rayiner

37 ms·

811.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> I have no idea if this is what AOC meant, but it’s clearly not possible to earn $1B via wages in compensation for labor. Non-founders CEOs have done this, like Tim Cook. Also, Taylor Swift.
812.
by rayiner 5mo ago
The prospect of AI replacing white collar jobs has supercharged HN’s socialist bent.
813.
by rayiner 5mo ago
The fact that lawsuits exists doesn’t prove that unfair practices account for any particular share of the wealth. You can’t just wave your hands like Glenn Beck and say “connect the dots.”
814.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Okay, but people aren’t complaining about health insurance companies. None of those are owned by billionaires.
815.
by rayiner 5mo ago
I think identity and authenticity are separable and distinct. I agree there is nothing to identity. But there is something to authenticity. Food, art, etc., are intentional creations and there is value in getting an authentic experience tha
816.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Tim Cook’s labor optimizing Apple’s supply chain easily crates billions in value.
817.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> We're not talking about Bezos's profit share for one year. We're talking about giving the workers a bigger share of the profit. Those are the same thing, because you can only take Bezos's 9% of Amazon once. If you t
818.
by rayiner 5mo ago
I saw a Harvard-Harris poll a couple of years ago where Amazon had the highest favorability ratings of institutions/organizations polled, basically tied with the U.S. military and ahead of the police and CDC: https://harvard
819.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> The entire point is that the riches borne of the success of amazon could have been shared more equally while not actually making a different in Bezos' or his families life. Why does that matter? What is the universal principle tha
820.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> It is impossible to become a billionaire without exploting people. Explain this to me using math not feelings.
821.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> And to the people criticizing, this is cheating. To them, a billion dollars enterprise is not possible without the exploitation of employees, customers, or at least the environment. Well that’s wrong. Exploitive businesses do exist. Re
822.
by rayiner 5mo ago
If you want to make a point about exploitive labor practices, that’s totally valid. Explain how Amazon’s labor practices are exploitive. But Bezos having more money than he can spend in a lifetime is totally irrelevant to that. It’s not rel
823.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> still had more money than they could spend in 100 lifetimes How is that relevant to anything? There are intelligent criticisms of Amazon. But this is just a non-sequitur.
824.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Your phraseology of “extract” suffers from the same problem as AOC’s. You’re conflating value creation with value extraction. The problem with AOC’s argument is she’s recycling a 2008 talking point into a context where it doesn’t make sense
825.
by rayiner 5mo ago
I think we should eliminate the filibuster so Congress can do actual policymaking. Your example of net neutrality is a great one. Congress should be doing this, perhaps based on recommendations from the executive agencies. There’s thousands
826.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> It's very possible that a "wrong" frame in isolation is the best looking one in a real-time context. Maybe that’s sometimes true. But, more often, the intermediate states will contribute in a predictable way to the overa
827.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Excellent article. The examples from Mac OS Tahoe show how sloppy the work is. Just lazy shit done without attention and care. Steve Jobs would have fired a bunch of people. And this stuff matters: > This creates a false feeling that som
828.
by rayiner 5mo ago
If career bureaucrats were just scheduling appointments and filing paperwork, I’d agree with you. But that’s not how these agencies work. Career civil servants are doing entire rulemakings, creating rules that have the force of law. They ar
829.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Your model doesn’t eliminate politics, it just entrenches the particular politics of the kind of people who go to T10 schools then get jobs as division heads at federal agencies.[1] There is no such thing as “following the rules” in an apol
830.
by rayiner 5mo ago
High turnout brings out the low-information voters and changes the composition of the viable coalition for both parties. If we restricted the franchise, we might be able to sustain something closer to the Romney GOP versus the Mayor Pete
831.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Yes more people should vote: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (“Projecting onto the full voter file, if every registered voter voted, it’s likely that Trump would have won by even more.”)
832.
by rayiner 5mo ago
It’s not a “both sides” argument—I don’t even remember which side instituted the >40-bit crypto ban in the first place. I don’t think it was Clinton.
833.
by rayiner 5mo ago
I also think as a policy matter it’s futile. But my point is that this is a predictable response to this technology. Analyzing it in terms of one particular administration is missing the forest for the trees.
834.
by rayiner 5mo ago
The U.S. banned encryption over 40 bits throughout the 1990s. LLMs are orders of magnitude more significant.
835.
by rayiner 5mo ago
This isn’t an “opinion.” It’s how almost everyone thinks the constitution works, including people who think modern administrative agencies are permissible. They don’t deny the tripartite structure is binding; they think that executive agen
836.
by rayiner 5mo ago
> Drawing categorical lines is legislative. That’s even worse. If that’s the case, Congress must adopt those exemptions by law. It can’t delegate lawmaking powers to its employees. > Stepping back, both doctrines (non delegation, unit
837.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Even people who believe the administrative state is constitutional rest that conclusion on the premise that "rulemaking" is merely the formalization of the exercise of enforcement discretion. But that means that rulemaking must be
838.
by rayiner 5mo ago
The Constitution doesn't say that Congress can have its employees (which is what the Copyright Office is) make legally binding rules. Congress can make laws, but only through a specific process involving votes in the House and Senate
839.
by rayiner 5mo ago
"Shilling" would require me to care about the policy, which I don't. The genius of the founders is that they realized that structure and power allocation was more important than policy, so that's what I'm commenting
840.
by rayiner 5mo ago
The article is talking about a bill that restructures a body in the U.S. federal government. In that context, “checks and balances” has a specific, well-known meaning. It’s like writing an article about Fedora 42 and using the term “kernel.

More ›