darawk

78 ms·

751.
by darawk 6y ago
I don't really see how billionaires being rich is a problem either. The problem isn't that some people are rich, it's that other people are poor. I'm much more interested in solutions that make people not poor than ones
752.
by darawk 6y ago
It's a one time tax. It has zero chance of passing, and it'd accomplish precisely nothing of value even if it did. It's a political stunt - the only purpose of which is to remind you that Bernie Sanders exists, he hates billi
753.
by darawk 6y ago
This isn't an attempt to fix that. This isn't an attempt to fix anything at all. The government can just pay people's out of pocket expenses if it wanted to, it doesn't need to tax anyone to do it. This law doesn't
754.
by darawk 6y ago
Which policies of Facebooks are 'evil', exactly?
755.
by darawk 6y ago
But that is completely orthogonal to the issue of detection . In order to coach/mentor correctly, you need to know what it is your students are doing. It's still up to the teacher how they respond to plagiarism. But if you don&#x
756.
by darawk 6y ago
My point is that using software is just a consequence of the desire to check for plagiarism. Your options are: 1. Check for plagiarism poorly by hand. 2. Check for plagiarism thoroughly with software 3. Don't check for plagiarism at al
757.
by darawk 6y ago
If you aren't going to police plagiarism why are you assigning essays at all though?
758.
by darawk 6y ago
> The fact that anti-plagiarism software can't tell the difference between accidental and intentional plagiarism is just one reason that Rebecca Moore Howard, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Syracuse University, is not a fan.
759.
by darawk 6y ago
No, because ad-spend there was zero sum. If their competitors were going to advertise on TV, they had to too, and that made everyone make less money. It was a coordination problem that the government solved for them by banning it.
760.
by darawk 6y ago
I think they probably say something like "You know, during this pandemic we should probably cut our ad spend. Which area do you think we can cut that will cause the least harm during this time? Facebook? Ok, and as a side benefit, we g
761.
by darawk 6y ago
This is exactly right. It was a way to get free advertising from cutting your advertising budget.
762.
by darawk 6y ago
I think he is promoting that. This article is written in response to the steady drumbeat of "diversity in tech" hit pieces in the tech media over the last few years. Its just pointing out the hypocrisy of the tech media on this is
763.
by darawk 6y ago
Completely agree, though i'll also add that journalists want a cudgel to beat tech with for a variety of reasons, and diversity is the favored cudgel du jour to beat everyone with.
764.
by darawk 6y ago
Ya, I think which way the rules should be here is a complicated question, but it certainly shouldn't be the case that we have two arbitrarily different taxation schemes.
765.
by darawk 6y ago
Do not do this. Dividends are not a good way to pick stocks. Dividends and buybacks are fungible, except that buybacks are more tax efficient. All equities should have the same risk-adjusted expected total return (i.e. including dividends,
766.
by darawk 6y ago
This is not universally true. It's bad if the dominant player uses their dominance to deliver sub-par quality at high prices. But so far Amazon doesn't seem to be doing that, at least in my user experience of it. It is bad that th
767.
by darawk 6y ago
> On Costco, it’s not a marketplace for third party sellers to ship to customers. Sure it’s closer to us to make analogies with traditional brands, but Amazon’s position is nothing similar. Is it not? I mean, some of the details are diff
768.
by darawk 6y ago
> Resources in Capitalism, however, are not directed toward people who are growing the network in socially useful or ways that sustain its overall health (including maintaining its diversity), but toward individual nodes or small cluster
769.
by darawk 6y ago
> My point is that your conception of individually-oriented social utility is based on hierarchical forms of epistemology that the people you cite themselves did not embrace. It’s a projection of Capitalist logic and forms of valuation t
770.
by darawk 6y ago
I agree that they are not the same. But I don't really understand why it is different in a way that changes its moral character. Steve Sailer can read psychiatry journals if he wants to. As long as the stories are well anonymized, I do
771.
by darawk 6y ago
There are differences, obviously. Which ones do you think are relevant here?
772.
by darawk 6y ago
Isn't this just what you would expect a company of this size to do? "We want to launch a product in category X" "Ok, should we roll it ourselves, or buy something?" "Well, let's interview a few companies,
773.
by darawk 6y ago
I don't really understand your point. Obviously the whole network is important. Einstein's contributions would not have been possible without the society around him to produce food and shelter, the centuries of mathematics and phy
774.
by darawk 6y ago
In the US, afaik, there is no such requirement, and publishing anonymized stories in pyschiatric journals is common practice, without any sort of consent.
775.
by darawk 6y ago
It means that all the dollars that people expect to eventually spend fighting climate change will largely be captured by Tesla.
776.
by darawk 6y ago
This misses the point of the example, though. The point is that not all labor has the same value. Albert Einstein's thoughts produced a lot more social utility than mine do, for instance.
777.
by darawk 6y ago
The point is, the labor theory of value has been rejected by economists for a really long time now, because it's a totally incoherent way of valuing things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_th
778.
by darawk 6y ago
It's standard practice in psychiatry to publish anonymized patient stories. Your issue is with the entire field, then.
779.
by darawk 6y ago
It's ideological. They believe that the government should not be in the postal business. They probably believe that it's harmful to competition in various ways, and they are probably right in certain narrow contexts.
780.
by darawk 6y ago
Of course you don't. But European citizens care about economic growth, because it provides work and creates wealth and tax revenue for European citizens.

More ›