antidesitter

4 ms·

1.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::" That's not really a fair comparison. You're comparing an identifier in one language with the basic syntax of the other. The correct comparison
2.
by antidesitter 7y ago
I already addressed that under the very comment you linked to. The fact that you readily accuse me of breaking the rules but then consider discussing the merits of that accusation as "too tiring" and "playing a game of cross-
3.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> Your first comment upthread was obviously unsubstantive Which one? The one asking for a source on an incredible claim? That's not welcome on HN? Regarding the cases you linked to, only the first and last are valid. The second and
4.
by antidesitter 7y ago
Don’t be ridiculous, dang. Requesting sources for an incredible and unsubstantiated claim is in no way “dismissive, hostile, and/or unsubstantive”. > You've been doing it a lot I don’t think so. Did you have some particular exa
5.
by antidesitter 7y ago
So no sources, just a downvote. As expected.
6.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population? For a sufficiently loose definition of “reflection”, yes. For a sufficiently tight definition of “reflection”, no. > does one defi
7.
by antidesitter 7y ago
It’s clickbait. These experiments show no inconsistency in quantum mechanics, which can be easily seen if you think about the whole system as a single wavefunction under unitary evolution. And as someone else mentioned, “observers” are part
8.
by antidesitter 7y ago
You’re equating the president with conservatism?
9.
by antidesitter 7y ago
To give you an idea of what your comment sounds like: Does the content of the beliefs matter? Is it easier to be tolerant of free speech than Communism?
10.
by antidesitter 7y ago
That’s a very strange reading of the parent comment.
11.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. How?
12.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> A free market is one in which, once uniform or standard rules or requirements are established This is not correct. A free market is a market that is free from government interference. Such rules or requirements can constitute governm
13.
by antidesitter 7y ago
You didn't say it was possible (which almost anything is in this context). You said it was inevitable .
14.
by antidesitter 7y ago
If such conditions change the price of labour, for example, they are by definition an interference with price mechanisms. The magnitude of the interference will depend on the magnitude of this change. For example, setting a price floor fo
15.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> whenever "prevent competitors from reaching the market" is on the table So when you don’t have a free market?
16.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> Someone will point at the GDP going up and say this justifies literally everything that corporations do. Someone will draw comparisons between two lines on a graph and say this is why Facebook never did anything wrong. Except literally
17.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> Starting from a totally free market, regulatory capture is inevitable. How?
18.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> free markets require a ton of government-backed regulations What’s this “ton of government-backed regulations” you’re referring to? > Radical advocates of free markets... always seem to forget the violent nature of humans. What kind
19.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> "Free Market" is a terrible term, the freedom of the market needs to be defined. Free market: A market that is free from government interference, prices rising and falling in accordance with supply and demand. https:/
20.
by antidesitter 7y ago
Elaborate?
21.
by antidesitter 7y ago
I didn’t visualize it when I first read your comment, but I can visualize it if prompted. This might be because information can be parsed and stored more quickly in abstract terms, that is, without visualization.
22.
by antidesitter 7y ago
Read the grandparent comment.
23.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> democracies need to benefit a majority Not at all. See “concentrated benefits and diffuse costs”.
24.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. The Ma Bell monopoly was created by government in the first place.
25.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man. It is, because corporations have stronger incentives than governments to benefit the common man.
26.
by antidesitter 7y ago
It’s actually the opposite. States reduce choices available to customers. See my sibling comment for an example: the cable industry.
27.
by antidesitter 7y ago
> chosen for you based on where you live That’s right. By the government [0][1]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju... [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/
28.
by antidesitter 7y ago
No. It’s usually much worse, actually.
29.
by antidesitter 7y ago
Not everyone shares your adoration for "the nation state".
30.
by antidesitter 7y ago
I misread the comment.

More ›