Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

cookingonabootstrap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 344 posts

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#231

Post by WendyTheWillow »

lwhi wrote: post #227
klabb3 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how much the people at the top (money-wise) are playing zero-sum games. If they are, to a large extent, engaging in asset acquisitions and passive growth of eg real estate, or monopolistic protectionism, then there’s plenty of room for others to engage in activities with positive externalities instead. There’s no question a lot of people don’t get the opportunity to pursue their niche passions and drives, bas…

The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom. Their wealth actually comes from those people who have so little. Stop peddling this absolute fabrication that there's unlimited wealth and the super rich should be left get richer still.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of.

But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the accumulation of wealth and its ensuing benefits.

The whole point is to incentivize value creation.

Edit: You really won't like what this paper [0] has to say:

> Globally, zero-sum thinking is associated with skepticism about the importance of hard work for success, lower income, less educational attainment, less financial security, and lower life satisfaction.

[0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/...

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#232

Post by bradjohnson »

_mh56 wrote: post #61

This keeps happening to me. I read a feelgood story, visit the wiki page and then realize how muddy the water is: >> Monroe has been described as an "austerity celebrity". In a January 2023 interview with Simon Hattenstone in The Guardian, Monroe acknowledged that she had recklessly spent money given by backers; she claimed "I'd go online absolutely shitfaced and buy nice furniture." Granted most poor people do stupi…

This comment is tone deaf as hell.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#233

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

fngjdflmdflg wrote: post #201
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read the paper, but are we sure that A (wealth/education) follows B (IQ) and not vice versa?

We are almost sure that genetics (and perhaps nutrition) are the main determinants of IQ. We won't have a complete answer until most of the genes that affect intelligence are found. With regard to your specific question of if educational attainment is the main factor in causing IQ to increase, that would mean that everyone at high-school would have the same IQ because they all have the same educational attainment (in…

Even if genetics is the "main determinant" what does that mean? Is it the the plurality of determinants? 51% correlation? 99%? Depending on the number, there's lots of room there for other factors.

I think you're oversimplifying with your example regarding educational attainment. The results say it's not a 1:1, so not all high school students would be marked the same, but it would mean that if you finished your post doc you're likely to score higher than someone who didn't complete grade 9. Would we argue that graduating high school or going on to do graduate work is simply as a matter of intelligence and not a more complex web of economic, social, and cultural factors?

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#234

Post by [deleted] »

goatsi wrote: post #135
robocat wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with zero family support The article didn't say that - are you relying on another source of information? She mentions her family, but implies she wants to remain independent: Sometimes I just want to run back home and live with my parents, at the age of 32, and beg them to take care of me. I’ll be very quiet. I can cook, and I promise not to say f*ck in front of the children, Mum. I won’t fold the corners down on y…

"My brother was in the RAF last time we spoke, a couple of Christmases ago, when he described Iain Duncan Smith as the best thing to happen to this country and told me I had chosen to have a baby outside of marriage so deserved everything I got. It’s fair to describe us as ‘estranged’ these days." This is where I'm getting the family info from.

[deleted]

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#235

Post by andrewflnr »

mftrhu wrote: post #173
andrewflnr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make an argument in general terms, you can't call no-fair when someone takes it at face value and counter-argues in equally general terms. That's not cheating, it's just assuming good faith.

When people point out that one's counter-argument, by virtue of ignoring the context the original argument is steeped in, is not actually countering any argument, they aren't saying that the counter-argument is "cheating" - they are adding context .

You can call it "adding context" if you concede that said context implies the original argument was badly phrased, in that the most direct reading is not what the writer really meant.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#236

Post by pseudalopex »

yardstick wrote: post #221
pseudalopex wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She said her brother said she deserved everything she got. This suggested to you he would support her? Wanting to beg her parents to take care of her does not imply they would. Many people want things they cannot have.

Her parents fostered 100s of kids. They helped her, she has her own issues asking for and accepting help. Except below from https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/07/jack-monroe-... “” That’s what I don’t understand, I say. Why didn’t you tell your parents when they were in a position to help? “Because … ” For once, she slows down. “I was ashamed. I was ashamed that I had had a good job and I’d fucked it. I was…

She is not someone who has no safety net evidently. Anyone considering donating to her deserves to know this. But the claim I challenged was specific statements did not sound like someone who has no safety net. The difference is important when considering people who are not her.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#237

Post by lwhi »

WendyTheWillow wrote: post #231
lwhi wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom. Their wealth actually comes from those people who have so little. Stop peddling this absolute fabrication that there's unlimited wealth and the super rich should be left get richer still.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of. But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the…

I'm sorry. I consider you either very sheltered from poverty, delusional or both.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#238

Post by klabb3 »

WendyTheWillow wrote: post #231
lwhi wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom. Their wealth actually comes from those people who have so little. Stop peddling this absolute fabrication that there's unlimited wealth and the super rich should be left get richer still.

You're going to need to do a lot of work to demonstrate that wealth is zero-sum, as it doesn't comport with any well-respected economic model I'm aware of. But even granting that, a government that creates a "survival floor" would protect against wealth-seeking in a world where it was zero-sum. The floor only needs to be high enough to allow people not to be held to the floor should they desire to participate in the…

Both activities happen in the same economy. Zero-sum or negative-sum activities are plenty. Asset speculation is one such area where the first, second and third order effects are all completely useless to society as a whole, and lack meaningful externalities. Yet people invent the most far-fetched fairy tales to explain why golden handcuffing the brightest math and physics phds to work for hedgies/hfts is a critical piece of human progress.

The truth is markets work great for some things and terrible for other things. When you make a means a goal you always end up with absurdity, in any system.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#239

Post by SenAnder »

lwhi wrote: post #227
klabb3 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how much the people at the top (money-wise) are playing zero-sum games. If they are, to a large extent, engaging in asset acquisitions and passive growth of eg real estate, or monopolistic protectionism, then there’s plenty of room for others to engage in activities with positive externalities instead. There’s no question a lot of people don’t get the opportunity to pursue their niche passions and drives, bas…

The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom. Their wealth actually comes from those people who have so little. Stop peddling this absolute fabrication that there's unlimited wealth and the super rich should be left get richer still.

> The issue is, a lot of the people at the top engage in business practices that actively disenfranchise people at the bottom.

In an ideal world, we could first ban those practices, and only resort to punitive wealth/income taxes [1] if/when those measures fail to resolve the problem. The problem is regulatory/legislative capture by the wealthy. But I have doubts wealth caps would solve that - organizations such as WIPO or the BSA don't need multi-billionaire members to lobby effectively. A wealth cap would just multiply the number of shareholders.

[1] In the sense that they are intended to prevent ultra-richness, instead of merely filling government budget shortfalls from the pockets of those who can most afford it.

Re: You Don't Batch Cook When You're Suicidal (2020)

#240

Post by thiago_fm »

webdood90 wrote: post #123
thiago_fm wrote: post #70

That's one big paradox. Coming from poverty, I work with plenty of talented people, but nowhere as talented as the people I've studied in shitty schools. Now most of those people from my poverty times continue to be poor, because of many problems poverty brought to them. I can clearly see that, and that I was the lucky one to find a way up many times. Yet, my new social circle believe that I'm talented because of my…

I have a similar experience but have a different opinion. I am 100% lucky that I was in the right place at the right time so that I could be offered the opportunities that I had. But I think you have to be disciplined in that you must try and try and try to do everything in your power to put yourself in the right place. Of course, even if you do this, you might never be given the opportunity. But if you don't try, yo…

A lot of talented people try hard and end up in poverty.

Luck > any attribute (IQ, etc)

Post reply on HN