wojcech

This made me put "sign up on gun.io" on my to-do list. Very cool talk, very sympathetic guy (+1 for rapid fire info,+10 for making a stand for hacker aesthetics and fun in hacking)

> Gov't is already so cheap that we (US) have fluoride in our water, that was planned to be cheap dental care =(.

To understand you correctly, do you think the fluoride is a bad thing? IIRC fluoridated water is amongst the best bang for the buck you can do for healthy teeth, with no downside that I'm aware of (?)

People think taxes are evil but for dome reason will accept warlords?

> This concept implies that it's possible to discover all possible scope before starting a project, which is almost always not the case on any project of relevant scale. This is waterfall.

Difference would be that the team defines their own scope. But I see your point

> The notion of "you'll get the rest of the money when the project is done" is toxic and dangerous, and implies that you can know what done means before you even start, and it's an objective and finite finish line you are approaching.

This one I concede fully

We need to unify this with actually hitting deadlines/making it economically viable, at least until basic income is a working model.

Maybe tie it so that every stage has a payout (20% ln start, 80% on finish or sth like it). First stage ist planning the project, in two stages: first has a fixed compensation based on headcount/"salary". This stage roughly estimates the scope and sets the upper and lower limit of budget. Based on this budget, the second stage does detailed planning, setting out as many sub stages as possible. This second planning stage is added on top of those stages, the total budget is divided between all stages and the first payout is done.

Like this, good planning is rewarded (teams with more stages get more frequent payouts) and there is still some pressure to deliver (payout) but even more to do good work (every stage depends on the previous ones to be doable quickly)

Damn good read

> ... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that.

This is not sufficient to explain to people why there are no rich conspirators hiding wealth. Mind you, I mostly agree with you. But I personally feel we need to have as simple as possible, verifiable, non debated arguments before we are allowed to think of things as silly.

> ... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that, since I assume he is aware of $clear_refutation

Otherwise we either delude yourselves or dismiss others

You can use the Barcode to tie things together... smart pantries and stock monitoring depends on standardised(ideally free) access to identifiers for the goods

This sentiment is so bizarre from a European perspective. So the only thing that stops people from getting an education willy nilly is student debt? Or American engineers are all better in some respects than German engineers because of their debt?

I very much feel by this study...

I grew up with television, books, audio stories=>constant stimulation. I brought books to class to read when it got boring...some teachers let me get away with it(guess who were my favourites).I still crave it and am only slowly learning to relax nowadays. It actually makes interaction with non "hyperstimulated" people hard, because I either steamroll them, interrogate them (because I am interested and give them my full, hungry attention) or zone out because nothing is happening. "Vibing" and hanging out is not easy for me.

I always blamed it on being minimally autistic(not diagnosed and don't want to be insensitive, but some non neuronormative things are there i think)

> It is not unthinkable that the NSA has faked the moon landing and pictures of earth with photoshop / film equipment. You havent been above earth, so how do you know? I think you should be less arrogant at the prospect of somebody having a different opinion than you.

No. Their ignorance is not as important as my knowledge. I didn't go to space, but I can see ships going beyond the horizon and I did do the experiment of two sticks in the ground as a teenager

So how do you ensure that sciencists stay careful and try to be objective, how do you have any objectivity in allocation of funds etc. without some metric? I hate the publish or perish system, but that is due to wrong metrics. If (purely pulling this out of my as, probably a horrible idea) a flimsy study counted negatively to your index and a faulty one outright wrecked it (with complete ruin if you do not redo/retract), that would probably skew the metric optimisation to more carefully thought out, substantial research

It's not only a question of getting enough power IN but also of getting the "consumed" power(waste heat) OUT

> As I pointed out above, the status quo is actually pretty good.

For you. And me. But we are not the majority. The majority does not benefit from automation, globalisation etc. as much as you and me.

And it doesn't matter if in absolute terms we are all better of(for which citation would be needed, specifically for the lowest income bracket), it matters that the benefits of this new age are not spread around to those bearing the costs as efficiently as necessary.

This is why people vote for brexit, trump, afd etc. And no, those don't have the answers either. But they offer convenient scapegoats and changes with "tangible" effect in favour of their voting base.

Politicians on the left and the right are united in their elitism and their own bubbles of what is "important", and they have become disconnected from their populace so much that they can't even coral them effectively any more.