421–430 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in the thread about "lessons from MIT", and thinking of a degree curriculum I looked at from the UK one day. It basically expected that students (who were going to learn PL theory) start off with a higher level of math knowledge (right out of secondary school) than most American CS students have in sophomore year. AFAIK, their students don't suffer as much stress or depression as the cohort of Americans who've…
The difference in educational levels is economic. If you correct for the income & wealth levels of the international district and match them to american districts with similar levels, you have similar academic results. There's no gap. The issue occurs with taking averages. The United States is a rich country or a developing country depending on where you look. Few other modern industrialized nations are run this way.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your point, but are you also implying that 'new medications for difficult to treat diseases' are a primary driver of 'ballooning healthcare costs'? I don't think healthcare costs are increasing as quickly in other developed countries while they do benefit from constant medical advances.
Which "developed" (hopefully we can develop some more) country is creating these medical advances? One might guess the US, but I don't really know. Any good studies I could read?
Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…
It's important to note that, in the US, worker __compensation__ has increased steadily. However, __wages__ have not. A lot of this has to do with employer provided health insurance and ballooning healthcare costs, which are fairly specific problems to the US. Housing and education costs have also increased much faster than overall worker compensation.
Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…
Assuming SG is Singapore, that is a really specific example, because it is a tiny Island of 4 million people with a lot of very unique attributes - it is a major shipping and airport hub, as well as a financial hub in a notoriously corrupt region. The USA has similar areas - often much larger, usually with very similar outcomes. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per... and compare it to…
I'm curious about that. IIUC, Australia's wealth is concentrated in the cities on the coast, but all of Austrailia's states are made up of coastline and a big chunk of interior space.
What would happen GDP-wise if you divided Australia's states into interior/exterior areas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in the thread about "lessons from MIT", and thinking of a degree curriculum I looked at from the UK one day. It basically expected that students (who were going to learn PL theory) start off with a higher level of math knowledge (right out of secondary school) than most American CS students have in sophomore year. AFAIK, their students don't suffer as much stress or depression as the cohort of Americans who've…
The difference in educational levels is economic. If you correct for the income & wealth levels of the international district and match them to american districts with similar levels, you have similar academic results. There's no gap. The issue occurs with taking averages. The United States is a rich country or a developing country depending on where you look. Few other modern industrialized nations are run this way.…
Most well-off American school districts do not teach even their honors students integral calculus and linear algebra by the end of high school. Valedictorians in those districts haven't usually learned that much.
Most of those kids in Palo Alto with anxiety problems over academic competition will not learn that much math in high school. It's just not done in formal school curricula. Some people might get it through taking college courses early or joining "math clubs", but no large mass of students will get it through their curriculum -- let alone the full population capable of it.
Money is being left on the table here because Americans think that real rigor comes from suffering, and anyone inadequate for the extreme suffering and boredom of secondary-school level "slow" learning is obviously inadequate to go ahead and do real work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're growing your company based on cash-flow you're slowly strangling your company to death. If it's profitable, leverage it. You don't have to go nuts and borrow millions, but if you can generate a better return on debt than the interest rate, which shouldn't be too hard given today's interest rates, you can build your business faster. If you're aggressively expanding your company you'll be channelling any prof…
I've seen this "get a better accountant" argument posted on HN quite a bit. But, aren't liberals outraged about the tax loopholes for the "weathly"? We shouldn't need the loopholes, just reduce the rates.
A good accountant will do a lot more than deal with taxes. They'll point out how you can better finance your operation, how you can capitalize on assets you have to save on interest costs.
Managing cash-flow, expenses and accounts receivable is a very important job. If nobody's paying attention to this you can run your company aground without even knowing it.
So what I mean is if your accountant can't handle basic tax code, your accountant needs to be fired and replaced because you're probably getting killed in other departments as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Move to Antarctica. I doubt anyone will notice. Live on a boat in the ocean. Move to a Caribbean island like Anguilla or Cayman, or the gulf like Kuwait or Dubai or Qatar Hong Kong, Syria, Paraguay have low tax too
All those places have taxes. Low taxes, but they have them. What you don't seem to understand is that I am not arguing against taxes themselves. Or even high taxes. Of course I would pay lots of money to partake in civilized society and its services. What I want is free market competition for how my taxes are spent and those services received. Because with the current monopoly the government has no reason to improve…
I'm with BT for my ISP. I have a free market, I can move to providers from A&A to Zen. I don't have the ability to change what BT provide.
Lets take your smartphone example. I don't like what Apple have done in recent IOS versions (or mac laptops), so I can use an android phone or a lenovo laptop, just as I can move to Dubai, or Antarctica.
I have more choice in where to live than in ISPs or Phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>That is the choice of giving up my money, or dying - during a robbery. Why do you believe living in the jungle will result in dying? Our ancestors did it, and many people manage to do it today. It wouldn't be easy of course, especially if you're so used to your creature comforts that you lack basic survival skills, but it's definitely not a death sentence.
There are no jungles around where I live. Just forests. And they all belong to the government. My grad parents tried living off their land, but during a time when the government raised the taxes to impossible levels they couldn’t pay and the government came down on them - hard. They lost it all but survived. Others weren’t so lucky.
You can live on government land. You just have to move at least 25 miles every 14 days. So basically a nomadic lifestyle. It's doable. People have done it and still do it today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they don’t actually stand for anything. I've met lots of young women who adore Hillary and would beg to differ. The woman is a feminist icon.
Ok. Fair enough. But how does the blindness that feeds their bias any different than that which feeds say a Trump supporter. I'm not sticking up for either. But to believe one side is less ignorant than the other is fairly naive. The proles are the proles. Just because you side with one subset (because they match your beliefs) doesn't make them any less prole-y.