reply1: "The alternative is bad, and Trump is evil" reply2: "Uhhh, source for that? /reddit" reply2a: "I bet he subscribes to the wrong politics" reply3: "Americans are idiots" reply4: "I bet you have a personality disorder" reply5: "You're dumb but I'm not going to expound" reply6: "WTF dude" (proceeds to uphold a murderer as an example)

Can no one explain why the ideas the OP fears will not come to fruition? Can anyone explain the safeguards of the UHC system? Or do discussions about policy now all fall under the teamsport known as modern politics?

Is this what hackernews has become? It wasn't like this a decade ago.

What I saw was people who thought he was insane, people who thought he was a genius, people who considered him a racist, people who saw him as a racial hero, people who pitied him, people who respected him...

You might have a lot to say about online society, but you're the bird staring at the monitor. There are actually no conclusions to be drawn.

Of course, my hallucination does not dismiss the possibility that we are in a bubble. Wasn't CSCO something like 200x PE during the dot com bubble? People see immense potential in an idea but don't know how to properly price it, and so we get what is seen as essentially infinite expected growth priced into companies and their products.

My $3k laptop has nearly the best components on the market right now. The problem is that it has a poor build (MSI) and is falling apart in a way that's not repairable. I looked into purchasing an equivalent-or-better laptop, and I couldn't find anything under $6 for essentially the same specs, and over $10k for a significant upgrade. Though I need my laptop for work, I decided just to ride it out till it's death.

Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components: 1. Shared environment 2. Non-shared environment 3. Error

Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it might as well be ignored; while non-shared accounts for little more than error.

Note that including error in the non-genetic component, just as you've done in your post above, you are viscerally downplaying the otherwise undeniably predictive link from genes to IQ. In other words, whatever number you give is automatically deflated due to the way a psychometric is measured.

This has never been the source of debate. Back when I was going through grad school in intelligence, people didn't have to overthink how they presented the data. Intelligence was already a mature field, and we discussed the data openly. But in the past couple decades or so, a lot of people such as yourself popped up, attempting to craft irrelevant, statistically incorrect arguments against the results of certain well-established psychometrics that happen to not fit within whatever mental world your brand of politics ascribes.

If you really cared about the data, you'd be discussing the numbers. But your interest in this previously niche topic isn't in understanding reality; it's in justifying your worldview, which is why you deny the established data, immediately present a caveat stating that the data doesn't matter in the first place, appeal to emotions, and finish it all off by claiming those who disagree with you have been brainwashed. None of those four arguments have any merit in a genuine discussion on this topic.

1. Families. 2. Women. 3. Corporations.

I've shifted 100% away from AirBnb and to Booking and am still able to book whole apartments/houses. It used to be AirBnb=houses/apts, Booking=hotels. Now Booking covers both, is usually cheaper (especially considering the cleaning fees AirBnb listings usually charge), and has good customer support (in my experience).

I can explain it to you with a simple example:

Imagine, for instance, you're making 50k a year and have a brokerage account that has appreciated by 100k and that you're being taxed 20% on unrealized gains in year x. In year x+1, say your account falls back to where it was before. You paid 20k plus another 10k, and you will need to set aside another 10k. In essence, your income has been reduced to 10k, which could make daily life impossible for many people making 50k annually, especially those with families.

That was the only commercial in my memory to inspire me to actually check out the product, which I did and began using to purchase electronics instead of eBay, which had been my go-to at that time.

I still think of that commercial once-in-a-while, but my main question regarding it is: How could this commercial have been OK-ed?

Wouldn't a marketing team shoot down such an idea in order to produce something so as to justify their jobs?

My best guess is that the commercial came from the CEO himself. Something like: "Purchase an add on TV for buy.com. Just put the web address on the screen. No need to spend time or money on ad design or focus groups. Just run it."

Anyone have any insight or behind-the-scenes on this?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41314812

Points: 4

# Comments: 0