gnaritas

71 ms·

631.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> The reality is that the human body is fragile. Yet it seems to stand up to the test of time even to things that were never faced during evolutionary development. No more so than any other animal, there's quite simply nothing mirac
632.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> It's offloading the cost of hiring on to prospective candidates. The asymmetry of cost should give everyone pause. It's plainly exploitative. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a competitive market, those who get
633.
by gnaritas 10y ago
That's a good way to get passed over for good jobs. As a potential candidate, you aren't in a position to making such demands and your unwillingness to demonstrate your skills on a simple assignment just means you won't be c
634.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Ok buddy, whatever you need to tell yourself.
635.
by gnaritas 10y ago
No, I'm not trying to walk anything back, I stand by what I said, and bluntly you seem to have gotten your feelings hurt and can't let it go even thought the thing you're going on about was tangential to the point I was makin
636.
by gnaritas 10y ago
You act like I'm attacking women, I'm not. Most married couples with kids are financially dependent on each other; single income families are no longer the norm either. I don't think it's a stretch to say that within m
637.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Being part of the labor force doesn't stop one from being basically a housewife. A job isn't equal to a career. He's talking about educated women with real careers. You're talking about jobs, we're talking about car
638.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> Traditional? Yes. Current? No. You're mixing two different statements. Look at what I said was current norm, being dependent when married and trying to have kids. So your stats don't disprove anything I said. > Well over h
639.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> Another proof that God exists. No. > A proof that God is there intending to be this way. And no. Look believe whatever you like, that's your right, but random chance is in no way proof of God, not remotely. It's not a mi
640.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> Yeah, and this is an incredibly dangerous thing to do too, for both partners really. For the woman, she's basically giving up any hope of having a real career, ever, and consigning herself to being nothing more than a "housew
641.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> The XML thing is the dumbest thing. Developers write hundreds of lines of XML all the time... its called HTML As if developers like HTML any better. I agree with you about XML being useful because it's easy to parse and the XML h
642.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Sleeping is fasting, that's why the first meal of the day is called break/fast. It only takes about 6-8 hours for food to be digested, when you aren't digesting, you're fasting. Skipping a meal is fasting, doesn't
643.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Fruit juice is a ton of sugar, it's the same as eating.
644.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> Jobs never run out We're discussing the fact that change is happening faster than people can adapt; that long term jobs won't run out has no bearing on the issue being discussed, that the rate of automation is happening faste
645.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> See lump of labour fallacy. I don't need to, I'm not making it. > What if they have good incentives to go back to school? No amount of schooling will make the half of the population with an IQ below 100 able to hold a high
646.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> See, the thing is, I understand this. I believe that. And of course the middle class is of concern as well, however the middle class is dying, we're becoming only the rich and the poor and the poor make up the largest part of soci
647.
by gnaritas 10y ago
They're really no longer a product suite company, they renamed themselves Basecamp as that's their only real success and they've started selling off their other products.
648.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Slack is IRC, Basecamp is a project management app, they really aren't even in the same space. Slack will never make Basecamp irrelevant, they're not playing the same game and aren't in the same space.
649.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> a way to write more blog posts by pitting themselves against an enemy. That's exactly what it is, but they've been clear about that, picking an enemy is one of their "ideals" from their books.
650.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> In the long-term disruptions and changes in jobs are part of the changes in the world. By the way, that's a terrible argument. You may as well call it the naturalistic fallacy. That it's a natural consequence of progress do
651.
by gnaritas 10y ago
People aren't an economic game. Society has a pace at which it can absorb change, and a pace at which change is too fast causing too much harm to too many people. I agree with you that BI or a negative income tax is a good option for
652.
by gnaritas 10y ago
> They will need to be retrained and educated. And that's not even always possible. People who are easily replaced by robots aren't going to suddenly start building those robots; it's likely above their intellectual ceilin
653.
by gnaritas 10y ago
That's exactly the point, those taxes will help cover all the people now unemployed by those robots.
654.
by gnaritas 10y ago
It depends on what you mean by "rent". BI is about eliminating the need to work just to survive. In a more automated world, human labor has little value and in a labor based economy there's no way to prevent the capital clas
655.
by gnaritas 10y ago
The market itself cannot go to zero, but individual stocks can. If you're of the view the market can't be beat and investing in index funds is the way to go then your position is fine. If you're of the view where you select
656.
by gnaritas 10y ago
It's equally frustrating to watch you continually setup straw-men version of BI to then knock down while accusing me of arguing poorly all the while ignoring what BI is actually attempting to solve, while continually introducing non-se
657.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Now your critiquing me personally while spewing the same old conservative nonsense, we're done.
658.
by gnaritas 10y ago
People aren't lacking savings because economic policies prevent it, they lack savings because they're poor and don't have excess income to save. They use all of their income simply to survive. So no, lack of savings is not th
659.
by gnaritas 10y ago
Better to have a loss limiter, than lose it all. Without a stop loss, you can't limit your risk. And yes, exiting at a small loss is the point, it prevents a much bigger loss. Refusing to exit with a loss is how the market takes it all
660.
by gnaritas 10y ago
You're missing something, it doesn't matter how you split the remaining work, the gains from the productivity increases of automation aren't going to the workers regardless of how you muck with their hours; those gains go to

More ›