To whom? I could read it as patronizing to Knuth, which I didn't intend it to be (but it could obviously be read that way). I absolutely love Knuth and his in depth books on algorithms, and his thorough understanding of the field of computer algorithms.
He is a key contributor to the entire field of computer science. He's unimpressed by AI, probably because he hasn't seen the utter decline of the Internet in the last 15 or so years. The rest of us, has to suffer through it.
Knuth goes on doing core research.
However, what I was trying to do was not patronize Knuth, but rather defend his decision and him being set in his ways. I don't believe what Knuth is doing is wrong at all. I believe the commenter I replied to is wrong on So Many Levels.
Um, you might want to look up effective tax rates. At least in the US, the highest earners pay absurdly low rates in reality. I would be delighted to pay double the rate the average billionaire does.
don’t start a sentence with um. its arrogant. and you are wrong. just go and look up what proportion of the population pays the most tax by income band. the rates are irrelevant
I am correct and there is a great deal of public information you could read to verify this if you so choose. Here's one example showing the effective tax rate of the wealthiest American's as 8.2%[0], which is consistent with other sources I have seen. Again, I would love to pay only double that rate for my taxes.
Please show your work. The top marginal rate in the US is 35% plus state taxes of up to 12.3% (California). If you can arrange to take your income as long term capital gains or qualified, you can get the federal rate down to 20% (but you're still on the hook for state taxes).
I'm talking about rates people actually pay. The listed tax rates are fairly meaningless once individuals pass a certain amount of wealth. Effective rates increase to a point and then drop precipitously once a person has enough wealth to game the system. The richest Americans pay a rate of less than 10%.
Quite a lot I would say. A CEO is making daily decisions, any one of which could be be the start of a company’s death spiral that results in tens of thousands of job losses. The amount of leverage they have over a company dwarfs that of any other individual worker.
Besides what should I care what they earn if they pay me well for what I do, relative to the market?
This is lazy, greedy socialist thinking where they want money for nothing’s
CEOs have a lot of leverage, yes, but how do I know that a particular CEO is making good decisions? If we look at a random CEO who is making XX,000,000/year, can you make an evidence based case that they are providing millions of dollars worth of value over a replacement level manager? I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a meaningful way to demonstrate this, because I have looked and haven't found one.
> …but how do I know that a particular CEO is making good decisions?
We used to call that “profit”.
As a measurement over time at how well a business is performing this used to be the standard measurement but it seems to have been supplanted by other measures such as wealth inequity and twitter mob ragefests.
The visible decisions that I've seen attributed to CEOs range from "absurdly and obviously bad" to "good, until you find out the same decisions are already echoing throughout the industry". It begs the question did they come up with it themselves? Or did they just happen to hear rumblings before the grunts did?
I would argue that an above average CEO has a negligible effect on the company and an average one actively damages the company. The good ones make the decisions that everyone copies shortly after. We could probably replace >90% of them with AI and be better off.
CEOs are also the ones setting things up so that everything important is in the hands of the CEO, which just happens to justify their spiraling pay. Can you imagine if we ran countries that way? The president/emperor/whatever keeps hoovering up more power, which then justifies giving them more and more of the wealth?
Capitalists talk a lot about the power of marketplaces, but internally companies are little feudal empires with ongoing wars of succession. And as The Economist points out, actual marketplace competition is in decline, so there's little in the way of external checks. Especially given that CEO tenure has dropped dramatically, meaning that the correlation between CEO pay and CEO value delivery has also dropped.
They did reference satellite data. However, I do not know to what extent satellite data can show turbulence. The article implied a total cause, but I suspect its a bit more complex. Not sure how you would tell if its more common. I remember people complaining about turbulence for as long as I can remember. Maybe people's expectations about flight safety are just higher now, because planes offer a better experience.
making up news is easier than reporting news. we are in that cycle. Once trust-fund babies took over media, it is just part of the activist-industrial culture. We will tell those plebs what's good for them.
The YouTube app is a lousy user experience. The ads are the most intrusive and irrelevant of any service since commercial TV. For those reasons alone I would never become a paying customer. What’s worse is they have established themselves as yet another guardian of ideas. Content creators have to be careful not to talk about topics that are deemed out of line by the current msm and liberal zeitgeist. They could have been a great venue for debate during covid for example, but they censored and deplatformed world renowned scientists and doctors who dared question the cdc and wh. YouTube has the best content and I suffer through their UX to consume it but would leave as soon as there is an alternative
It could be seen as defamation. If the block list is titled “nazis” or “antisemetics”, two of the worst labels you can be assigned in modern western society, then you can be publicly described that way with no context or recourse.
The earliest documents we have are lists, but I think it's hard to tell whether you're looking at a shopping list, an inventory, or what. Early scripts tend to be logographic for this reason, if you mostly write stuff like "Ten Amphoras of wine" then a symbol which means "Amphora of wine" seems pretty much as useful as a way to write numbers.
