41–50 of 409 posts
After playing around with GPT-3 a bit, I've started to suspect a lot of humans are actually very good at manipulating semantic sentences, without necessarily understanding their content. It would explain why so many "smart" people will often speak long sentences that sound right, but have zero information content in them. Maybe it's just not that hard to construct grammatically and semantically correct, but zero info…
When you’re a billionaire, every year you can keep government regulators and trustbusters at bay, whether in the 1870s (a lot of historical parallels) or today, the annual returns are material. They at least know their history, and know that sooner or later the jig will be up, but with a bit more time, maybe their names will go along with Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Frick, Mellon, Huntington, etc. In the meantime, for a few million, you can get the founders of portfolio companies to carry water for you about the importance of keeping regulation away from innovation.
Meanwhile, about that Triangle Shirtwaist factory…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really accept any discussion of reducing subjective eyesores when it comes to housing. It's always used as a political weapon against housing. Someone's ability to have shelter always beats out the other person's subjective aesthetic tastes that they have no right to impose on anyone.
I would suggest this speaks to the weight of your experiences coloring your view. It doesn't have to be this way, though, yours are just one set of lived experiences, and the systems you live in are not necessarily objectively the best ones. The issue you're discussing is that aesthetic objections are being used as a hard roadblock to progress. This suggests that aesthetic input needs to be received without them bein…
> Anyway, I would encourage you to make a new submission about it
This is extremely condescending and unnecessary. There is no reason for the other poster to “create a new submission” for their points.
If you disagree with them that is ok, feel free to respond to the points. If you’re having difficulty responding to their points, don’t respond. However, as far as I can tell their points are on topic for the example you provided and shouldn’t be dismissed in the way you keep trying multiple times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really accept any discussion of reducing subjective eyesores when it comes to housing. It's always used as a political weapon against housing. Someone's ability to have shelter always beats out the other person's subjective aesthetic tastes that they have no right to impose on anyone.
Hi. Longtime Hong Kong resident here. Public housing and private housing in HK could both be described, in terms of appearance, as copy-pasted. Quality of construction is exceedingly poor (to get the flavor, you could watch this new-build home inspection video from local TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShJtbmkjKG8 ) and backwards (e.g. single-pane windows are the norm, walls have zero insulation, etc.). The wait…
I have no problem with regulations of apartment quality. Those are usually too lax.
This is a point made elsewhere in the thread. We need more good regulations and less bad regulations. More regulations of build quality (e.g noise transmission, double pane windows). Less zoning and aesthetic regulations.
It’s a funny coincidence that the field where we’re seeing the most innovation happens to be the one we regulated least, and that the fields that got worse are the most regulated ones. --------- As Marc Andreessen remarks, in every case, the culprit is regulation. Ho hum. And the 5 year old AEI chart that's been bumping around awhile. IIRC TVs are so low because they use a trick called 'hedonic averaging' where a 27…
>> What’s the most important change that happened in the world of atoms in the last 30 years? Uber may be near the top the list Oh you mean a scheduling app that's lost billions of dollars via explicitly lawless business practices? Yes, it sure is no running water
taking a look at the author's startup[1] is interesting. it seems clear that he's trying to collapse employees' personal slack afforded by remote/async work. that makes sense in terms of boosting butts-in-seats accountability, and i guess by some draconian measure that could translate to "productivity" (read: answering random interruptions to deep work). but i worry that the very dynamic he's espousing would itself kill builder culture. you can't think deeply about a problem when you have people bombarding your attention based on their own whims. from the company's landing page:
> Actually talk with your coworkers. Walk over to your teammate for a quick question. 10x faster than sending a zoom link.
also, i guess this is more aesthetic, but the skeuomorphism is super weird. i would be super suspicious of a work environment that requires this sort of SIMS-like virtual environment. it seems like a half-assed, 2D version of VR workplaces that are crawling their way out of R&D departments at certain advertising companies (looking at you Meta(verse)).
> It’s a funny coincidence that the field where we’re seeing the most innovation happens to be the one we regulated least, and that the fields that got worse are the most regulated ones. Well. This is insinuating that more regulation reduced innovation. But it's confusing correlation with causation. The things that are the most regulated are also the ones with failure is more costly. So maybe _that_ is the reason why…
With medicine, the cost of failure is everything up to and including death.
With housing, the "cost of failure" is not having a house. Similarly for college, the cost of failure is not graduating college. Neither of these are good outcomes, obviously, but the solution to not having a house isn't to regulated away the possibility of building more houses.
The world is complex now, it was simple back then, let me explain. I was thinking the other day, in 1950, you could drop a kid randomly anywhere on the map (say the U.S. but not necessarily), he would easily find its way: to the farm, to the factory, to the military or to the church. Everything would be ok for the 1950 kid youd drop anywhere. He would be fine and happy. Drop a kid nowdays and youd be dropping a body,…
> Everything would be ok for the 1950 kid youd drop anywhere. He would be fine and happy. Sure. It was a happy and golden time for everyone. So, one of the amazing things about the modern world is that actual information is at everyone's fingertips, which I find is better than anecdotal conjecture. A quick google away, I can find this document: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380550/pdf/amj... From this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really accept any discussion of reducing subjective eyesores when it comes to housing. It's always used as a political weapon against housing. Someone's ability to have shelter always beats out the other person's subjective aesthetic tastes that they have no right to impose on anyone.
I would suggest this speaks to the weight of your experiences coloring your view. It doesn't have to be this way, though, yours are just one set of lived experiences, and the systems you live in are not necessarily objectively the best ones. The issue you're discussing is that aesthetic objections are being used as a hard roadblock to progress. This suggests that aesthetic input needs to be received without them bein…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely think that the wake left by crypto steaming by and then striking multiple successive icebergs demonstrates that regulation is crucial and that unregulated fields with potential profits very quickly become a hell dominated by huge corporations who start to dictate the terms of the field.
True. Almost as if the regulations... Protect? The... Consumers? No no, its the 'talkers' ruining it for the 'builders', surely. Not like people in a given industry ever want regulations. Please don't look up Louis Rossma-