It's not basic supply and demand--indeed, most economists are pro immigration. Bryan Caplan went as far as advocating for open border (admittedly he's more libertarian than most).
Labor market is complicated because jobs are not a finite pool that people compete over. New workers are also new consumers, who create new jobs as well. If more workers are always bad for other workers, declining birth rate (ie fewer future workers) would be a good thing.
> It's not basic supply and demand--indeed, most economists are pro immigration. Bryan Caplan went as far as advocating for open border (admittedly he's more libertarian than most).
> New workers are also new consumers, who create new jobs as well.
New workers with much lower purchasing power will not be consuming as much/as well. Heck, a lot of companies are known to hand out directions on how to get food stamps upon hiring (i think Walmart was one of the notable cases).
Without proper rights may get new consumers but you may also get more pressure on the welfare system (which is already weak in the US).
> If more workers are always bad for other workers, declining birth rate (ie fewer future workers) would be a good thing.
You skip the part where declining birth rate is a very strong in developed countries but not as strong (in some cases, not strong at all) in not-equally developed countries.
Profit margin is the wrong metric in this debate. The person you are replying to is saying that the insurance companies as a whole is a waste, including all the salaries paid to their employees.
I'd love to learn phonetics, but with written materials like this it feels like learning to ride a bike by reading a book. I'm still at a loss with regards to how to actually make the sound. Without a teacher, I don't think I even realize my own mistakes.
How did you learn to physically make the sound? How much time did you spend practicing daily?
Thanks so much for the advice. I too hope to do stand up one day.
It is a pretty standard statistical test taught in any bachelor level class covering statistics (or earlier in Germany we did this in 11 the grade) . This setup also includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_(statistics) another pretty standard method you learn by just looking how others do experiments.
Buddhism is about recognizing that everything is one, i.e. there's no sky/earth, but just sky-earth as one thing altogether.
Of course you don't have to believe it or find it useful, I'm just explaining Buddhist thought in general and Thich Nhat Hanh's thoughts in particular here.
There's many flavors of Buddhism and the idea of all "being one" isn't a shared philosophy amongst them all. The "woo" and connected, anything goes mentality, etc is mostly centered on "California Buddhism," which is a sort of western bastardization of common Buddhist concepts.
If you were to study, say, Theravada, you'd see something a lot more austere, less touch-feely (but compassionate), and very much centered on the four noble truths and eightfold path. It reflects a great deal about suffering, overcoming suffering in a Buddhist fashion, and living very, very morally.
So it helps to name the specific brand of Buddhism you're discussing. You're saying something akin to Christians all believe in transubstantiation and see the Pope as their leader, who can declare himself infallible if he chooses. Yes, Catholics do believe this, but not other Christians. Or speaking in tongues or handling snakes. Or that Jesus was a white northern European man with blue eyes.
Specifically the "all is one" philosophy is a western misreading of the Three Marks of Existence, so it's easy to misidentify them as the same thing if you have never been properly exposed to the latter. An egocentric culture would rather extend the ego outward, rather than fully embrace the concept of ego being illusory.
The absurdity I like to point out sometimes (usually with a lot of downvotes when I talk about this on HN) is how capitalism corrupts nearly all. Countless employers sell their employees on the idea of "Learn meditation to help with work stress" instead of "Lets talk about by work is stressful and how we can fix that." The former just buzzword dishonesty, the latter something that could affect profits, and even if only .01% of profits spent to make workers lives 100% better it would be deemed unacceptable in capitalism. Even if the stinginess of the capital owning class could be curtailed, this reform still wouldn't be acceptable because it would be a win for workers, and keeping workers from rising up in any form is a prime feature of capitalism. Remember, the most perfect capitalist entity hires no one, pays no salaries, and only makes money for its owner. The second most perfect form uses slaves for labor. Due to a loss of a civil war, this is no longer possible here, but we certainly spilled a lot of blood trying to keep it for capitalism. Now quasi-slavery is how the game is played by making sure life's expenses keep people in line and making sure wages never get anyone independently wealthy. Some slip through but that's a bug not a feature.
Of course capitalism can't exist without the ego. Everyone here is, as they say, a temporary embarrassed millionaire. Everyone believes in the CEO as this force of nature who does all sorts of things, because the CEO is crafty enough to steal credit from his underlings as self-marketing. Characters like John Galt are seen as realistic and people defend Rand's writing with a straight face. Capitalism is the ego's playground so of course, Buddhism translated here is littered with narratives that protect capitalism.
I also find it a little amusing at how casually we recommend meditation as a self-help tool for workers to be more productive. If done correctly, it should do the opposite.
Also this excellent piece explaining how the Pali canon refutes California Buddhism's "we are all one" belief:
Much as I admire Thich Nhat Hanh, I don't see how Buddhism is an answer to a culture that operates primarily from exploitation, predation, status seeking, self-importance, and bad faith.
