> Imagine how open the highways would be if this was how everyone worked/lived.
What does this even mean? If everyone worked away from the city, there would be no city to drive to. And of course the people in the city, or on the outskirts of the city, don't need to drive—they can take public transit anyway, or bike, or walk, or whatever.
More people living outside the city and driving into it is how the roads get congested, not how they get clear. If they only go into it sometimes rather than all at the same time the roads might be less congested at rush hour, but on the other hand, unless they're all setting up in another, similarly dense city, you're just creating sprawl, and the roads between the little towns and suburbs are probably going to be pretty crowded as people go between them to run errands, meet friends, dine, etc., since by hypothesis everyone's all spread out, and therefore so are all the conveniences, shops, entertainments, etc.
I think he's referring to the fact that most traffic jams occur during rush hour, and if everyone worked from home traffic would be much more spread out over the course of the day, instead of the two usual peaks around 7am-9am and 4pm-7pm where travel times double or triple in most big cities.
> And in any case, the market for lemons is a theoretical exercise. It does not actually happen in real markets, because there are various market mechanisms that emerge to address it.
The "market mechanisms" you speak of are government regulations establishing minimum standards and forms of redress (e.g., and most on the nose, lemon laws).
I remember the announcement and the huge exodus from delicious to pinboard. That's when I heard of pinboard first. The import feature was under heavy load and from what I remember it took a week(or couple of days? ) to import your bookmarks from delicious or was it from an exported file...
> You just did the thing I suggested was insubstantial and said hurts and I didn't like. Please stop. Also it's a logical error to judge a claim by the site it's on, or by the claims surrounding it.
It might be a logical error, but it's not a mistake. If someone tells you lie after lie after lie, and then says something new, whose truth you can't immediately evaluate, the sensible thing to do is to think: this is also probably a lie.
That's called confirmation bias and people do it all the time.
It just didn't work as a strategy if you actually wanted the find the truth. That's one thing this is about here.
The other thing I think you missed was the emotional context of these comments. I'm clearly asking for support and help to make HN welcoming, by not misrepresenting or cherry picking easy-to-ridicule info. It hurts when they do that and I don't like it. Please don't do it, don't ignore the people behind the comments, and don't quote this
> You just did the thing I suggested was insubstantial and said hurts and I didn't like. Please stop.
pretending that you've contradicted this, and made it somehow okay. You haven't and it's not.
> It's a military AI that correctly interprets a command to kill a particular group of people, so effectively that its masters start thinking about the next group, and the next
You know, you don't need to go that far. You know what a great way to kill a particular group of people is? Well, let's take a look at what a group of human military officers decided to do (quoting from a paper of Elizabeth Anscombe's, discussing various logics of action and deliberation):
"""
Kenny's system allows many natural moves, but does not allow the inference from "Kill everyone!" to "Kill Jones!". It has been blamed for having an inference from "Kill Jones!" to "Kill everyone!" but this is not so absurd as it may seem. It may be decided to kill everyone in a certain place in order to get the particular people that one one wants. The British, for example, wanted to destroy some German soldiers on a Dutch island in the Second World War, and chose to accomplish this by bombing the dykes and drowning everybody. (The Dutch were their allies.)
"""
There's a footnote:
"""
Alf Ross shews some innocence when he dismisses Kenny’s idea: ‘From plan B (to prevent overpopulation) we may infer plan A (to kill half the population) but the inference is hardly of any practical interest.’ We hope it may not be.
"""
I watched it for the first time in 2011 (according to Twitter) and we probably average a chicken a week (it takes two chickens to feed 2 adults and 2 teenagers, and some weeks we do chicken twice in a week). I try never to buy parted-out chicken. So: I've done it lots. :)
It's awesome. When you get fast, you feel like The Predator when you do it.
I know we've talked on here about Cooking Issues before, but the Pepin Chicken method + Dave Arnold is why I got a Kuhn Rikon pressure cooker, just because I knew I could buy cheap whole chickens, do whatever I want with the parts, throw the carcass in the pressure cooker and make some stock.
I mainly cook for me and my girlfriend, but I usually buy two chickens at a time because I can yield four breasts, four quarters, and ~2 quarts of stock (depending). I typically sous vide the breasts and serve over a salad, roast the quarters, and save the breast skin for this or that (schmaltz, cracklins, etc...). The boss move is roast the quarters over fingerlings potatoes with lemon juice, olive oil, schmaltz, herb, and stock.
A typical week here is 2 chickens, 1 meal of Kenji Lopez's airline chicken breasts w/ the stock from the carcass (we have a Fagor, which is not as good as the Kuhn Rikon but works OK), and 1 meal of the chicken thighs/legs via the Bertolli "bottom up" method from Cooking By Hand (which is just: lightly oil a pan, cook very low skin side down until completely rendered).
