Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tempestn's commentslogin

How is it an anomaly? Global stocks go up (or at least have positive total return) over time on average because companies produce value. Ultimately it's true that that money has to come from somewhere, so you can say printing it is monetary policy, but the reason it can be done without runaway inflation is the tangible value produced by the firms.

Do you think carrying a gun gives the child soldier power to change his circumstances? It's a problem of organization and collective action, not lack of arms.

If they wanted it to persist, why would they give up a portion of their income to end it? Are you suggesting the 40% is just more honest than the 60?

Are you familiar with the details of the French Revolution? Some of the eventual outcomes were indeed positive, but a lot of what actually went on was pretty horrific.

It was horrific. Revolutions tend to be. Yet our institutions continue consolidating money and power in fewer and fewer hands. If that doesn't stop, we'll be headed there again. It will probably be even worse this time.

A lot of what happened during the French revolution was horrific... This is such a bewildering sentence in this context. Yes, killing the rulers is horrific. Revolutions are horrific. Wars are horrific. It seems irrelevant to what the parent is (sarcastically) saying.

Their point was that violence is sometimes justified, using the French Revolution as an example. I'm pointing out that the FR wasn't just a matter of "killing the rulers". Many, many people were killed. It wasn't such an unambiguous good as they seemed to be implying. Also, other countries have transitioned to democracy without such bloodshed.

It's just not helpful to the conversation

"If we don't put the brakes on this car it's going to go off the cliff!"

"Historically, cars falling off cliffs was horrible for all the passengers involved."


At the same time considering the people participating, there wasn't a way out of the problems that didn't involve violence. Different outcomes would require different choices that require different people.

what are you arguing? that people should not violently overthrow their corrupt leaders? that the french should've let the Ancient Regime entrench and continue? That the serfs (slaves) in tsarist Russia should've stayed put and not revolt against the corrupt and incompetent Nicholas II? Or that the Hungarians and Czechoslovaks not revolt against the totalitarian regimes propped by the Russians? Should've the Romanians in 1989 stayed at home, in cold and hunger, and let Ceausescu regime continue to cruelly oppress them?

You think the cyberpunk dystopia we're headed towards isn't going to be horrific? The one where 99% of the human race has no economic value? Where the 1% helm megagigaultracorporations with fully autonomous AI powered kill bots? Where they think it's no big loss if they genocide an entire human population because all those people were doing nothing but costing them money anyway?

This is our only chance to transition to a post-scarcity society. We won't have another. Allowing them to monopolize access to AI is a fatal mistake.


99% of humanity is too busy scrolling on their phones, consuming “content”, to even notice.

It looks like I'm a bit slow in noticing this, but I see more and more young people today getting dumbphones. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a backlash among them

17 year old guy who had rocked a dumb phone for an year or two and I still don't use a phone (I have a tablet that lies around but yeah)

I feel heard from this statement, thanks!

> I wouldn't be surprised if there's a backlash among them

The backlash is more than what people might imagine. We are a generation that most of us would have nothing to gain and thus nothing to lose as colleges are diluted more and more and job security becomes a question as we are still connected more than ever seeing all the darkness taking place live time while our consciousness has just sprung out in this chaotic unpredecented world.

Thinking about it, We as a generation are more lonely than ever, more hopeless than ever, more angry than ever. I feel like my generation might be watching phones not out of enjoyment but out of desperation for the day to end if meaning of life can't be derived from a normal place.


They won't be for long.

That's actually a fun little puzzle.

It doesn't prevent it. It gives you a way to potentially recover after the disk fills. Many operations become impossible once the disk is full, so this buys you some temporary breathing room to solve the problem.

A + B would be best. Warn at 200, file to reserve the last 100 (or 50 or whatever). That way if the fill is too fast to react to in time, you still have a quick way to temporarily gain disk space, if needed to solve the problem.

I like that idea. Belt and suspenders.

Alerting on an unexpectedly high rate-of-change, as some others have suggested, also seems good for some workloads.


I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting (approving of) the terms presented. But there are plenty of other ways it could be reasonably interpreted. For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.


> I'm guessing it means that your use of the website is not contingent on you accepting

I don't think it says that at all. Because "accepting" is the right word for this interpretation, as you point out. "Approval" is a different thing altogether. You can accept something without approving of it -- that's the main message in the Serenity Prayer and hundreds of self-help books that try to reframe that message, maybe to help it sink in, maybe just to grift a little.

If it was literally spelled out as "Your access is not conditioned on your approval" that could almost be taken as a threat -- you will access this whether you want to or not.

> For instance, your access of the website is not contingent on the website operator approving said access.

To me, this is clearly what it says. "(Your) access is not conditioned on (our) approval."

But, of course, since you read it differently, I have to agree that perhaps it's not as clear as I thought.

However...

Contracts and agreements, if ambiguous, are always interpreted in a light most favorable to the party who didn't draft them.

So, absolute worst case (for the website owner), if we combine your reading and mine, it reads "Your access is not conditioned on either your approval of these terms, or our approval of you."

Somehow, I think the author is OK with this.


You're saying offshore wind farms would prevent the US from detecting an intercontinental attack crossing the ocean?


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%27lyeh


From where else would an enemy be able to attack? There's two options: ocean or space.


And you think a Pearl Harbor sized attack force could cross oceans undetected and hide behind wind farms?

Please tell me you’re just yanking our chains and don’t really believe that?


Much larger attack forces are currently cruising the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and have been doing so for decades. The oceans are international waters, giant voids where it's hard to know where your enemy is.

They can be a thousand miles away from your coast and launch cruise missiles with more fire power than that of Pearl Harbour. If there is a radar/signal disturbance on your coast which can help them, they will take advantage of it.


Speaking of runway crossings specifically, you could have an automated backup, and require authorization from both ATC and the automated system to enter a runway.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: