31–40 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't legislate societies problems away. Legislation is just bandaids applied with the threat of violence for those who seek to remove them.
Which problem do you think cannot be solved with legislation that can be solved usefully by one-time application of money?
I'm getting so sick of hearing the word 'disrupt'. It's been so overused that it I feel that it has basically lost all meaning. Edit: I see that the HN title has been changed in the meantime.
Venkatesh Rao in his epic "Gervais Principle" has some good bits about Gervais' character speaking in all cliches. In American Gods, the new gods speak in all cliches and the show is doing a great job adapting it to their version of that pantheon. That kind of cliche overuse seems to go together with meaninglessess.
The cliche of cliche rich dialects is corporatespeak, where it's used for both its euphamistic quality and the safe haven^ of meaninglessness it creates. Synergies and customer centric approaches.
TechStartupSpeak is (I guess) a subdialect of corporatespeak. It's churning out cliches at a good clip. "Disrupt" conveyed a lot of meaning at first, subtly referencing a particular theory of innovation and cutomer adoption of new technologies.. examples like digital cameras & microcomputers.
Strictly speaking, Tesla's wasn't "disruptive" strategy because they started with sportscars instead of electric bikes. But, that kind of nuance is long gone from this particular cliche. Disrupt is interchangeable with "revolutionize" or and other "be really successful" cliches.
^I guess idioms are cliches that survive without going through the normal lifecyle. Theory needs fleshing out perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'You can't legislate societies problems away' Could you elaborate? It seems pretty obvious that you can. No child labour, minimum wage laws, equal rights etc.
The reason legislation like this isn't helping our country at the moment is because of globalization. Labor laws may help the workers, but it's a net negative if those laws just lead to the outsourcing of jobs. We need to choose between globalization for maximal gains for the rich, or protectionism for quality of life for our workers. At the moment, a middle ground doesn't seem possible.
There can absolutely be a middle ground. We can tax rent-seeking. We can quit the austerity focused trickle-down policies that have been shown to fail, and put money into the hands of people who will actually spend it. We can actively redistribute wealth.
Why would you rather give up protections that cost our ancestors their lives to establish?
Great marketing campaign, but philantropic stuff needs to be long term to be of any use. Short term stuff can in fact be counter-productive by hiding that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. The best solution for almost every response he got is: Introduce better legislation. Even charities are just bandaids over actual problems.
You can't legislate societies problems away. Legislation is just bandaids applied with the threat of violence for those who seek to remove them.
You obviously can if, for instance, the maintenance of the problem requires active government action; this would seem to generally be the case for large classes of social problems, most notably, all those involving the nature, assignment, and allocation of legal interests (e.g., claims to property.)
I'm getting so sick of hearing the word 'disrupt'. It's been so overused that it I feel that it has basically lost all meaning. Edit: I see that the HN title has been changed in the meantime.
mainstream spoils everything. btw, what about Bezos paying taxes instead of "optimizing" ?
The problem is not companies "optimizing", it's that the tax code is so complicated that they can do it in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Create an unsustainable system then seek philanthropy to fix the problem? Why not simply fix the system?
Seems to me, that is exactly what he stated: Legislation is blocking innovation and ability to provide micro-apartments. We need to change the laws to fix this. I know this first hand, as I am trying to work in the tiny house movement here in the bay area. In talking with the city and county of alameda, the code is the problem. The code states that any land parcel for a single family is required to be minumum of 2,30…
Bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) concept and significantly over-pay the employees on the condition half goes into savings accounts for family use or to pay down debts of some sort. Employ it as a method to give uneducated (HS degree) or underemployed (able bodied with Bachelors and $8/hr job), rehabilitate and early-release incarcerated US Citizens and put them to work in infrastructure needs. So, thi…
Totally agree! This is why I always skeptically look at any philanthropic announcements.... if billionaires like Gates, Buffet, Zuck, Bezos simply funded the above - it would go way further, and have long asting effect on the future of this nation in so many profound ways. Rather than "give away half their wealth" - why not do the above now and actually see it change the surface of the nation? --- I am getting involv…