simplefish

5 ms·

1.
by simplefish 2y ago
I interviewed at a company known for consistently asking one of the same four questions in a specific interview round. These questions were widely shared on forums like Blind, Leetcode, and Glassdoor. The recruiters also provided strong gui
2.
by simplefish 13y ago
I'm confused by the way you say something is "technically" true, then claim you believe it isn not true. Are you really saying that you believe things you know aren't true? > How much is this currency supposed to be
3.
by simplefish 13y ago
> My point is that raising people out of poverty should not be used as a measurement of a systems [...] success. I have no words.
4.
by simplefish 13y ago
> Your arguments are quite flawed as they could be applied in favour of feudalism or plain cattle slavery. Not at all. I could make some solid suggestions for proven ways of improving on feudalism or slavery. But I don't know of a
5.
by simplefish 13y ago
It's easy to stand on the sidelines and hurl brickbats at a system (global capitalism) which has raised more people out of grinding poverty in a shorter time than everything else we've ever done in all of recorded history combined
6.
by simplefish 14y ago
So let's summarize: The Indian government spends billions of dollars (which are desperately needed for other purposes in a poor country like India) propping up the price of wheat. This causes many farmers to switch from growing vegetables
7.
by simplefish 14y ago
I...see. Let's recap: You said that wealth should not be equated with job creation. I said that this was wrong, and it should be. You admit that this is true (and indeed, that it is "trivially obvious"). But your say that other people o
8.
by simplefish 14y ago
There's not much to elaborate on; the argument literally makes no sense as presented. You say "wealth is better thought-of as a measure of how many jobs the owner of a company could have created, but didn't." It isn't. Apple has $100b in
9.
by simplefish 14y ago
I'm not sure what you said you be any less true. You seem to have no understanding of how a modern economy works, or how the banking system works, or what a salary represents, or what wealth is, or what the determinates of unemployment a
10.
by simplefish 14y ago
I'm struggling to believe that you really didn't notice the sarcasm in my comment. :) Obviously you can swap all the names on the list for right wing equivalents; it would be just as horrible. Also, I must reiterate: Companies are not pe
11.
by simplefish 14y ago
I agree. Corporations are not people, and should have no rights; in particular they should have no rights to free speech or property. I look forward to a day when the government should be able to censor the speech, compel speech, and take
12.
by simplefish 14y ago
Ridiculous strawmen sure are fun to demolish, aren't they? Who needs logic or accuracy?
13.
by simplefish 14y ago
Um. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but that proposal isn't going to do anything. Let me explain. The proposal is to prevent new power plants from producing more than 1,000 pounds of CO2e per MW of power produced. Coal is around 1,600 poun
14.
by simplefish 14y ago
grins I hope some of the more credulous commenters here on HN[1] like the taste of crow. Especially the ones that attacked other commenters as being closed-minded for pointing out obvious problems with the video. [1]: http://news.ycomb
15.
by simplefish 15y ago
The policy he advocated can be spun in a way that sounds socialist. Phrased the way he did it though? No, that's not going to get you labeled "socialist" anywhere.
16.
by simplefish 15y ago
"There's always someone who speaks at great length about finance while being clueless about the subject. [...] And no, Glass-Steagall doesn't have anything to do with offering interest on checking accounts." snicker Try section 11(b), wh
17.
by simplefish 15y ago
My point is fairly narrow: People love to blame Glass-Steagall, and yet consider the roll call of shame during the GFC: Northern Rock, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merryl Lynch, AIG, Lehman Brothers, HBOS, Fannie Ma
18.
by simplefish 15y ago
Heh. First, Commondreams is not necessarily the best source for a citation. Let's turn to Wikipedia, which explains the Citibank/Travelers merger is fairly decent detail[1]. In short, while there was a time limit of five years (the two
19.
by simplefish 15y ago
Actually, no, most people are NOT familiar with the repeal of Glass-Steagall (not Glass-Steagal, incidentally). Including you; if you were you'd realize that there's no coherent argument for how the so-called "repeal" of Glass-Steagall[1
20.
by simplefish 15y ago
The point of the article is that observational studies are terrible and non-scientific, but people seize on them anyhow if they like the conclusions. You reply by saying, in essence, "this article must be wrong, because it disagrees with s
21.
by simplefish 15y ago
This stuff is actually not as hard as you seem to be making it. We don't need all these "some believe" or "seem like" qualifirs. First, what do we mean by "global inequality"? Well, let's break that down. We're talking about a metric mea
22.
by simplefish 15y ago
This is not true. Your ideal universal system may ration on medical need. There might even be one in existence that does so... ...but I really doubt it.
23.
by simplefish 15y ago
"I don't think we are conquering global inequality. I think it's getting worse." I'm sure you think that, but the numbers are clear, and not really under any dispute. Global inequality has been falling steadily and rapidly since 1980; it's
24.
by simplefish 15y ago
I'm not sure why you seem surprised; this is a very long standing trend. It's also pretty obvious. You aren't the only one to value quality of life over quantity; in fact everyone else does too. The only problem is that if you're very
25.
by simplefish 15y ago
To be fair, SimCity Societies was an excellent game. But it was very much a spiritual decendent of Ceasar III and Pharaoh. I think the branding did it more harm than good; the people who love Maxis-style city games disliked Societies, and
26.
by simplefish 15y ago
Okay, first, a minor point: Unemployment has continued to fall in Singapore; your link is for 2010, but it's lower now[1]. Next, let's assume you're correct about health care costs. There are still two logical errors in your argument: 1)
27.
by simplefish 15y ago
I stopped reading when he discussed Joel's software pricing model, and then proceeded to make a crack about how Joel's model was more correct than "some mythical supply and demand model." If you don't know enough about economics to recogniz
28.
by simplefish 15y ago
The point being made is that the health care costs in the US are very high. The author editorializes that this is "due to Obamacare". Costs were high before Obamacare, and they're higher now, and non-partisan projections (CBO, etc.) indic
29.
by simplefish 15y ago
So if we go up...six levels of comments, we reach batista saying: "And, no, the reason US has a slightly more advanced economy than, say, Sweden, is not due to harsh working conditions. It's has more to do with human capital, a large unifi
30.
by simplefish 15y ago
It's not about the price of oil? This chain of comments was sparked by yummyfajitas asking "does the US pay less to import oil or steel than Sweden or something?", which seems fairly focused on price. And he was replying to a comment that

More ›