patdennis

Joined 14 years ago

Karma
1,217
Submissions
181
Member since
Apr 14
twitter.com/patdennis
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 11 years ago
1) If you put all of your money in exactly 17 years ago, then, yes. You would be at the same place.

2) It still would've been paying you dividends that entire time

3) If you, rather than investing an imaginary lump sum at the top of the market 17 years ago, invested slowly as your savings accumulated over time, you would be ahead.

The FTSE hasn't exactly been sitting still all those 17 years.

Comment · 11 years ago
Ehhh gonna have to nitpick again

> there's no resource to allow the citizen to drill down into the actual argument as deeply as they'd like, so they can try to understand it to the depth that a close adviser would.

There are tons of resources [one example: http://www.vox.com/cards]. But the reason we have a republic is so that individuals don't need to become policy experts. They can rely on heuristics and the system is robust enough to handle it. This usually works pretty well

>go back to voting while uninformed. Which is really what the politicians want, anyway.

Most pols don't want this. Politicians want informed voters so people will be aware of the extreme efforts they go through to make their constituents happy. Election positions are determined based on polls, and extreme rigorous scientific effort goes into shaping candidates who are able and want to represent the policy desires of their constituents. (sure, the politicians might not actually believe these things, but to me that's usually irreverent. They want to be hired to do a job, which is representing the views of other people) The problem is, uninformed voters are more willing to switch sides based on emotion, ruining the math.

Informed citizens would be bad for some politicians (for example, blue state republicans who have to walk the line between the demands of their extremely conservative donors and their more moderate constituents). While some would do better with more informed voters (conservative red state democrats, for example, would be more able to shed the reputation of their national party and run on their conservative values if fewer people voted on policy as opposed to heuristics)

Basically, it's complicated

Comment · 11 years ago
>most politicians have private meetings where they talk about what they actually think is going on, and then translate it into brain-deadening messaging for the public

Yes, sort of, but the reality of these things are so well understood all politicians that there's not often that much of a reason to discuss these things outright.

When a politician (and by "politician," I do not mean a single person. I mean an amalgam of the politician, their staffers, and their advisers) are weighing an issue, the actual merits of the arguments are just a part of the equation. They're weighing the interests of various groups and constituencies, they're considering coalitions and alliances and favors, and making a pragmatic decision. Usually a mix of their conscience, their constituents, their fundraisers, and their party.

Rand is a bit of an outlier on this front because he is a legitimate True Believer, but he's still a pragmatic true believer.

Then they hire someone like me to turn it into the soul deadening messaging.

But, yes, these people understand both sides of the issue. They are usually very smart. And if they don't understand the other side of the issue, their close advisers do.

Comment · 12 years ago
This has been national news all day. It's been the top news story in Ohio all day. National news has moved on.
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
It's an interesting philosophical question, but intent is something that judges are much better at deciding than computer programs. And laws are generally written to be executed by judges (or, by extension, the threat of litigation).

Fun to think about, though. Especially if you start thinking about writing alternate endings, etc.

Comment · 12 years ago
That's where the Kiss Trust's attorney is located, according to the posted letter.
Comment · 13 years ago
I always base my opinions on complicated policies and legal proceedings based on one second hand anecdote about "this guy I know"
Comment · 13 years ago
I use duck duck go as my default in my search bar, but I rarely actually use it to search the web directly. Instead, I use the !bang features to get where I need to go faster without taking my hands off the keyboard. Some examples:

ctrl-t !w cyclocross

ctrl-t !g site:ohio.gov filetype:pdf economic development

ctrl-t !image sad reaction gif

Comment · 13 years ago
You're suggesting there are groups where I don't support targeting such a culture?

Edit: Yes, I support targeting a culture of violence, period. Areas of disproportionate violence, like vulnerable minorities, need disproportionate targeting.

Edit2: You admit that there's been a cultural change away from gay bashing. Doesn't that indicate that cultural change can and does work in preventing sanctioned violence against vulnerable minorities?

Edit3, in response to below: I'm on Hacker News for fun. Do you really think it never occurred to me that nerds get beat up?

Comment · 13 years ago
Of course violence has to be targeted and stopped, regardless of the reason.

But cultural change is important. Lynchings were bad because of the violence, but just as bad was the culture that lead to such violence being sanctioned. Gay bashing is horrible, but the culture that sanctions it is also horrible. Same with trans bashing, but there has been less progress at targeting that culture. Include nerds in the targeted groups, there.

Sure, maybe you don't agree that targeting the culture that sanctions violence is important, but a lot of people disagree with you there, including me.

Comment · 13 years ago
> Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class.

The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed.

This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing".

These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc.

Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.

Comment · 13 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton