lemonlime · HackerTrans

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

I'm not sure we need more suburbs. At the scale they're on today, they're unsustainable without massive subsidies from city dwellers. They're bad for the environment, bad for health, probably bad for the community in general, etc. This is not a two-equal-sides situation IMO.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

No one who understands how much 6,000 calories is could make this claim.

That would mean they need to eat 8,000 calories a day for a normal 2000 calorie diet. That's like Michael Phelps level. That's like: leave the tournament, go back to your hotel and eat 7-8 medium dominos entire pizzas in a sitting. I hope I don't need to explain that this is not what chess masters are doing.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

To the contrary, you're being underly skeptical. This is a huge claim to base of a sample size of one guy at one event.

To state the obvious that I hope doesn't need to be said to this audience: a sample size of one tells us exactly nothing. What's saying this one guy one time didn't have a nasty stomach bug?

A crazy claim like this requires some kind of study not just one guy's story.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates.

Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay the prices, but it's worth it to live in an area like SF.

One of the only places on the planet in human history that people put this much energy and money into just living somewhere.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Their reasoning in Roe is pretty detailed and they do not come anywhere close to saying that the right to privacy legalizes everything done in private. Have you read Roe v Wade?

Let's look at fraud. Who do you think is arguing that fraud is illegal if done in private. Can you link me to any example anywhere on any medium?

Which part of the article do you think is relevant here? I have read many books by actual constitutional law scholars on these cases. I don't understand what you think I'm supposed to see in a 1,000 word blog post by a random non lawyer that doesn't know anything in particular about constitutional law.

>I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic.

I'm not just insisting it's a strawman. It is a straw man. Can you link me to any argument made by anyone ever on any medium that is even remotely close to what he is saying? (that everything done in private, say, fraud, murder, arson, etc.) should be legal?

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Sure. Have you read Roe v. Wade. Where do you get the idea that it's eerily close? Can you quote the specific words from that decision?

Here are some that are at odds with what you are saying:

"The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past."

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

No, it is not. Lawrence v. Texas was accepted by SCOTUS for privacy purposes only to examine this extremely narrow question:

“2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

To spell it out: "adult consensual sexual activity" is not even remotely close to "everything".

You're also wrong on abortion. Directly from Roe v. Wade:

"The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past."

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Can you tell me where you got the idea that "it's quite similar to the current reason abortion is legal"?

None of these are arguing everything done in private should be legal. Even the most extreme argument (not accepted by SCOTUS) is that things you do to your own body are protected.

But if you do something (say, fraud), in private, no one is arguing you should have a right to privacy.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal.

No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about.

You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

"Collectives agreements" are not an innovation. Underlying value is precisely, simply and only, a collective agreement (made by the market, instantaneously in real time billions of times a day) about how much something is worth.

Absolutely zero innovation there.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yeah when I read takes like the guy you're responding to, I have to wonder: where should the money go if not to the people that built the product? Management? Shareholders? You can say that but those people are doing less work for more money already, so I don't buy it.

Engineers like many people that build useful things, provide orders of magnitude more value than what they get for their labor.

lemonlime

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

The vast majority of engineers earning these salaries work for "startups" like Google minting huge amounts of money on software built by these engineers. They are underpaid if anything. Do you really think management or shareholders (that get paid more for doing less) are the underpaid ones in this equation? Where else would the money go?

The amount of revenue per employees at some of these companies is in the 7 figures.

The "vast majority of startups" is not a useful unit of measure. Look at where all the people and the money actually are (FAANG).

comments