I only get the 2 meals (and some stock), but then, teenagers.
"but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport"
But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage.
You can simplify this whole point to:
Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
> How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
The US can't prevent Snowden from boarding a plan in Moscow. (Well, I mean, there are all kinds of means by which it might attempt to do so, but no one in this thread has suggested that they would be likely to use them.)
It can, and would be far more likely to, OTOH, use its influence to a prevent a plane from Moscow from reaching Ecuador without being forced to the ground, searched for Snowden, etc., if Snowden did board it (or was suspected to have done so.)
Which is exactly what happened (except, of course, that Snowden had not actually boarded the plane, despite the US suspicion that he had, and that the destination was Bolivia, not Ecuador) in the Evo Morales grounding incident referenced upthread, so I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't understand the fairly direct implication.
How would the US even know who was on a flight from Moscow? If you believe Assange, the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport? The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
> How would the US even know who was on a flight from Moscow?
The US has foreign intelligence services, utilizing both human and technical means, and they attempt to monitor movements of persons who are of concern to the US, with varying degrees of success.
(The degree to which Snowden is still actively a concern to the US is a bit less clear.)
> If you believe Assange
I don't, particularly, but on this particular point his claim isn't implausible, and, more to the point, isn't materially relevant.
> the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Sure, that might be what they US believed Snowden was on the plane. Of course, were the US not both able and inclined to stop even a foreign leader's plane from transitting unmolested from Russia to South America if Snowden was believed to be on it, Assange's false leak (assuming that is the source of the belief) would be immaterial. That they have the capacity and will, however, to take such acts is demonstrated by the Morales incident independently of the source of the false belief that Snowden was on the plane.
> Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport?
Nothing, I wasn't responding to a claim about a passport I was responding to the claim that if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he would be in Ecuador, and there is nothing the US could do to stop him from simply boarding a plane in Moscow and flying to Ecuador.
Their manifestly is something the US could do, and has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to do, to stop him from doing that.
> The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The United States. And I think I've explained it in excruciating detail in this post, and my prior post in this subthread.
> The same logic suggests they could grab Snowden off the streets in Moscow.
It actually doesn't, since the logic at issue is "they have shown both the capacity and the will to do this to planes they believe are carrying Snowden from Russia to South America in the past".
They clearly have not shown the capacity and will to grab Snowden off the street in the past.
Its certainly not impossible that they could, but its a different category of risk from something that they have demonstrated both the capacity and will to do against the specific target in the past.
I'm comfortable with where we've landed if we've arrived at the three reasons for Snowden not leaving Russia being (1) Snowden's desire to remain in Russia, (2) Russia's unwillingness to let Snowden leave, and (3) the US's shadowy spy network detecting the specific flight he's on and diverting it to effect his capture.
I will note, with bemusement, that our shadowy spy network was unable to effect his capture when he was known to be in Hong Kong. We must have a gap in capabilities for the most westernized part of China.
You're willfully refusing to acknowledge the very rational and demonstrably correct decision to not leave Moscow under the circumstances and instead choosing to attack a straw man so you can be a smartass.
If he remains in Moscow, he has near zero chance of being rendered. If he leaves, he is one piece of HUMINT/SIGINT away from being grounded and taken into custody.
I think even a few of the more intelligent dog breeds would be able to choose correctly here.
If Obama were to pardon Snowden, and the US reinstate his passport, I can't see Putin keeping him in Russia. Why would he do that? As long as Snowden is a thorn in the NSA's side, Putin is clearly glad to have him, but a pardon would neutralize the benefit. It's not even like he could trade Snowden for some Russian spies; what sense would that make? The US intelligence community does not think of Snowden as someone they want back on American soil, except maybe to kill him.
I found an interesting Assange interview on the Morales incident [0]. The whole thing is worth reading, but let me just quote one bit:
Portugal, Spain and France closed their airspace. Some other things happened. Some preemptive extradition requests were sent out, for example, to Iceland, which we got hold of and published. So there was — the U.S. was pressuring countries where flights might go through or land or refuel. And as a result of that operation, then it became clear that in fact it was too dangerous to — at that moment, at least, to take any flight out of Moscow. And this is what then led to his eventual asylum. It wasn’t just the removal of the passport, which removed his ability to use commercial flights. It was that the U.S. was closing airspace and acting in a manner where you would have to assume that they — you know, if a flight went past the United States — not over U.S. territory, but past the United States — there might be some kind of interdiction.
