rvern

6 ms·

1.
by rvern 8y ago
No, this is one of the greatest arguments for small government or no government. People are more rational when the cost to them of being irrational is larger. Voting for good policies is a public good. When a voter is one among three hundre
2.
by rvern 8y ago
“Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, whic
3.
by rvern 8y ago
Bayes’ theorem says no such thing. Your friend is wrong, but please do not let this reflect badly on the Bayesian interpretation of probability in general—it has nothing to do with this.
4.
by rvern 8y ago
Open borders are truly one of our civilization’s best low-hanging fruits. https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/
5.
by rvern 8y ago
Live a modern life, comfortable by modern standards? You’re right about that. But people in the past lived in worse conditions that were considered modern and comfortable then and credit ratings, by making the market for loans more efficien
6.
by rvern 8y ago
The institutions give you cheap loans in exchange. This has opportunity costs. Giving you cheap loans is not free for these institutions. They could be investing their money elsewhere instead. They would do so if it wasn’t for the fact that
7.
by rvern 8y ago
There is no externality here because the costs fall entirely on the person who takes the decision. People, myself and quite possibly yourself included, really do want to sign up with 30 marketing companies to save 5% on a car.
8.
by rvern 8y ago
Equifax has an incentive not to get things wrong because their customers care about having accurate information. Nationalizing credit ratings would remove this incentive. That Equifax still gets things wrong does not imply that things would
9.
by rvern 8y ago
There are public instances running GitLab CE at framagit.org and 0xacab.org.
10.
Statement from PGP developers about eFail(protonmail.com)
2 points by rvern 8y ago|0 comments
11.
Official Statement on New Claimed Vulnerabilities by the GnuPG and Gpg4Win Teams(lists.gnupg.org)
4 points by rvern 8y ago|0 comments
12.
by rvern 8y ago
Matthew Butterick wrote a response to this study last week: https://practicaltypography.com/are-two-spaces-better-than-o... .
13.
by rvern 9y ago
> I'd believe Wikipedia less than either. That's where you make a mistake. Whatever the reason, the Wikipedia articles on the g factor, the intelligence quotient and Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory represent better what is widely
14.
by rvern 9y ago
I cannot find much valuable content on deletionpedia.org in general and nothing interesting about clocks. If you know about articles with valuable information that were lost, you can ask an administrator to give you the page's text. Fu
15.
by rvern 9y ago
Not Occam’s razor. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1076
16.
by rvern 9y ago
Most information goods are non-rival, whereas food is not.
17.
by rvern 9y ago
Yes, at least in the sense of succeeding the article talks about. India is the third country in the world by GDP at purchasing power parity, which is consistent with its population being second largest.
18.
by rvern 9y ago
Rather mostly China succeeded because it had a population larger than any other country. Production depends primarily on resources and human labor is one of the most valuable resources. It is no surprise that population count is strongly co
19.
by rvern 9y ago
Many are not, indeed. But if you care about the truth, you should argue against the best arguments of the strongest advocates. You have to challenge the arguments in the chapter on international trade of Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok’s Mod
20.
by rvern 9y ago
They are not the freest market feasible.
21.
by rvern 9y ago
Do they consume as much as half the world? If the money is invested, where's the problem? Wealth inequality only matters for the well-being of the poor insofar as it affects consumption inequality. Why not talk about how much more th
22.
by rvern 9y ago
You are entirely right. But if we admit that education’s purpose is mostly signaling (without denying that some parts of it do have uses for some students), we can’t justify spending so much on it. From the introduction: “At this point, one
23.
The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste(press.princeton.edu)
3 points by rvern 9y ago|3 comments
24.
by rvern 9y ago
My first comment said that sensible economic policies are not politically feasible. I certainly don't predict that sensible policies are going to be adopted or sensible systems created through our current political institutions. Meanwh
25.
by rvern 9y ago
Is that sort of meta reasoning an efficient way to get at the truth? There are much better arguments that can be found against Marxism. Saying "But what if the Marxists said the same thing?" is a low-effort excuse that can be used
26.
by rvern 9y ago
> The problem is that eating food IS consumption. For very poor people, food is the main consumption. Then tax consumption enough to pay for the food accounting for the consumption tax that will apply to the food. That the amount of mone
27.
by rvern 9y ago
Yes, to some extent. But why do you and other people who had nothing to do with Intel, the CEO, or the vulnerability deserve to make money off of this any more than the researchers who discovered the vulnerability or, if the researchers dec
28.
by rvern 9y ago
> So you have someone standing there saying "Hey, want to buy these stock? They're great!" No, you have someone sending an order to sell stock to their broker. The other party had already sent a buy order and was already g
29.
by rvern 9y ago
> I don't want to tax wealth at 90%, that's a straw-man, but let's use it as an example anyway My intent was only to use it as an example. You can change the percentage to anything you want, as long as it is low enough not
30.
by rvern 9y ago
> which by definition hurts whoever they sell to as they are left holding the bag Of course. The Intel CEO sells stock to investors without telling them that there is a vulnerability that makes the stock worth much less than they think,

More ›