Questions • Hacker News Board

Re: Questions

#451

Post by lgas » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

tobr wrote: post #27

rahimnathwani wrote: post #5

"Why are certain things getting so much more expensive?" Because relative prices (e.g. the ratio of the price of a 42" TV to the price of a cinema ticket) are constantly changing due to changes in technology and competitive dynamics. Some things have gotten (and continue to get) much cheaper due to technological progress and economies of scale. So, relative to those, anything that hasn't benefited from the same trend…

This is very interesting and implies a kind of paradox. As some things become radically cheaper, it should leave us with more resources to spend on things that are difficult to make more efficient. But instead, it makes it appear as if they have become so expensive we can barely afford them anymore! Does this fallacy have a name?

Not sure if it's quite the same thing but it's similar to Jevon's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Re: Questions

#452

Post by zbentley » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #368

zbentley wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GIL is there because C. That's not at all true. There are very, very few platforms/libraries/languages that both a) allow you to manage concurrent access to complex, arbitrary data structures in a sane, predictable, and not-dangerous way and b) provide the capabilities (including performance) necessary to implement a general-purpose programming language on top of them. Even fewer of those tools existed when Pyt…

I'm not saying that trading the GIL for the benefits of C was not a reasonable tradeoff. Nonetheless, it is simply a fact that the GIL is needed because of the constraints imposed by choosing to work in C.

Citation needed. “Because there existed languages with different concurrency models” doesn’t really explain why the choice of C for Python’s implementation necessitated a GIL (there are plenty of languages and tools built on C with non-GIL-ish concurrency systems, and many languages/tools built on not-C that don’t expose the concurrency features of their underlying language at all). Look into how/why then GIL was added; it has much more to do with not wanting to reimplement the language/break compatibility than it has to do with what the language was implemented in.

Re: Questions

#453

Post by tomatotomato37 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

csomar wrote: post #9

> Why is US GDP growth so weirdly constant? This is something I noticed too. And it can't be just blamed to "inflation" of the US GDP. Almost any other country I checked does have fluctuations. Goes through booms and bust. China has gone through an exponential rise but slowed down and seems like it broke the pattern recently. The US is the only country so far that has been going decades through a constant rate of cha…

Mar's law: Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker

Re: Questions

#454

Post by repolfx » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #325

bnt wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jews were forced into banking, because they were forbidden to do agriculture or cattle back in Europe. Banking was considered dirty, so Christians didn't want to do it. Jews did what they were allowed - banking, philosophy, medicine, science - and they became masters of the craft.

I thought it was also about usury not being allowed (for Christians, Jews, or Muslims) intrareligiously but only extrareligiously, i.e. Jews could loan money to Christians, but Christians couldn't loan money to Christians.

Yes. That's the usual story indeed. I'm not sure where the concept that banking was 'dirty' came from - I suspect that's mixing up banking with lending. Lending at interest was subject to religious prohibition for all but Jews who interpreted the Torah in a way that forbade lending only to other Jews. Thus Jewish people were not "forced" into banking because they were banned from agriculture (lol, how would that even work?) but rather, became bankers by default because it was highly profitable and others wouldn't do it for religious reasons.

This is the main reason for the ancient historical stereotypes linking Judaism and money/wealth/power/etc. And why names like Goldstein (gold stone) are considered Jewish names.

Re: Questions

#455

Post by repolfx » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

cambaceres wrote: post #356

chucky wrote: post #35

> Why are there so many successful startups in Stockholm? Several reasons. First, you need to recognize that any Sweden-based startup will, when it gets to be known internationally, have a Stockholm-based office. So it's not about a city of 1 million inhabitants, it's a country of 10 million that's the true number here. As an example, I believe Spotify opened their original offices in both Stockholm and Göteborg more…

One other reason is that taxation of income gets extremly high (60 %) when the salary rises above ~$7000/month. This makes people feel that it is impossible to get rich by working for someone else in Sweden, which in turn pushes productive people into startups.

That could only apply to founders who can sell parts of their company, surely. Employee number 1 would still face the same tax ceiling, and you need employees to build a company. The ratio of founders:employees will still be tiny even in Sweden.

Re: Questions

#456

Post by repolfx » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #353

sakoht wrote: post #147

"Why are certain things getting so much more expensive?" Because we are lying about inflation. It's not a conspiracy, just a mutually agreed-to delusion. By pretending inflation is lower than it is, the poor feel like they are standing still instead of sinking ...though instinctively they know. And the people just keeping up get to feel richer. Since technology and efficiency improve, the people staying in the same p…

So why are other things not getting much more expensive? Why are things not getting more expensive at the same rate? Monetary inflation affects all goods more or less uniformly, but the price of milk hasn't skyrocketed as much as the cost of education or housing or healthcare.

