301–310 of 453 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this lucid description of the authoritarian position.
In the case of individual or small group actions that have the capability to seriously fuck things up for everyone else, what other position is rational?
Having worked front line technical support, I have to disagree. People are indeed dumb, many choose to stay that way.
There's a difference between being dumb and being ignorant. Most people aren't dumb, they could learn to handle their technical issues if they were motivated to spend the time. But time is valuable, and if you can have a specialist handle your problems for you, is it really worth the trouble of learning and keeping up to date on something that doesn't really interest you?
An interesting bit from the article was that he talks about 'sunk cost' with the defining example of ordering a dessert when you're nearly full and feeling compelled to finish it. > There was an economist once early in my career who said to me, “You know, if you’re right, what am I supposed to do? What I know how to do is solve optimization problems.” A career economist not wanting to change their ways because they h…
Sometimes it's a mistake to think about how these companies could pivot to adapt to new technology. A major feature of capitalism is that companies are (relatively) unimportant and it's the market and society that really matter. Without companies collapsing, it can be really difficult to recycle the manpower and capital invested in obsolete business models. Blockbuster's organizational, legal and physical infrastruct…
I mean, sure, the business model and support systems between original Netflix and video rental store are fairly different, but Blockbuster still had a huge leg up over starting from scratch. They already had vast inventories, sorting systems, a distribution network (albeit one that would have to be heavily modified), name recognition in a market that consumers considered interchangeable (common consumers just think "video rental", not "brick-and-mortar retail vs. online direct delivery") and I assume a lot of production industry connections and relationships.
It seems like they were already over halfway there, and given that the biggest hurdle is getting off the ground, their existing brand recognition and membership records are a massive advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't a joke "alive" until the explanation? So those that 'got' the joke would've enjoyed the joke, before moving onto read the next line. So reading the explanation of the joke wouldn't interfere with their enjoyment of the joke since they already enjoyed it prior to reading the explanation.
If you're telling a joke, you don't want emotional context switching. A quick explanation, laughter might be preserved (so the above pun may or may not inhibit the execution of the original joke). But every joke has an emotional gravity and the longer you compliment it with other emotions (e.g. intellectual explanations), eventually escape velocity is reached and you're in an entirely different emotional state. Airpl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the elected component of the government sector in a properly functioning democracy is far more mortal than large corporations The elected component of any modern government oversees a vast administrative bureaucracy. This is the part people refer to when comparing "big" and "small" governments. > the main reason for the institutional inertia is the same scale, complexity and principal/agent problems large corporati…
I'm not convinced the legislature explicitly killing or dramatically reconstituting agencies is a significantly rarer event than large companies going bankrupt. More to the point, the executive is seldom shy about embarking upon restructuring or adjusting funding and objectives of its administrative bureaucracies, not least because it faces its own acute existential threat from not being seen to give its taxpayers va…
In Western European and North American history, at least, it dramatically is. Look at a list of the Dow or S&P 500's founding components. Look at those lists now. Now look at a list of U.S. departments in 1850, and compare them to today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is different kinds of intelligence. Like said, it can be smart to not be smart, if you want to survive under a stupid, but powerful regime. Smart in that moment, not so smart now, when it is wise, to understand more, than just be able.to follow simple orders. Robots can do that better.
How does that play out today because it is very lucrative to be smart in today's world. You don't get to work at FAANG or on Wall Street by pretending to be less intelligent than you are. The same applies across many industries like Academia, Healthcare, Law etc. You may have to suppress opinions that go against the grain of the industry you are in but I don't see that as being the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On commenting on an article about why people have difficulty comprehending complex systems, you have just delivered an example of the phenomena. Your basic point seems to be that a big Government will be so well run that individuals would rely on it to provide them with benefits, even in the case that the Government make poor decisions on policy choices. That is the whole point of a Government: to make life easier fo…
It's also a regulatory body to ensure that certain functions and services are provided equally to every citizen. E.g. everyone has the same basic human right of access to health care and education for example. Who else should guarantee that access for a whole population if not the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how you revealed that you dislike joke comments on HN and unintentionally killed it at the same time.
Didn’t intent on killing the joke, I was hoping it would allow more people to appreciate it. But apparently I failed at that. :)
To the people saying the explanation ruined the joke, I’d ask you to take a minute to consider whether you viewed it as a joke or a shibboleth.
If only those who know ‘got it’ and explaining it ‘killed it’, then isn’t it by definition a shibboleth?
In-group language is exclusionary by definition. Is this a good thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like an incredibly uneducated view of what the world was like previously.
Interesting, care to provide arguments? I provided mine: we had empires as default, they needed lots of slaves. Slaves must be strong, but stupid. Smart slaves were trouble. So got sorted out. Simplified, yes, but "uneducated" where?
Read a history book. Hell, read Timeline by Michael Crichton.