Assange goes on to suggest that Russia had their hands forced by the US Government's willingness to pull strings to catch Snowden, and by the willingness of Western Europe -- France, Portugal, and Spain, at least -- to roll over. This put Putin in the position of either granting Snowden's asylum request or looking like another US patsy. Well, the last thing Putin would ever do is look weak. (I suspect Putin is not really too unhappy to make sure Snowden stays alive.)
Anyway, although Putin's cooperation is clearly necessary, the primary force keeping Snowden in Russia is, and has always been, the US Government.
We're not talking about why Snowden isn't in the US. It's clear: the reason he's not here is that if he sets foot on American soil he will be arrested and prosecuted.
We're talking about why, of all the places he could be in the world, he's in Russia --- and not Ecuador, where he claims he intended to go.
Right. He didn't think he could get to Ecuador without winding up in the US's hands. Was that not clear from what I wrote? In fact, is that not clearly the argument being made in this entire subthread?
You used the word "hostage" upthread. I don't think this is in any sense a hostage situation.
Yeah, I get that you think that. But you haven't explained why that would be. What prevents him from leaving Russia and flying to Ecuador? It's not the passport. But that's the only reason I've seen getting.
There are direct flights between Moscow and Havana every day.
Fun fact: the country Snowden supposedly wanted to flee to has an extradition treaty with the US.
Assange addressed this; I guess you didn't read the interview. I still recommend it; I think it would be interesting even if you're not inclined to believe Assange.
Anyway, you yourself mentioned the possibility of grabbing Snowden off the streets. I don't think for a moment that Putin would allow that to happen; the governments of Central and South America are another matter (not that they would willingly cooperate, necessarily, only that they couldn't do anything about it).
(For the record, I don't accept your claim that the passport is irrelevant. I don't really know how these things work, but I don't have the impression that it's easy for a known international fugitive to persuade a commercial carrier to board him with a canceled passport. I will grant that if Putin wanted Snowden to leave Russia, he could have made it happen; in that sense, the passport is not a barrier.)
As for the extradition treaty -- is it possible Snowden would have made a mistake in selecting his destination? Of course it is. What's your point? [ETA: I get it. You think the whole story is a lie and Snowden planned to stay in Russia all along. I think the absurdity of that view is matched only by its cynicism.]
What do you get out of these comments? There was a time when these were downvoted out of existence, not merely slightly grayed. I'm not particularly swayed by your technical competence either. I'd be willing to bet as well that if I downloaded your comment history I'd find at least half of your comments are snark like this.
There's nothing admirable about "going against the grain" in itself. Probably most people in the upper echelons of tech wealth don't think it's a great idea to deport Muslims, and don't support Trump. I see no reason to admire someone for having a different opinion on that matter just because it's different.
There are lots of ways to "go against the grain" in the way you point out. You could be an unthinking dogmatist. Nothing would change the way you feel, not even the censure of your peers. (Is Thiel being censured? Sure, by Pinboard on twitter. By his peers? Not that I can see. His richy-rich pals all still love him, AFAICT.) Is there something admirable about having your head in the ground? Not really---and I don't think that, on the broader social level, we tend to applaud people who still think gay sex is shameful and should be illegal, even though, you know, they really go against the grain.
You could be, say, a modern Cato. But Cato is admirable not just because he fell on his sword but because he fell on his sword out of devotion to an admirable ideal.
I see no reason, incidentally, to believe your claim that "Thiel stands alone in his strength to go against the grain". If other people aren't going against the grain, it might be that they think the grain is largely going in the right direction already, and not that they lack the strength to go against it. And, on the other hand, you have to pay a little attention to threads about diversity of race or gender to find a lot of people with the strength to go against the grain. Guess what: the grain they go against, Thiel goes with.
Beautifully explained. There certainly is a lot of Groupthink in Silicon Valley, but that doesn't extend to everything.
In Thiel's case, it unfortunately seems like he's turned into one of those rich people who is so far away from how most people live that he does not understand the consequences of some of his ideas. A common problem with the elite: although self-made elites usually have their past to reflect on and make better informed decisions (unlike e.g. the Koch brothers)
Because a pursuit to the extreme of any ideology is a symptom of mind obsessed with perfection and fanatic belief. In the case of Thiel, its his libertarian beliefs.
Now, I don't want to hijack this thread into what is wrong with extreme libertarian thinking (or extreme adherence to any philosophy). You're question was why I thought he doesn't understand the consequences of his ideas: this is why I think that.
what if instead of saying "Muslims coming from location X", it were "people coming from location X"?
the issue is the same, we don't know how to properly vet these people, nor do we know if they want to assimilate (big problem if they don't)... personally I think given the world we live in, that is logical. I also don't think it should be permanent and we should encourage those that want to join America and all it has to offer so long as we can do our best to ensure their sincerity...
