ucaetano

16 ms·

91.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Could S.C.M. software include a “workers’-rights” component—a counterpart to PP/DS, incorporating data on working conditions? That exists, it is called compliance software, and usually serves as an input (of constraints) to the SC
92.
by ucaetano 8y ago
It is a subsidy in practice: you're restricting competition to increase the profits of the farmers. Call it whatever you want, but the government it guaranteeing the farmer's profits, and society is paying for it.
93.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> The difference, in this case, is objectively measurable: Canadian poultry, beef, dairy and produce are generally safer than American. I'd like to see sources for that, and even if that's true, it doesn't imply that the m
94.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> How do you propose we protect the landscape, water, ecology? Through environmental regulation, protected areas, permitting, environmental reviews, etc. This is the common model in most of the world. It works well in some places and not
95.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> supplanted families who want the land to be healthy for their children? That's a fairy-tale story that the farming industry has been pushing around for decades to portray the image of the old-school farmer working dawn to dusk to
96.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Yep, let consumers decide which farms should be kept or not, I'm all in favor of that!
97.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Even consumers frequently love the idea of a protected ("managed" market is a misleading term for "we subsidize and protect certain incumbents"), particularly when it is a national market (for nationalistic reasons) or w
98.
by ucaetano 8y ago
That's a broad generalization, and it seems that it is mostly driven by anger. The reason you can go to a supermarket and buy food IS the "new" way of doing things. The reason there's close to zero food waste in producti
99.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> generates strong public support to maintain the system we have. Oh, yeah, everyone loves a protectionist market, when they're part of it...
100.
by ucaetano 8y ago
You don't need supply management to do that. Not only that, supply management is a terrible way to do that.
101.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Sadly, like the author, I can't really think of a good solution. But that IS the solution. Preserving archaic inefficient institutions and forcing society to pay for it solely due to nostalgia is a terrible idea. But there are sol
102.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Yep, people here don't seem o understand the concept of barter... Oh, and wait until you have to declare your "data dividend" in your tax declaration...
103.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Wait until people find out that the cost to implement, monitor, support and regulate something like this will be higher than the dividends they'll be getting...
104.
Predicting Google Product Shutdowns(gwern.net)
4 points by ucaetano 8y ago|0 comments
105.
by ucaetano 8y ago
But you still can't run experiments on cosmology. SO if your definition of "science" is "based on experimental data", cosmology isn't a science.
106.
by ucaetano 8y ago
No, you don't. But having the complex macroeconomics models far beats relying on layman's guesswork. You've never looked at a macroeconomics model, have you? Economics is complicated because it is modeling the behavior of hum
107.
by ucaetano 8y ago
There are also no ways to run experiments in cosmology.
108.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> I intended an implicit "because you will lose it and then you will learn" that I think the author is also implying. But you won't learn, because there is nothing to learn, just as there isn't anything to learn from
109.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The problem is that it isn't "amount you can afford to lose": you'll lose. It is a guaranteed way to lose money on average. It is just like gambling: if you want to do it for fun, and count the loss on your budget, fine.
110.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Indeed, economics end up being the study of resource allocations by human beings, both at the individual and collective levels, and the resulting system. But macroeconomics is indeed based on a lot of things, and you seem to be very misinfo
111.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Economics is a science as much as hydrology is a science: it isn't exact, but it is based on solid science. Nobody derived Navier-Stokes equations to reach the formulas that show the erosion of a river bank, or the discharge calculatio
112.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Learn basic finance to invest your own money > The next step on your journey should be to get some practical experience. The best way to do this is to open a brokerage account to invest some of your own money. Wow, I can't beli
113.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Because the number of not-willing-to-pay, enthusiast, micro-managing, photo-organizing users is likely tiny, and not enough to support a product with Google costs. The market is splitting more and more into consumers who take too many photo
114.
by ucaetano 8y ago
What if they simply don't profit enough to justify giving you free stuff?
115.
by ucaetano 8y ago
You really shouldn't count on having Gmail available forever! Or even for a few years.
116.
by ucaetano 8y ago
But that doesn't solve the issue that the photos on Google Photos are private by default, so Google would need to change the sharing to public on all photos that have external links, which would be a terrible privacy measure.
117.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Now, we are making these sensors available to companies outside of self-driving They are explicitly limiting this to use cases that don't compete with self-driving, so it is likely bound by licensing and non-compete agreements. So
118.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Now, we are making these sensors available to companies outside of self-driving — beginning with robotics, security, agricultural technology, and more — so they can achieve their own technological breakthroughs. It will likely come wit
119.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Referencing the toxicity of water is a bit disingenuous, since the average human body is 60% water or more to begin with. Glyphosate, on the other hand, is a substance wholly artificial and foreign to the human body. Quite the opposite
120.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The article is pretty misleading. There is no substance that is absolutely safe at any level for humans. Even water will easily kill you (over-hydration is a real risk, especially for athletes). FTA: > The EPA says glyphosate is safe up

More ›