I don't think anyone has that answer, because it's an incredibly hard question - how do you de-toxify a culture whose true values are defined by varying intensities of of sociopathy?
You end up with what you described - vacation and workplace Buddhism, where the more superficial elements of a different moral tradition are used to decorate and sweeten a life of striving that remains oriented towards other goals.
That still has value for the people who can appreciate it - something is better than nothing, after all.
But the Buddhist ideals of community fundamentally contradict capitalist ideals of aggressive ambition, individualism, and acquisition. I see no way of truly blending them without one giving way to the other.
The origination story of Buddhism starts with a guy with the highest status and wealth, in a society of extreme inequality, leaving his fortunes behind to help everybody (hint hint).
The first ashrams where so radically inclusive, letting people from all caste and gender live as equals, that they were chased out from many villages by armed crowds. (hint hint)
If that's not clear enough, Thich Nhat Hanh literally called his practices "engaged Buddhism".
Could you elaborate on how this Hamilton framework is a case of Dependency Inversion (which in my understanding is about removing dependency on low level class and using dependency on high level class instead)?
What's the low and high level classes in this application?
Let me preface by saying terms like "Dependency Inversion" are fuzzy and meant to convey general strategies that can be refined for specific cases, so my exact definition of DI here might be subtly different from others', and certainly overlaps with other ideas that also have their own fuzzy names.
In its general form, Dependency Inversion says "don't depend on concrete things; depend on abstract things" with the corollary "don't go get something you need; ask for what you need in general terms and let someone else figure out which concrete things you actually get". Following this to its logical conclusion often ends up with exactly the kind of directed acyclic graph data structures they describe.
So look at their old vs. new example:
Old:
df['COLUMN_C'] = df['COLUMN_A'] + df['COLUMN_B']
df is a one extremely specific data frame. It's saying "take this specific column of this exact data frame and add it to this other specific column of the same exact data frame". The result is a new specific column of exactly one data frame.
COLUMN_A and COLUMN_B are any series. The result is a strategy for creating new columns from existing ones. This is very general. From a DI perspective, COLUMN_A and COLUMN_B can be thought of as "requests".
A directed acyclic graph represents the result of finding the appropriate (concrete) dependencies for every (abstract) request and linking them together. This is what "dependency injection" frameworks are essentially doing. Often this is done via convention, including looking at the names of variables and functions. Hamilton is doing this. In my opinion, names of variables and functions should not be used by dependency injection frameworks if you can avoid it, because it makes the code brittle in the face of what should be "safe" refactors (including minification and uglification). But it's possible it can't reasonably be avoided in Hamilton's case and may be the right choice.
Note that you don't need the injection framework (Hamilton) to benefit from using dependency inversion. This is often what people mean when they say using dependency inversion makes your code more testable: you can test it in isolation by just calling the function directly, instead of depending on the injection framework to stitch things together for you. That's well and good, but testability is just a side benefit of the real win of cleaner and better organized code.
If you want an even more general pattern, it's a common and effective strategy to look at the structure of the code you're sick of writing, and seek to encode that structure explicitly into a data structure that you can programmatically manipulate. Less code-as-code and more code-as-data. That used to be called "metaprogramming", but it lost its name because it's so general and ubiquitous now. This huge category of refactors covers things like iterables instead of loops, reactive streams instead of callbacks, dependency injection frameworks, expression trees, various forms of reflection, and more.
Awesome explanation. When writing pandas code, I tend to make heavy use of method-chaining and lambda functions to achieve something along these lines. But I have never been able to articulate why.
A great way is to encourage them to question the rules that they have to follow, including your own.
That's something they already do, and most enjoy doing. We just need to guide them to question the rules in a coherent manner.
Besides critical thinking and argumentation, by letting them question your own rule, the meta skill you're demonstrating here is intellectual humility, IMO the most prized quality of a great thinker.
Facebook, as a business, is primarily interested in making money and would love to avoid all these messy issues regarding what to censor so that it can focus on selling ads.
Therefore, FB would love to have a legitimate external authority, e.g. the government, mandating what's allowed or not. Unfortunately, no one is willing to do that dirty work, and thus forcing Facebook to do it themselves.
(Granted, I've simplified the matter quite a bit here by saying "Facebook, as a business". Facebook is also a collection of individual employees who have their own beliefs and do shape FB in their image.)
Who's forcing Facebook to engage in censorship in the first place? Why don't they just go on about the business of making money? They are immune from defamation/libel/slander so where's the issue?
They are not immune from boycotts like the one they are currently facing. That's why they are censoring certain types of content, because their advertisers don't want to be associated with it.
Absolutely. Also user base outrage. At some point if enough people quit FB it would be a problem because advertisers need an audience. So far the numbers show it hasn’t happened despite all the posts on hacker news about it, but it’s a concern.
Labor market is complicated because jobs are not a finite pool that people compete over. New workers are also new consumers, who create new jobs as well. If more workers are always bad for other workers, declining birth rate (ie fewer future workers) would be a good thing.