> The eccentric investor is not like anyone else in tech. By Kara Swisher @karaswisher
> ... And many of those who like him personally and call him a "dear friend" are even perplexed, going as far as not talking to him of late because of his Trump support. "I’ve tried," sighed one such friend, who described a number of colleagues trying to pull him off the Trump train, including PayPal Mafia family member Reid Hoffman.
> There's nothing admirable about "going against the grain" in itself.
There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.
I would consider myself to have overlapping social thoughts with most liberals but it's really terrifying to me to have an absolute aggregation of media and executive power (in our industry) along one line of thinking (even if I agree with most of it!). Power needs to be distributed, not consolidated.
> There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.
No, there still isn't, because you seem to have missed the "in itself" part. Even in the case you identify, what is admirable is going against a corrupt grain (and presumably, we'd want to actually make it "going against a corrupt grain in a way likely to improve matters"; corruption is multiple and going against corruption in one respect isn't necessarily to go in a less-corrupt-overall direction), not "going against the grain" in itself.
I mention it in another comment but the consolidation of power is a problem. It doesn't matter if I agree with those consolidating or not. I don't think Trump has a lot of support from the upper classes in the US. If he were to be elected he would be a weaker form of power than say Clinton being elected. That is a desirable outcome even if his policies are bad since he wouldn't be effective in rolling them out whereas Clinton would be more effective rolling out her possibly slightly less objectionable policies. There would be a greater loss to society in the latter situation.
Under what rubric is the more effective rollout of less objectionable policies a greater loss to society than the less effective rollout of more objectionable policies?
This dogma holds consolidation of power to be bad /in and of itself/, rather than because of a consequence, such as "consolidated power leads to suffering." If that's your opinion, fine, but it's no different than any other religion.
> Under what rubric is the more effective rollout of less objectionable policies a greater loss to society than the less effective rollout of more objectionable policies?
A small slice of a giant pie is bigger than a large slice of a tiny pie?
Ok, I understand. You literally mean that both of them will only introduce objectionable policies, not that "less objectionable" might mean, in some cases, "good."
I still don't see the outcome you predict.
TLDR; power consolidation is a risk factor that leads to actual bad policy, not something with actual, palpable negative value in and of itself. E.g. the power of the federal government to end slavery is a win in my book.
* * * *
Let's map "objectionability" onto a number line.
A neutral policy is zero. An objectionable one is on the negative side, a non-objectionable one is on the positive side. The magnitude of the objectionability or virtue yields the magnitude of the number.
I'll go with your presumption that both Clinton and Trump's policies are only found on the negative side of that line. And we'll deal with their policies in aggregate. We'll also assume that current policy is perfectly neutral, at zero:
<---------T-------------C-----0
T = Trump APV (avg policy value)
C = Clinton APV
0 = CPV (current policy value)
Let's map effectiveness to a float between 0 and 1. Simple. If Trump's policies are twice as bad as Clinton's, he has to be half as effective as she for them to equal out. Here's a little table:
APV, Effect, Total value, Who, Worse
-20, .05, -1, Trump, O
-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X
-20, .1, -2, Trump, X
-2, .9, -1.8, Clinton, O
-10, .05, -0.5, Trump, O
-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X
-10, .2, -2, Trump, X
-2, .8, -1.6, Clinton, O
The problem with that simplification is the assumption that CPV is at neutral, zero. And mapping effectiveness to a scalar factor of APV is also incorrect -- instead, it has to be understood as a normalization factor, attempting to return CPV to APV. The greater the effectiveness, the more quickly CPV achieves APV.
Should any factor bring CPV further negative than Clinton's APV, her effectiveness would become a force that lifts CPV. Meanwhile, Trump's is always attempting to pull CPV further negative towards his abysmal APV.
> There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.
"The system sucks, so let's put ISIS in charge" is an example of "going against the grain" and a truly shitty idea. Some of Thiel's ideas are in this "against the grain and shitty" category.
What does this even mean? If everyone worked away from the city, there would be no city to drive to. And of course the people in the city, or on the outskirts of the city, don't need to drive—they can take public transit anyway, or bike, or walk, or whatever.
More people living outside the city and driving into it is how the roads get congested, not how they get clear. If they only go into it sometimes rather than all at the same time the roads might be less congested at rush hour, but on the other hand, unless they're all setting up in another, similarly dense city, you're just creating sprawl, and the roads between the little towns and suburbs are probably going to be pretty crowded as people go between them to run errands, meet friends, dine, etc., since by hypothesis everyone's all spread out, and therefore so are all the conveniences, shops, entertainments, etc.