jdoliner

48 ms·

481.
by jdoliner 10y ago
If what you are saying is correct Startups would never succeed, but sometimes they do.
482.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Not sure if this was one of the examples the parent looked at in their search, but Pachyderm is a tool that's built specifically for training and versioning ML models (and any other data pipeline). You can express your analysis operati
483.
by jdoliner 10y ago
The statements about jobs not being destroyed is about _aggregate_ jobs. If you pick any specific group of people (or animals) you can find many examples of groups losing jobs. Hopefully this doesn't come as a surprise to you and hopef
484.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Title of the study: "The Myth and Reality of Manufacturing in America" As I said in my other comment, there is absolutely no guarantee that technology won't completely shift jobs from one nation to another. Just as individual
485.
by jdoliner 10y ago
There are also people who are over the age of 40 and already don't have jobs, or never had jobs. Some of them might get jobs created by tech. Are they in some way less deserving? Do people who once had a job have a god given right to k
486.
by jdoliner 10y ago
I think you might be projecting your own beliefs onto Trump's election here. If what you're saying is true then we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]. Trump's election was
487.
by jdoliner 10y ago
The estimate was made in 2015, not about 2015.
488.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence t
489.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able
490.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Well, one obvious difference is that it's a private entity rather than a government. But you don't have to look very hard to find instances of the american government interfering in foreign elections. It's one of their favori
491.
by jdoliner 10y ago
The article seems to suggest that became common practice in 1990, before when the parent is talking about. I'm not sure how you can claim it's inaccurate and that the parent should RTFA, it's a verbatim quote from the article
492.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Good analysis indeed. I worry that Orwell has become so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. Both sides read Orwell and take from it that they are right and if their opponents would only read some Orwell they would understand how evil they are.
493.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Personally, I think the parent comment has done the best job of talking about Orwell and how he applies to our present situation of any in the thread. I don't see anything particularly ground breaking about us all heaping praise on Orw
494.
by jdoliner 10y ago
I don't think the victims are unsuspecting and I also don't think they have a choice in the matter. > Accept it and go on with your life. Isn't that exactly what you say to someone when you're not giving them a say in
495.
by jdoliner 10y ago
If global means everyone, and I think that's what it means here, then someone has to comply to someone else's worldview. To have a true global community the people who don't want a global community have to be part of it just
496.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting debate: I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to res
497.
by jdoliner 10y ago
No, HN is a small community of people who share a narrow set of interests. Although that set of interests is broadening and I think HN is worse for it. While the community does include people from all over the globe and thus is in a literal
498.
by jdoliner 10y ago
> Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone? Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed someth
499.
by jdoliner 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone is a good place to start. The basic finding of the studies detailed in that book are that globalization, and particularly multiculturalism within communities have very negati
500.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Yes, but he completely bypasses the question of whether or not it's sane to try to make a global community that works for everyone or whether it's better to stick to smaller localized communities. He acknowledges that there might
501.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Global community means community that spans the globe, Zuckerberg isn't talking about Facebook here he's talking about society. The only way to not participate in the global community is to leave the planet or withdraw from commun
502.
by jdoliner 10y ago
I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think
503.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Point well taken, although I believe the decision did explicit say that vaccines can't be forced on people but people can be punished for refusal to take vaccines. Including being imprisoned and fined. Slight distinction, but still I w
504.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Whether or not an individual has a right to not be vaccinated is really the question at stake here. AFAIK we don't yet have a direct SCOTUS decision on this and the default is that individuals can't be compelled to undergo procedu
505.
by jdoliner 10y ago
> It's not about rights Sorry, to me it is about rights and it should be to you as well. It is also very much about public safety to me, both are important. But to me forced procedures would be an unacceptable violation of rights no
506.
by jdoliner 10y ago
I don't think it's nice or well-manicured at all, quite the opposite in fact. I just can't get myself to a point where I think it's reasonable to force a medical procedure on someone. Forced medical procedures have been
507.
by jdoliner 10y ago
I'd be interested in seeing a counter example. But I'm pretty sure for someone to be guilty of manslaughter there has to be an actual death, not just a risk of death. Reckless endangerment might be a more reasonable charge, but I
508.
by jdoliner 10y ago
Do we? Last time I checked we put people in cells for committing crimes. What sorts of prisoners are you talking about here? It's not obvious to me but perhaps I'm being thick.
509.
by jdoliner 10y ago
> And I believe the 'dangerous precedent' you mention should be easy to protect from in a lawful democratic society. It's not easy to protect from at all. There was a time in this country when we had forced sterilization o
510.
by jdoliner 10y ago
What exactly do you think grants you a right to herd immunity? You might really really want herd immunity, but you don't have a right to it. Your rights stop at theirs just as much as their rights stop at yours. They do have a right no

More ›