
916.
by bhupy 6y ago
> When things were done that way, surveillance was possible but it was expensive. Yes, I mean I didn't suggest otherwise. What you're describing is a difference in degree, not kind. In principle not much has changed. > It
917.
by bhupy 6y ago
I mean, "government can't run services well" is probably overly simplistic and incorrect. But what if we replaced it with the following: "an extremely politicized government can't run services well". Is that a
918.
by bhupy 6y ago
Sure, and this is the consequence of living in a digital world. In the days of yore, all of your private information was sitting in paper ledgers in every business you ever interacted with. Even back then, you were susceptible to receiving
919.
by bhupy 6y ago
It's like complaining that you can't cut Microsoft out of your life because every business you interact with uses MS Excel.
920.
by bhupy 6y ago
> From my perspective, it's black and white. You're probably on the wrong forum, then. Either that or you'll have to understand that not everybody sees this as black and white, and maybe understand exactly why. > Apple
921.
by bhupy 6y ago
> There are many people in this world who think they would pay a steep social penalty if they switched away from iPhones. Yeah, but to suggest that you don't have the option to switch away from Apple just because you might have frie
922.
by bhupy 6y ago
Dude, maybe cool down a little. I understand you feel really strongly about this, but there's no need for personal attacks. We're all dealing with the implications of this, and there are pros and cons on both sides. This is a nua
923.
by bhupy 6y ago
> ...that works right up until Apple bans you, or one of your favorite services, or just demands you pony up 30% of all the money you spend online. Another commenter framed it well: that Apple behaves both as a consumer union as well as
924.
by bhupy 6y ago
I really like this framing. If Apple's payment processing fee was more in line with the industry e-commerce standard, this would look a lot more like #1 than #2.
925.
by bhupy 6y ago
> A "Sign in With Apple" user isn't your customer anymore. Apple inserted themselves as middleman yet again. Yes, as a customer, I don't wish to provide my email / identity with every service I use. If it takes A
926.
by bhupy 6y ago
I'll try and play devil's advocate for you. Apple recently rolled out "Sign-In With Apple", which creates burner e-mail address that you can seamlessly use with 3rd party services. As a privacy-conscious consumer, this w
927.
by bhupy 6y ago
I stand corrected!
928.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Apple owns the majority of the US mobile market Apple's US market share is ~46%, so technically not a majority. EDIT: no longer true as of July 2020
929.
by bhupy 6y ago
...yes? It’s not clear that there is a real or straightforward anti-trust case to be made against many of these companies (especially Amazon). For some reason the HN echo chamber is convinced that there is an obvious and bulletproof anti-tr
930.
by bhupy 6y ago
I don't know if you've heard, but it's no longer enough to simply be "not in favor of riots", you must now be "actively anti-riots" — or so goes that other talking point.

More ›