zeahfj

Why do you recommend against gigster specifically? Just curious given that Andreessen funded them.

I'm sure Nasim is talking about perception and not 'reality.' As the saying goes "perception is reality," I think you'll find that objective reality is not very important in the domain of culture.

I think the history is important for expectation management alone. It took a world of very smart people many hundreds of years to get to where we are today and there are still many open questions. It's probably ok that you as a student don't understand it all at once.

How would it be less of a Monad than the IO Monad? That's the part I'm not getting. It would make sense to me if neither were considered monads.

Would it be fair to say that the IO Monad get passed along implicitly with the other Monads in an eager evaluating system? Would this make it a stack? Just one that's not represented or enforced by the type system.

The quote is one I agree with and I thought I should give its origin. I do not agree with everything Winston Churchill has said or done, and I probably disagree with him more than most (even of those on the left).

But perhaps some context is in order.

At that time India was pretty terrible. E.g. burning at the stake of widows after their husbands died. Even Marx found that the British occupation was a civilizing force. It could be argued that the occupation in its totality and for all of it's faults was a net positive.

Obvious fascism is obvious. Which is why George Orwell's books are dedicated to the less obvious fascisms. And it's why I made the point on political correctness, because it's less obvious.

> By the very nature of the monad laws, they cannot have side-effects, so they cannot be eager.

I'm pretty sure monads can have side effects and be eager. It's just that not everything will be captured by the type signature. AFAIK this does not prevent it from being a monad. You can have monads without any type signature. Also, AFAIK the eagerness is a requirement due to the potential for errors changing program flow that is not captured by the type signature. But AFAIK this does not prevent it from being a monad.

AFAIK monads only have to conform to the monad laws, bind and return.

I'd like to know if I'm wrong because I'm concerned with the conflation of monads and language features of haskell. Specifically we can benefit from monadic composition without making javascript into haskell. I think Erik Meijer has been rather damaging in this regard. I know I'm in the minority so I'd like to be proven wrong so I can come join the party :)

As long as the methods used to uphold political correctness does not use state or taxpayers subsidised institutions then it's ok. That's just normal society organization with freedom of association. If you need to use the state to enforce beliefs on others, that is where it becomes fascist.

Socialism is "fascism with a human face", the “The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists.” - Winston Churchill.

No need for a global system in taxes to reduce wealth disparity. Just need to stop subsidising speculation. Due to agency costs (information asymmetry etc.) it's harder to make large returns on large amounts so the wealth levels off. The problem with a global system in taxes is that the taxes will just be used to subsidise more speculation.

That is it's intent but ironically it increased the amount of savings required to retire so ordinary people couldn't participate in the speculation but still have to pay tax to subsidise it. It's huge wealth transfer from ordinary people to the finance industry.

In order to maintain an ever increasing wealth disparity society will have to become more fascist and taxes more confiscatory. To prevent this you simply need to fight fascism in all its forms (including socialism and political correctness). This is guaranteed to happen eventually as fascist states are inherently unstable.

Not market forces, see reserve bank interventions. Deflation is not disastrous for economic productivity but it is a side effect of economic productivity. Taxes on earned income vs capital is a regressive tax system on the working class and a subsidy to the upper class. Owner-occupiers and first-time buyer subsidies are subsidies to the speculators. Increase in house prices happen the moment such policies are implemented to capture the entire benefit. The policies are only implemented after speculators have invested and drive up housing prices. This only benefits speculators (who can also be first-time buyers).

Firstly, savings are not currency although they are used interchangeably with the assumption that currency is safe. This is not guaranteed to hold. Secondly, with rehypothecation the same currency is counted at least 9 times (M2 money supply). I'd contest that it's 50 to 100 times due mechanisms to get around the 10% reserve requirement - but this is difficult to explain. Thirdly, the increase in savings is dwarfed by speculation that the savings is backing and the resulting mix or risk reward when combined is still speculation. As in this is not unencumbered savings. And finally, the wikipedia link has a long list of references from people who are wrong about everything.

It only destroys imagined wealth and not actual wealth (more useful stuff is created). In the current system the new wealth creation is skewed to the already wealthy, hence why the majority will see a decline in living standard and the feeling of the destruction of the economy. However wealth disparities takes money to maintain, and it is inefficient. It requires taxpayer subsidies to be maintained. If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. So it's not AI or robots that will destroy the economy it's high income taxes and low capital taxes.

This article is all kinds of wrong. It does not make an appreciable difference between savings, investing, and speculation. There is not a glut in savings but there is a glut in speculation. This is due to a global war on savers. Savers are punished by artificially low interest rates, inflation of money supply, high taxes on earned income, and subsidies to speculators (e.g. various housing subsidies).