81–90 of 105 posts
DNS is a rotten system. It's rotten technically, politically and administratively. It has to be replaced by something distributed. Step #1 is to collectively admit this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Handshake.org is trying to create an alternative root that is better (along the dimensions of security and governance) than the current system. I can see it gaining adoption especially in light of recent events.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but the fact that the first thing mentioned on their homepage is a cryptocurrency "airdrop" doesn't leave me with a confident feeling about the project's long-term viability.
> The Project Sponsors received a minority participation (7.5%) of HNS in the interest of aligning all stakeholders, including industry. All of the 10.2MM USD collected from Project Sponsors (Funds and Individuals) will be given to Free and Open Source Software projects.
The rest was all airdropped in an attempt to get wide distribution / get it in the hands of as many users as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should organizations be forced to change their business cards, website address, all email addresses, letterhead, signage and such because the new venture capitalist vulture owners of .org are a pack of shady rent seekers? To quote Michael Bolton from Office Space: Samir: Hmm… well why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael? Michael: No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
For once, .ngo is more credible. From wikipedia: > Unlike the more prevalent .org domain, which is also managed by the Public Interest Registry, .ngo will require validation of the registrant's non-governmental status
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a dismissal of the field of economics, but of some of the popular businesses and business practices. The science of economics identifies the negative-sum games too. Keywords include, "tragedy of the commons", "externalities". Examples include AirBnB, tobacco companies, consumer IoT, advertising industry.
I know what externalities are. Are you claiming the marginal social cost of everything is greater than the marginal social benefit?
"Web.com expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any goods or services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by Web.com in its sole and absolute discretion."[1]
You don't have to put up with that overreach. Compare Gandi:
"You are the owner of the domain name, i.e. the individual or legal person who is declared as the owner as soon as the domain name is registered and visible as such in the "Whois" domain name directory"[2]
[1] https://assets.web.com/legal/English/TermsOfUse.pdf [2] https://contract.gandi.net/v5/contracts/18056/DomainNameCond...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Administration can consume any amount of money, so long as it isn't getting in the way of the money coming in the door. Just look at universities in USA. They're not doing anything now they weren't doing in 1980, yet tuition inflation was 7% over for most of the period since then. Where did the money go? They hired more assistant administrators, to justify higher salaries for the top administrators. Also the perks ar…
I have come to believe that the claim that administration increased dramatically is a myth. Take a university that provides decent statistics: http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/university-factbook/employees click workflow trends. The workforce composition is virtually unchanged over the past 20 years.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_334.30.a...
Expenditures in real per-student dollars are up, but at nothing like 7% a year. Tuition is up because of disinvestment by state legislatures:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...
Even there, net tuition actually paid by students at private schools is also largely flat, as while the nameplate tuition has gone up, few students pay that, as they get grants, financial aid, etc.:
https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing/fig...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt even your numeric figure is exact; source? Anyway, supposing that it is - how do you know that's where the money went? And - how do you know the money went mostly to the same place in most universities? This sounds like a baseless generalization. PS - I'm not from the US.
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/er/artic...
>They find that supply factors such as wages in the education sector and state appropriations to higher education both play important roles in explaining changes in college tuition inflation. In contrast, they find little evidence that demand factors such as changes in the availability of student loans have a significant effect on college tuition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have come to believe that the claim that administration increased dramatically is a myth. Take a university that provides decent statistics: http://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/university-factbook/employees click workflow trends. The workforce composition is virtually unchanged over the past 20 years.
The Ed department has great data on this too: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_334.30.a... Expenditures in real per-student dollars are up, but at nothing like 7% a year. Tuition is up because of disinvestment by state legislatures: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m... Even there, net tuition actually paid by students at private schools is also largely flat, as while the…
Cause & effect got obscured by compounding factors, including, but not limited to: privatizing student loans, grade inflation, ratcheting up credentials, glut of labor, artificially constraining supply, the textbook racket, the standardized testing racket, the academic publishing racket, the money chase for funding basic research, and others I'm sure I've forgotten.
Source: Worked in higher ed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the marginal cost of tobacco companies is clearly negative a negative sum, which is the strongest form of their argument. It’s also clear they are not suggesting the entire economy is zero sum. Do you feel the Tobacco industry is a net benefit to society? If not then it’s just a question of which industries make the list of net positives vs net negatives.
That's possibly plausible, but it's a lot more complicated a claim than just those industries being bad. To take the example of tobacco, you'd need to quantify the enjoyment smokers get from it, the harm to their lives, the harm to other's lives, the benefit to everyone in the supply chain (from farm workers to farmers to advertisers to executives), the harm to everyone in the supply chain (especially the exploitatio…
In fact, we do similar comparisons all the time: Annual employee performance reviews, asset appraisals (stock, realestate, bonds, etc), and internal rate of return (IRR) or risk-adjusted rate of return. The models are just models -- they can easily suffer from incomplete data, history, sentiment, and bias, intangibles, sentiment -- but the world makes the decision based on these models all day, every day.