theworst

Your comment is useless.

Is this not feature comparable with others in its class? What don't you like about it? Is something not worthwhile if it's not first?

Aaaaand you've convinced me to again eliminate my HN account and spend time elsewhere.

Idiots are the best productivity measure -- they make me not want to be on HN.

I also don't care if they show me pictures of wallets I like over wallets I don't like.

I do care when any third party knows where I've been, what I am interested in, and otherwise monitors my activity.

Like everything, it's a tradeoff. However, I acknowledge my primary concern is myself -- if not tracking me costs other people a slight chance at an opportunity, I'm must conclude to not include that in my calculus. (In fact, it would be to my advantage if I believed it were a zero sum situation.)

Ya, really. Of all the sites I visit and get valuable content from, most of them I pay for. The only outstanding ones I can think of are google search, gmail, and HN. Facebook? NYT? Buzzfeed? Not really in my interest areas.

I'd also waste a lot less time on random stuff if I had to pay for it, so I'd be more productive and make more money!

Yes, it makes sense if you think about that "tax" as the payment for the lottery ticket of a functioning body and brain.

Every person here won that lottery ticket, when we could have just as easily suffered from any number of horrible diseases and disorders. Not wanting to pay higher premiums b/c the "lotto losers" are included is like not wanting to pay for a lotto ticket after the fact because you know the rare outcome won't hit you.

Correct, but that's just because of the inherently unpredictable nature of future telling.

What are the alternatives? One could simply not engage in projections, which is difficult because they're so tempting. A third option is to listen to the non-experts, which doesn't seem more valuable...

This is something I struggle WRT economics. I know economists are little more than fortune tellers, but what are the other options?

I'd just like to say that Disneyland has always felt like BNW to me. In that sense, it seems more realistic, because I've experienced something like it in today's society.

I suppose it depends on how you define "lucked in to".

Even building my own company, bootstrapping over these 5 years, I feel like I lucked into where I am. Not because I'm undeserving, but really because I feel lucky to live in an era where I even have that possibility.

If my world is entirely comprised of SV type startups, perhaps I'd feel differently. But I try to keep some perspective. (As in, I lucked into not being a field hand in 4th century Italy, and instead I can use my brain to manipulate electrons through small finger movements, that supposedly create value enough for other people to transfer electrons into a virtual account of "mine" that I can exchange for goods and services.)

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, it's not intended that way. I really just wanted to point out that people define luck very differently.

IMO, religion is something organized and part of a community. "Spirituality" is when it's something personal (and, as I get older, I am coming to believe is an important part of my life, even though I don't believe in anything supernatural.)

Generally it means that you do not identify with a particular religious sect. It may also mean that you do not believe in the organized supernatural ideas that most religions do.

I don't see it as a goalpost for poverty, more of a milestone -- it's the first symptom of poverty that IMO humanity wants to relieve

Also, what if someone's wealth changes between the ticket and the penalty? If they are rich when given the ticket, but lose it all, is it still fair to charge them the higher rate?

My point is: changing from an absolute value to a relative one introduces complexities in the system. Philosophically, the law needs to treat everyone the same, which to me, means the penalties are the same for everyone regardless of sex, race, income, height, weight, or any other characteristic. This is encoded in the Constitution. I do not see how two different people, convicted of the same crime in the same contexts, should have different punishments. (Yes, I know it happens, but I think that's a bug, not a feature, and wish it would be cleaned up.)

Should we also do prison sentences based on life expectancy?

Suppose the penalty for murder is 50% of your remaining life. Should we put a 20 year old away until he's 50 (assuming 80 years expected lifespan), but only lock a 60 year old up for 10 years?

The argument that I've commonly heard is twofold. One, Manning was in the Army, so lots of his actions fall under military jurisdiction, where the primary concern is not the rights of the accused.

Secondly, Manning dumped a lot of info without knowing what he dumped. Snowden knew what was in the docs he leaked, and he made sure to protect human lives.

That's what I've heard, at least. It seems to make sense to me, but I'm open to having my mind changed if you have a different perspective.