How could they roll out this marvelous new idea so quickly. Uber was genius to think of this radical concept, "splitting a cab," there is no way Lyft could come up with it so quickly on their own.
Libertarians view of government is, 'I want to be allowed to do whatever I want while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do.' It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought.
Where on earth did you find the "while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do" part?
Libertarians who don't themselves do any drugs (eg, Penn Jillette) still want drugs to be legal for other people. Libertarians who are themselves pacifists still want gun ownership and self-defense to be legal. And so on. It seems to me that this view you think "falls apart" with so little thought doesn't have much to do with libertarianism.
"It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought", except that it is not libertarianism. Before putting any amount of thought into demolishing a "dumb ideology" you should probably put some amount of thought into correctly defining and characterizing what that ideology is. In your terms, libertarian's view of government is more along the lines of 'Everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as what they do doesn't violate the rights of others'.
Apparently for you it still didn't fall apart as you failed to apply any amount of thought to it. If you did you would know there are basic principles in libertarianism from which it is deduced what government can and can not do, and it's not "whatever I want them to do" at all. But that, of course, requires educating oneself about it instead of dismissing it as "dumb ideology", which is obviously much more than many are willing to do.
Their early versions looked closer to a blackberry. The general Jobs assertion is that Google switched to full touch screen after seeing the prototypes.
Theory is dumb when all empirical data disagrees with it. Good thing the Austrian's figured this problem out by ignoring data. It's the true hacker's way.
You have to afford the Austrians some sympathy. They know, just know, that their economic theories are correct and just. However, they kept running into a problem: there's so much troublesome data that proves the opposite of their beliefs. One day, Ludwig von Mises discovered that the scientific method itself was flawed. So he created a new system to replace it by fiat: "praxeology." Problem solved - now science confirms everything Austrians believe. No need for data.
I'm sure you have multiple studies with mountains of data which clearly demonstrate that the economy is at its most prosperous at a marginal tax rate of 100%. Oh, man, you guys are so cute. :)
It was never definitively proven but poorly designed software was considered to be at the heart of a helicopter crash that killed 25 people including almost all of the UK's top North Ireland intelligence experts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Scotland_RAF_Chinook_crash...
Software controls everything from nuclear power stations to missles to dams to radiation therapy machines (where, again, software killed 3 people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)
Proper software engineering is increasingly more important and, I'd posit, likely to become even more important than civil engineering for public safety as time goes on.
I'll agree mission critical software exists. I however imagine there are far more engineering projects across the planets whose failure result in mass casualties than software. There is a reason actual engineers are legally liable for their work.
Real engineering projects every day use software—I don't think you can realistically draw a line between the two, even if there are different auditing standards.
Inflation isn't bad and the only people that think it is are goldbugs with no understanding of economics. Asset backed currency have had MANY more crashes than fiat currencies. Bitcoin is a wonderful experiment in how long it will take people to learn the lessons the world learned over the previous 200~ years.
Congrats, you're a literal child! In turns out in-depth information takes time to properly explain and discuss. If you want a 10 minute summary that teaches you nothing, watch a TEDtalk. If you want to actually learn and understand an issue, read long form journalism.
'I'm not interested in this, i'm not on the west coast.' Y'all should learn where a majority of America's food comes from if you think this doesn't affect every American.
This is sort of a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not building to the most efficient or the greatest form of anything. It's spontaneous change that may or may not survive with no real reference to "the best."
Your comment reminds me of this discussion I had before here on HN and someone made a reply that has stuck with me to this day in its eloquence. I'll quote it here because I want to share what comment I'm talking about but out of context I think it makes little sense and I think you should read the thread [1]–it's very relevant to what we're talking about here.
> Essentially it is trying to say that we are at a global maximum in a space that is probably more nonlinear. In fact our genes may well be suboptimal in some respects even if you think they have "control".
This also seems to misunderstand evolution. You can think of evolution as a hill climbing optimization algorithm, with a complicated and constantly changing fitness metric. While it is true that any given change is random, and even 'good' changes still only succeed with some probability, over a long time period we see a series of incremental improvements. If there is an opportunity to increase efficiency it is likely that evolution would have found it, given how long the process has been running. Of course, this become less likely when we are discussing new features (the thumb is less optimized than DNA because it is so recent), and as the benefit of these optimizations becomes less. They also become less likely if their are fewer evolutionary paths that might lead to them.
That's not how it works. There's no single "global optimum" that lifeforms are evolving towards; there's no final hilltop; there's no intent. This notion of "Evolutionary Teleology" is how we get things like X-Men (which I enjoy for the record, it's not like X-Men is taught in biology class). If there were some global optimum, we'd all have eyesight like Legolas and the color-pallete of a Mantis-Shrimp, instead of a blind spot in the center of our retina.
Evolution just happens, and it is what it is. E.g. Natural Selection didn't "optimize" giraffes so they could reach leaves. Natural Selection is simply a way of explaining that some giraffes had long necks, some had short, and the shorter just happened to die out. Similarly, NBA players didn't "evolve" to play basketball. Some people are tall, and some are short, and the short people just didn't make the cut. "Select" != "Optimize". Evolution is better thought of as a historical accident. We're talking monkeys on a flying rock.
No, he got it exactly right. Evolution is not an algorithm, it doesn't optimize anything, changes are not improvements, it doesn't seek opportunities to improve efficiency.
I think the issue here was assuming that the optimization is the best possible one. It doesn't have to be, it just needs to be good enough to still function given past and present evolutionary pressure.
