6502nerdface

I wonder how the DJs will react to this hackernews post about them, when and if they find it in their regular searching, or if somebody tweets it at them.

Wait what's wrong with voluntary eugenics? Perhaps the fact that something both "feels like eugenics" and is understood as the "correct medical and scientific thing to do" should cause one to reassess any unexamined, knee-jerk, blanket revulsion to the concept of eugenics that one may have.

James Yeh, Ken Griffin's "first quant" and eventual co-CIO of Citadel, used to say, when annoyed by a junior who was overfitting to the backtest, "I don't let the computer boss me around! I tell the computer what to do!"

All experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But not the right to be forgotten.

> trying to hide a signal in random noise doesn't really work

Actually it works perfectly and it's called a one-time pad!

> This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest.

Shoot, there goes the argument I was planning to deploy against Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.

It's noticeably improving, though! Over the last 10 years or so, both their GDP per capita and household income per capita have roughly doubled. Now when I visit medium-sized cities there I am amazed to find latte-slinging coffee shops and craft beer-pouring gastropubs that would look right at home in Brooklyn.

$8,400 over three years is about $230/month. And aside from the opportunity cost of your labor to optimize that, you should also theoretically account for any purchases that you wouldn't have made if you weren't trying to optimize your points (if any; I'm sure it's hard to attribute).

With current interest rates of around 5%, one could get the same stream of income ($2.8k/y) by just plonking $50k or so into a high-yield savings account or money market fund.

> antitrust lobby

you mean protrust lobby :)

But disassembling/decompiling doesn't give you anything like the original code!

> I am struggling to find the right words to express how wrong your view is to me.

Then surely I have failed to convey it!

In any case, my edited point about "deadweight loss" is perfectly consonant with the parent poster's feeling of guilt, and with what I presume is your feeling of disgust; it is in fact the economic term of art for that at which you intuitively recoil.

(Although you're kind of equating a very, very expensive home, in the overall scheme of things, with the minimum requirements of decency, if you really think that he's exploiting someone's inability to afford housing, but w/e.)

Now let's get into the controversial stuff...

> Housing is a basic human need like food and clothing.

Agreed. But it's also an asset, because someone has to build and maintain it and have exclusive use of (at least parts of) it, and being a basic need doesn't automatically create a right to something (for obvious reasons) so that asset is gonna trade hands voluntarily like any other. Its price will fluctuate, sorry.

Now, NIMBYs using government fiat to drive down housing supply in their market is an annoyingly common failure mode of local democracy, maybe that's all you're upset about.