temp10298385

8 ms·

1.
by temp10298385 2y ago
I believe the argument is just ”my job can be performed from home”. It’s not about entitlement, it is about making ones life easier without additional downside to your employer. You might disagree with the no downside part but that is ortho
2.
by temp10298385 3y ago
This was a very pleasant read. The part about crossing the chasm really resonated with me. It’s something you try once In a while and always you get pulled back to the side you started on.
3.
by temp10298385 3y ago
This is just hateful. The same point could have been made without kicking someone who is down.
4.
by temp10298385 3y ago
Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’. We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded t
5.
by temp10298385 3y ago
This is not the forum for clever one liners in response to engaging and earnest responses. Please add to the discussion instead of devolving it.
6.
by temp10298385 3y ago
I strongly disagree that QE policies and central banking are socialist. In fact, I would argue that QE, as it has been enacted since its inception after the collapse of Japan’s credit bubble, is closer to the opposite since it strengthens c
7.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Are you suggesting we accept human misery and injustice as necessary evils? Or are you advocating for change as these problems are endemic to modern manufacturing?
8.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Giving people more money (i.e tie wages to increase in productivity) is demand side economics. Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.
9.
by temp10298385 5y ago
It is interesting that you think that Piketty, who has studied growth extensively, has not considered the positive sum aspects of the economy. If you read his books you will see him talk about it in excruciating detail.
10.
by temp10298385 5y ago
It is an example of how to think outside the constraints of scarcity when dealing with immaterial ”property”. But if you are looking for individual artists there’s Patreon. I’m sure people can think of reasons why Patreon does not fulfill s
11.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Good question. I think I can best answer this by example: People get paid to develop Blender. Blender even has an in house film studio, with paid artists. The software and artwork is made available for free. No artificial scarcity is impose
12.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Lack of scarcity is the unique selling point of the digital. I think future generations will look back at the madness of manufacturing scarcity because society refused to adapt to abundance.
13.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I don’t know what anecdote you are referring to, I did not mention one. I did not even make a statement of agreement or disagreement with the original comment. I just pointed out that I did not see a logical inconsistency. As for your claim
14.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I’m in agreement here.
15.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I would argue that I’m neither infantilizing women nor blaming every outcome on society. I never mentioned a cabal of men. It seems you are reading in many themes that are not present in my comment. I believe that norms shape behaviour, tha
16.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I do not necessarily agree with the original post’s statement but this response seems confused to me. Few female applicants to trade schools is consistent with the original statement. If it is societally unacceptable for a woman to be a plu
17.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I'm really curious how a managerial hierarchy of 40 works in practice. If a manager is responsible for a headcount of 2 then GE would have 2^40 = ~1 trillion employees. Since this is obviously not possible then what does the org chart
18.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Any system that wants to identify a pattern will have false positives and negatives. In this case we can’t accurately identify cases where a user has legitimate cause for refund without false positives letting through a few abusive users. T
19.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I'm very curious about the ethics of early retirement. Forgone consumption seems like a reasonable justification. But surely there is a limit? If I retire by early and through compounding interest amass a fortune that would allow my ch
20.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Were you convinced with that defence? In any case, he must understand that his usage of the word is inflammatory and will be perceived as mainly racially contingent. As long as he is aware that people will assume
21.
by temp10298385 5y ago
You mean that he asserted that his use of the n-word only had behavioural and socioeconomic implications and not racial? He might honestly intend it that way but I feel like he is very misguided. He could use the n-word to target someone wi
22.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I subscribe to a descriptive rather then a prescriptive view of language. It is "reasonable" to use a term if the usage conforms to how the term is understood by the people using it. In Sowell's case he uses the term to make
23.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Perhaps but lets remember why it is rightfully separated from other more controversial slurs. Call me a redneck and I would mostly be confused as I am not a 1. uneducated, 2. rural, 3. from the American south, 4. poor. It is an insult for s
24.
by temp10298385 5y ago
I'm assuming you are being facetious in order to highlight an alleged absurdity of the suggestion. Though in reality the suggestion seems quite sensible to me. Where I am, we've been under the effect of a pretty steep tax on plast
25.
by temp10298385 5y ago
It erodes social cohesion. When I went to elementary school in Sweden I shared a classroom with both a child that came to our country has a refugee and another whose parent sat in parliament. Different social classes intermingled frequently
26.
by temp10298385 5y ago
To clarify the intent of my original content, I'm referring to wealth vs income with regards to the obscenely wealthy. As you've pointed out, risk is generally very low for billionaires. The ELOCs that they utilize for credit have
27.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Seems that the most common retort in this thread is to hammer down on the principle that unrealised gains should not be taxed. This is directly addressed in the article. Unrealised gains can still work as collateral for loans. The spending
28.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Yes of course, I'm still assuming USD denominated loans. However repayments may be done in BTC still, unless I'm misunderstanding what legal tender actually is. Even if I, as a creditor, convert my payments from BTC to USD as soon
29.
by temp10298385 5y ago
Yes, I'd assume that creditors preferring USD would convert but that seems like a non trivial overhead for many creditors. The time between receiving payment and actually converting BTC to USD will surely result in a non-negligible bal
30.
by temp10298385 5y ago
As someone who readily admits to not fully knowing what legal tender entails, I have a question for the optimists: As I understand it, legal tender status forces creditors to accept bitcoin as debt repayment. Given the volatility of bitcoin

More ›