hash872

What? No, tears do not 'heal on their own', that's completely wrong. Famously, labral tears of the shoulder and hip do not heal in the slightest without external surgery- even tiny ones.

That doesn't mean that surgery is always the appropriate treatment (I'm living with a shoulder labral tear that's untreated). But it is not even remotely true that tears heal on their own. Example, I just had an MRI on my tear, and the ortho said it looked exactly the same as the last MRI I had 8 years ago- no better, no worse

The whole 'AI can't automate a lot of jobs, because that's exactly what everyone in the past said about technological advances then!' is a classic fallacious argument. It simply fails as a logical thought pattern. Past technological gains that happened decades or a century plus ago are discrete events separated by time and space from today. 'It didn't happen in the past so it can't happen today' is the same logic as 'I've flipped this coin and gotten heads 5 times, so it will land on heads on every future throw too'. It's completely possible that several times in the past, humanity was wrong about widespread job automation- but they can be right this time.

The whole argument just irritates me on a logical basis. You're basically saying 'the future will unfold exactly the way the past did'. No that doesn't follow at all. We may have dodged widespread automation in past history, but that doesn't mean it will automatically happen every time in the future. You haven't discovered like an Iron Law Of History that repeats every single time. You're just reasoning from a very small sample size and overfitting. Sorry for the rant, the whole argument just annoys me

It's really not that rare for smaller companies. Every two-bit contractor, small landlord who thinks he's smart because he put his properties in an LLC etc. undoubtedly violates the corporate/personal distinction by comingling funds. If an attorney wants to sue Joe The Local Incorporated Contractor, or Alice The Local Slumlord, first thing they're going to do is discovery through a bunch of corporate records- they'll easily find that the owner is mixing personal & corporate cash, credit cards, etc. Takes a good lawyer about 10 minutes

Also there's a big difference between the sites that easily allow you to simply reject whatever their premade cookie settings are. And, the sites that only allow you to use them after you've accepted (example, politico.eu). Or, the sites that do have a 'reject' option, but you have to click through multiple screens and then manually reject each individual option.

Sites that easily allow you to simply reject everything are then a short hop, skip and a jump into browser settings where you auto-reject all cookie/tracking nonsense

Would love to see the overlap between the average anti-Big Tech HN commenter cheering on this regulatory advance, and the average HN commenter who thinks hard drugs should be legalized and that the War on Drugs is bad. Because these are contradictory positions! Either you think people should be free to do things that are addictive or you don't

You read a 63 page paper today?

I'm a bit skeptical that you absorbed these 3 pieces in the time it took you to respond (they are 27, 29, and 63 pages, respectively), but they find a range of effect sizes here- the other two a bit more strongly. I feel comfortable with my original statement, though I suppose there's always room for nitpicking

I don't have time for a longer comment, but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates. The doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, CPA etc. that in past decades would have had his/her income run through a W2 arrangement shifted to becoming a one-person corporation

1. I grew up in a small town, and occasionally ask my parents how mayoral/city council politics is going there. (Or, I check out the latest drama on Facebook about it). My good friend's uncle was our mayor for a long time, etc. People might know personalities, but they're still not following national policy positions. Not to mention that people would be voting purely for personalities/clan/ethnic affiliations, and again not policy- we have a term for that in poly sci, personalism

2. A country of 340 million people with an elected representative from every small town would have an unrealistic number of representatives. 1 for every 5k citizens would be 68,000 reps in the House

I get that you're fetishizing hyper-localism to the exclusion of all else, but it's just a bad basis to run a modern society. This is not a realistic vision

Because the median voter doesn't realistically have that detailed a level of knowledge on legislators/their policies. This is tough for a lot of people to believe- especially the kind of high-information voters who propose these sorts of reforms to begin with. But there's an enormous, multi-decade literature on voter ignorance. They simply don't know much about who's running or what their policies are

Grouchy old political scientist here:

1. Due to geographic sorting smaller districts would be more intensely partisan than today, not less. A smaller land mass is going to be more deeply blue or red

2. A gigantic house would be less cacophonous and boisterous, not more so, because you'd need more hands-on party control to get anything done. It's deeply unrealistic that a huge mass of representatives are going to get anything passed on their own. You'd end up even closer to parliamentary-style party leader control of the House, which personally I'd like to avoid.

Combining these two points, you'd have even more ideologically intense & disciplined parties with smaller districts/a larger House- the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve I think

3. 'Objections based on convenience and space, are not serious in terms of the meaning of the House' this would be news to say Germany, which recently ended its famous 70+ year old MMP system precisely because their lower house kept expanding too much. They found the issue logistically too difficult to deal with, and are now moving to a more classic PR setup

Bonus extra point- the UK already has one of the world's largest lower houses, with relatively small districts and lots of local representation. Is the UK particularly well-governed, do you think? Small single member districts are rent-seeking machines- way too easy for a local rep to get captured by Major Local Employer (or NIMBY group)

OK, but there are some logistical issues here- let's say Alberta votes to secede and this is somehow legally viable. All of the Albertan voters who didn't want to secede- including the native tribes- could then by your rules vote to secede from Alberta and join back to Canada. It'd be a mess. Towns and counties would split themselves in half, and so on.

What would happen if a landlocked town within Alberta wants to rejoin Canada- how would you handle that?

Has anyone had any luck deleting themselves from the data brokers who sell cell data to political texters and/or survey companies? Those are the ones I really want to opt out of