The market simply doesn’t have enough people actively investing because it rewards mass stupidity over generating meaningful returns.

A dimension people hate looking at is credit is far too easy in the US, which means too many companies are heavily optimized for extracting that money from people that didn’t really earn it in the first place. This means a lot of the smartest workers are preoccupied on the wrong things instead of helping advance society.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47541690

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47492865

Points: 7

# Comments: 4

This is how they deliberately miss the point. They are not taken down not because they are dangerous but because they align with us, and will buy tat from our buddies in Mayfair and Knightsbridge at inflated prices with some of the proceeds.

British high society is completely rotten by this stuff. They are still amazed that Al Fayed was’t nearly as grimy as many had assumed.

I love the whole “unexplained wealth” concept the UK developed, curiously enough after Abramovich had been running around buying Chelsea etc. If you are friend to MI6 this week you are allowed to do anything, but if you get on their wrong side you will be Berezhovskied.

His actions helping Hulk Hogan against Gawker were also thoroughly deserved.

I am actually sympathetic to much of what Thiel has done, but the current arc makes the supposed Howard Hughes oddities look positively reasonable.

For Tiananmen Square substitute Rape Gangs.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47440430

Points: 465

# Comments: 874

You do not write programs with one map of id to thing as you are suggesting here.

The key difficulty is identifying what these are is far from obvious upfront, and so often an index appears adjacent to a table that represents what the table should have been in the first place.

“If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident.”

And:

“Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures.”

A data structure general enough to solve enough problems to be meaningful will either be poorly suited to some problems or have complex algorithms for those problems, or both.

There are reasons we don’t all use graph databases or triple stores, and rely on abstractions over our byte arrays.

I would guess Pike is simply wise enough not to get involved in such arguments.

It is?

How can you conceive of a precise idea of how to solve a problem without a similarly precise idea of how you intend to represent the information fundamental to it? They are inseparable.

Pike is right.