dlss

16 ms·

31.
by dlss 10y ago
Right. The funny part is that for rich people to maximize their profit from poor people, they have to make their (land, buildings, websites, products, services) as awesome as possible. Think Disneyland, Google search, Apple hardware and sof
32.
by dlss 10y ago
You earn profit in a capitalist system by providing more utility to your consumers than you cost them. So no. "[Capitalism] is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." - John Updike
33.
by dlss 10y ago
You can have Rawlsian fairness, in which before you are born you structure society such that the expected goodness of your life is on average best. This leads to arguments about limiting a person's abilities to hold wealth in the vein
34.
by dlss 10y ago
Capitalism is the most fair (symmetric) solution to the class of multiplayer games in which the participants have asymmetric access to many kinds of scarce goods. [okay, that's somewhat speculation, but I expect it's right.] Since
35.
by dlss 10y ago
> Appealing to "reality" in a discussion about bias amounts to throwing up your hands and dismissing the problem as just "the way things are". Yes, that was how I read GGP's comment. I think you are overstating t
36.
by dlss 10y ago
Through products and services not offered by banks?
37.
by dlss 10y ago
> What do you mean by "reality"? The thing scientists (especially physicists) are trying to model.
38.
by dlss 10y ago
While I agree that `P(loan | race=1, black_zip) = P(loan | race=2, black_zip) = 0` does indeed satisfy the condition, I think the kind of discrimination it creates is in some sense out of scope. This is because if P(loan | black_zip) is pro
39.
by dlss 10y ago
Google has actually released a paper on codifying what discrimination looks like for lending ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02413 + blog post: https://research.googleblog.com/2016/10/equality-of-
40.
by dlss 10y ago
Seemingly not considered in the report is the incentives created for offshoring -- if you tax robots in the EU, that will just cause the companies to move the administrative robots to nearby countries with reduced robotic rights. Only those
41.
by dlss 10y ago
> Banks set the amount. Banks can't magically choose to write loans at unprofitable terms. They also can't write loans at noncompetitive rates in any sort of realistic quantity. These two forces (fear of principal loss through
42.
by dlss 10y ago
Banks don't get to decide what people will pay, people get to decide what people pay. People make this decision in terms of real cost, not in terms of USD (since real cost determines their access to USD). People are not making that dec
43.
by dlss 10y ago
I mean, in some sense you're right. The literal USD figure is determined that way. However, if you doubled the number of dollars in circulation, and so "doubled the cost" of every home... you've also changed nothing in t
44.
by dlss 10y ago
> Rents are set by wages, prices by credit. NO. Prices are set by supply and demand. No one is being forced to take out a loan, and if they could buy a given home with a lower loan, they would. Hence the loan is only enabling demand. Y
45.
by dlss 10y ago
> If we all worked 3 days a week it would be enough to pay the rent. If we all worked 7 days a week it would be enough to pay the rent. This is wrong. The reason rent is going up is because there's more demand than supply. Reducing
46.
by dlss 10y ago
From Peter Thiel ( http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-google-monopoly-2... ): > Google's motto — "Don't be evil" — is in part a branding play, but it's also characteristic of a kind of bus
47.
by dlss 10y ago
I have also heard roughly the opposite model, namely: 1. A small subset of the startup ecosystem wants to fund diverse founders, and is willing to compromise on startup quality to do so. 2. A larger subset of the startup ecosystem recognize
48.
by dlss 10y ago
> if the diversity racket is so small why does it seem so many have built their careers on it? Perhaps because the diversity racket is in some way related to the group of people causing Jessica to avoid sharing thoughts online? If you ca
49.
by dlss 10y ago
Your comment is hypocritical. This is to say I'm sure you point is made elsewhere, somewhere. And yet I'm glad you posted it so it can be discussed. Which is to say it's still wrong even when applied to itself (a wrong point)
50.
by dlss 10y ago
Sounds like someone needs to either (a) get a patch out, or (b) pass a law before alexa-aware advertisements become a thing.
51.
by dlss 10y ago
> even at a few years old males prefer to play with traditionally masculine toys and girls the opposite A gendered toy preference has been demonstrated in infants at 3-8 months (!!) using eye tracking software[1]. To make matters even
52.
by dlss 10y ago
> The problem of journalists misrepresenting a company (either by mistake or on purpose) is as old as the hills. It was as true back when the media was widely trusted, as it is now. Perhaps what's happening is that established bad
53.
by dlss 10y ago
The article doesn't say anything about Pr(Dislikes Rewards), but rather claims to have measured P(Diminished Response to Rewards | Clinical Depression Diagnosis) > P(Diminished Response to Rewards | !Diagnosis). It's an 84 pers
54.
by dlss 10y ago
I don't really see the irony. Humans are pack animals; love/tolerance is for the in-group, cruelty for the out-group. The only people I know who don't match that description are basically lacking an in-group.
55.
by dlss 10y ago
From the perspective of those who aren't irrationally optimistic, I think sometimes. Self-defeating example: betting on red in roulette is a bad idea. Having your friend bet on red is a better but still bad idea. Having a stranger bet
56.
by dlss 10y ago
How does this differ from https://developers.google.com/caja/ ?
57.
by dlss 10y ago
If you click on the only link in the article, you will see they are measuring children’s and parents’ pre-tax incomes at the household level. This absolutely does include retirement account investment income. While I have you here: why didn
58.
by dlss 10y ago
> I suspect that the distribution of incomes in the US remains fairly similar to what it was 40 years ago. Thus, if the median has remained the same, then the average probably also has. If the distribution of income had gone unchanged, t
59.
by dlss 10y ago
> About half earn more, about half earn less. Wouldn't that imply that the average earnings are about the same? Actually no, though this is a fairly standard misunderstanding of statistics. For an easy counter-example imagine genera
60.
by dlss 10y ago
I think GP believes that if too many people are effected by a dumb policy the policy will be revoked (perhaps true)... if this is the case no one would be screwed over.

More ›