darawk

88 ms·

871.
by darawk 6y ago
> This seems to me the wrong mentality. What you ultimately care about is the leverage you have over the entity holding your data. In most cases you have more leverage over the state via voting and lobbying. I would argue the exact oppos
872.
by darawk 6y ago
> That sounds nice in theory, but it doesn’t work that way in practice. You just end up corrupting your own principles in the end. Maybe. But if you don't do it, a Chinese company will just clone your product, and they will be subst
873.
by darawk 6y ago
This is kind of a weird problem though. It seems like the equilibrium effect of not obeying Chinese laws will be that the companies are simply excluded from the Chinese market. I'm not sure how that really helps anyone. It feels like a
874.
by darawk 6y ago
> There is no such thing as "artificial" or "natural" rates of interest. That is not entirely true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest Whether the natural rate of interest is
875.
by darawk 6y ago
Their fundamental message was that masks do not work. They hedged in their language, but their recommendations were predicated on the idea that they are ineffective at slowing transmission. This is and was disastrously false. Saying that &q
876.
by darawk 6y ago
Point one is equivalent to saying "masks don't work" when communicated in that way to the general public.
877.
by darawk 6y ago
The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick
878.
by darawk 6y ago
None of this has anything to do with political sway. I'm talking about the economic depression that will ensue if we keep the economy closed. That will hurt the poor more than the rich. Economic depressions cause people to lose money
879.
by darawk 6y ago
I'm not saying that lockdown didn't save lives. I'm saying it's no longer necessary. The purpose of lockdown is to keep the number of infections below the point that they overwhelm the medical system.
880.
by darawk 6y ago
I'm aware. I'm in favor of flattening the curve. But we have already flattened the curve. Staying closed now does not serve a curve-flattening purpose. Whether or not you flatten the curve, the absolute number of infections is the
881.
by darawk 6y ago
> Of course it’s realistic, we can still produce necessary goods at the rate we need to live. For a little while. But things will start to break. There are all sorts of things that can be done for a bit, that cannot be extended indefinit
882.
by darawk 6y ago
> This is in direct contrast to the advice of the epidemiologists. Reopen the economy later has the effect of saving more lives - at least the lives of those who wouldn't have otherwise caught coronavirus. I think you are misreading
883.
by darawk 6y ago
> Why not? We have our own currency and have no qualms manipulating it to manipulate the stock market. We can communicate with other countries. People are starting to go crazy. Personally I couldn't be happier with lockdown, I love
884.
by darawk 6y ago
We're re-opening because we have to. We cannot realistically stay closed until a cure comes out. Very optimistically, that's not going to happen until the end of the year, at best. We have two choices: 1. Reopen the economy now, p
885.
by darawk 6y ago
The value in these things is being able to consistently extrapolate from weightings, and to understand all of the consequences of different weights. Most people just have vague moral intuitions that lack consistency.
886.
by darawk 6y ago
There's no shortage of capital floating around, though. In fact, the surplus of capital is probably what caused an investment this bad in the first place. There is no shortage of funding for good ideas. The shortage is in the idea spac
887.
by darawk 6y ago
Do keep in mind that intelligence services are probably not being fully transparent about how they know the source of an attack. They wouldn't want to reveal their methods, to avoid them becoming unreliable in the future.
888.
by darawk 6y ago
It does apply to technology. My point isn't "some people get hurt, therefore open borders are bad". Some people are hurt by technology, but the net benefits are so great that it's generally worthwhile. I think the tradeo
889.
by darawk 6y ago
I don't think that's true. The midwest was buying trucks long before manufacturing left for China.
890.
by darawk 6y ago
I agree. The employer lock-in is very silly, and unproductive. It puts these people at a disadvantage in negotiations, which means they are even more likely to accept lower salaries, and drive down the wages of Americans. Even from an &quot
891.
by darawk 6y ago
There are good arguments for open borders in the equilibrium. But it's very hard to argue that they're good for the people who's jobs are lost. This is the classic median/mean reasoning error. Open borders are good for t
892.
by darawk 6y ago
> Wow - absolutely not - the notion of people - anyone - purposely infecting themselves with a deadly disease that actually does kill quite a number of people - is absurd. It kills almost nobody under 25. It's an extremely low risk
893.
by darawk 6y ago
These arguments are uniformly terrible. Let's go over them point by point. > COVID-19 immunity is a mystery No. It's not. Recovered people are almost certainly immune. There's evidence that's come out recently to actu
894.
by darawk 6y ago
Ya I don't want to make it out to be more than it is. It's certainly not an oppressive police state. But is it chilling speech a bit at the margin? I'm not sure that the answer is yes, but i'm also not sure that the answ
895.
by darawk 6y ago
I think that's pretty arguable. Hate speech laws in the UK have been used in pretty questionable ways: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stephen-birrell-s-convic... https://www.bbc.com/news/
896.
by darawk 6y ago
Nobody wants to be in the position of defending Alex Jones. He's totally indefensible. But that is always how these things start. Once you start regulating content on the basis of factual accuracy, you put these companies in the positi
897.
by darawk 6y ago
> This is quite literally the “99% of ‘poor’ people have refrigerators” argument popularized by Fox News. > You should find better sources of information. The factual claim I made is true. My sources of information are just fine, so y
898.
by darawk 6y ago
> A property-less underclass will survive by servicing the needs of high earners as personal assistants, trainers, child-minders, cooks, cleaners, et cetera. People have been predicting this since Marx, and they've been wrong every
899.
by darawk 6y ago
Or ethics for humans, for that matter.
900.
by darawk 6y ago
The current price is the equilibrium of supply and demand. Not only are the holders holding, but the market makers are providing liquidity at those prices. Deep liquidity.

More ›