Monetary inflation affects all goods more or less uniformly

Money being created is like pouring water into a pool - it creates ripples outwards. Eventually, if you stop, yes the surface of the pool will become calm and the pool will be higher. But whilst you're pouring, the volumes are not even.

These days, when the government creates money it doesn't put that money into everyone's bank account overnight. When was the last time you got a cheque from the government labelled "new money"?

Instead the central bank engages in various forms of manipulation, like via the "QE" programmes that involved asset purchases. So, the prices of certain financial assets go up. They also purchase a lot of government bonds, or that money eventually makes its way into corporate debt. And what do governments do with this money, well, they often spend it on things like subsidising mortgages, or subsidising private banks (via bailouts), or healthcare, or education, or paying a large staff of government workers, or buying military hardware, etc.

So you go look at what's gone up in price very fast over the years and hey, look at that, it's the stuff near the centre of the pool. Things that governments tend to subsidise a lot or things that people feel they have to buy regardless of cost, like education, healthcare, homes, etc. The money pouring into the system ends up stacking up in a few places, it's not evenly distributed.

Re: Questions

#457

Post by mercer » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 3:08 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #263

mercer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the things you mention also apply to The Netherlands, except for possibly the tax-free computer scheme (not sure about that one). As far as I can tell we're not really all that note-worthy startup-wise. Assuming that's true, any ideas what might be the differentiating factor? From what I understand, both Holland and Sweden are culturally similar enough that I can't immediately think of other factors that make…

It may just be me, but I have a feeling that Dutch startups have a tendency to focus on the Netherlands first, and either don’t feel the need to go global or just fail to do so. Also, compensation. The Netherlands has a lot of good people, but they’ll leave for greener pastures.

> It may just be me, but I have a feeling that Dutch startups have a tendency to focus on the Netherlands first, and either don’t feel the need to go global or just fail to do so.

That leaves the more interesting question: why is The Netherlands different from Sweden in this regard? My impression was that The Netherlands, if anything, is more internationally-focused.

> Also, compensation. The Netherlands has a lot of good people, but they’ll leave for greener pastures.

Does Sweden pay better, taking into account cost of living? And if so, why?

(not disagreeing, btw, just more questions)

Re: Questions

#458

Post by mercer » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

mhjas wrote: post #378

mercer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the things you mention also apply to The Netherlands, except for possibly the tax-free computer scheme (not sure about that one). As far as I can tell we're not really all that note-worthy startup-wise. Assuming that's true, any ideas what might be the differentiating factor? From what I understand, both Holland and Sweden are culturally similar enough that I can't immediately think of other factors that make…

That is a hard one. They only thing I could come up with off the top of my head is that Sweden a bit more consensus oriented, which could be quite good for creating commercial successes. Like for example I would say that the Netherlands has a stronger electronic music scene, but the big names are still a bit less commercial than Avicii and Swedish House Mafia. Maybe that is because between the Netherlands and its nei…

Interesting. Generally, in conversations I've had before, the consensus-don't-stand-out aspect of Dutch (and perhaps moreso Swedish) culture is considered a bad environment for startups.

I don't think our electronic music scene is less commercial though.

Re: Questions

#459

Post by namenotrequired » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

plaidfuji wrote: post #135

> What's the right way to understand and model personality? With data. Personality is a union of speech, writing, facial expression and body language. Until all of the nuances of these factors are measured across a diverse population in a unified dataset, our models will be primitive. The hardest part of collecting this data is that you want it in up-close and personal day-to-day interactions, from the vantage point…

Since you seem to know a bit about the topic, why can we not measure the big five in straightforward tests just like IQ?

Re: Questions

#460

Post by philwelch » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #456

philwelch wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why are other things not getting much more expensive? Why are things not getting more expensive at the same rate? Monetary inflation affects all goods more or less uniformly, but the price of milk hasn't skyrocketed as much as the cost of education or housing or healthcare.

Monetary inflation affects all goods more or less uniformly Money being created is like pouring water into a pool - it creates ripples outwards. Eventually, if you stop, yes the surface of the pool will become calm and the pool will be higher. But whilst you're pouring, the volumes are not even. These days, when the government creates money it doesn't put that money into everyone's bank account overnight. When was th…

> Instead the central bank engages in various forms of manipulation, like via the "QE" programmes that involved asset purchases. So, the prices of certain financial assets go up.

The last round of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, QE3, ended in 2014. (QE1 began in 2008.) If these price effects for health care and housing began in 2008 and ended in 2014, it would make sense to blame QE, but they didn't, so it doesn't.

Price effects that are associated with government vs. private expenditures are not the same as inflation. That's just governments being bad (perhaps intentionally bad?) at spending taxpayer money efficiently. However, when it comes to health care in particular, that just isn't the case either--Medicare and Medicaid pay much lower prices for medical procedures than private insurance companies do.