Maybe stop banhammering newbies simply because you think their question about obscure arcane algorithm #44462 is too similar to an even more arcane question 10 years ago about algorithm #783429 and its immediately obvious to a regular with a pH.D in quantum statistics.
The only major support site I'm aware of with a 'stupid questions' punishment policy. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself except its implemented in such a draconian and nontransparent way. Demerits never seem to expire, even after years of no 'stupid' posts and theres no explanation where they come from.
The bizarre thing is even with this and newbies banned left and right it seems the admin is on another planet running some other website as all they want to talk about is social justice and how evil heteronormative SO users somehow can psychically tell who is a woman or minority and supposedly harassing them to epidemic proportions but nobody somehow ever sees this.
Maybe get a handle on a few real basic problems before you start crowing about your geewhiz new bot.
> Maybe stop banhammering newbies simply because you think their question about obscure arcane algorithm #44462 is too similar to an even more arcane question 10 years ago about algorithm #783429 and its immediately obvious to a regular with a pH.D in quantum statistics.
You don't get banned for questions closed as duplicate, what are you talking about?
Yes you do. Among other things. Its one of the things that counts toward your 'demerit' score. Or at least it certainly appears to. Theres people who haven't done anything but ask a couple 'stupid questions' that were answered before that were modded. Of course their moderation policy is so opaque only the admin could tell you exactly what happened.Or maybe not since they seen keen to adapt the 'Google approach' of having their bots take over sight unseen.
He posts questions that are duplicates but are only obvious duplicates if you're have a PhD in quantum statistics. And he attracts downvotes and gets demerits. Most SO users don't have PhDs, therefore most of the the downvotes and demerits must be due to something mystifying.
The procedure is not opaque because:
Well, maybe his questions may be regarded differently by other people, and then it makes sense.
There's a rule on meta.stackoverflow.com that each such complaint must point to an example question. A good rule.
Oh they definitely downvote you simply for closed questions.Which you'd know if you regularly used the site or didn't assume that I was unfamiliar with it. Also the bans might be temporary but the demerits last for years at least. I know because I have ones from 2016. Of course most of what you and I are might say about actual policy isn't certain since its all hidden. The mark of bad moderation policy is hidden/vague policy but the overwhelming practice in most places including here.
There is a ton of need for skilled blue collar jobs and there are plenty of well paying ones available. More than jobs for ethnic studies majors. This is not opinion this is fact.
Bay Area has more jobs than it does housing for the people who work those jobs. There just isn't an option for everyone to move away from the bay area and still have work.
Take your "I've got mine so screw everyone else" attitude out of the bay area, we don't have room here for people with so little empathy for their neighbors.
It's a fair comment. You entirely brushed aside point 3 by using a personal criticism on the parent poster to ignore the fact that rent control is imposing a cost on an entire massive state, in order to regulate a thing that is an issue in a small number of counties.
Every tenant, regardless of what county they live in, needs basic protections for their home.
This law is not targeted at SF per-se because SF already has strong rental protections, this law offers the bare minimum of protection for everyone in the state. The bay area should, and must, pass stronger protections than this statewide law.
"There just isn't an option for everyone to move away from the bay area and still have work."
>>>>>>>>>
If you can't afford to live in a box in San Jose, obviously staying isn't an option either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Take your "I've got mine so screw everyone else" attitude out of the bay area, we don't have room here for people with so little empathy for their neighbors."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh I don't live in the Bay Area. Theres an entire nation outside of San Francisco, large parts of which are better than the bay area in every objective fashion other than this weird cult obsession with having to live in the poop filled streets of Silicon Valley.
Why do people NEED to work in san francisco/LA? You may think you're contributing something valuable being a barista or adjunct ethnic studies professor in the Bay Area but if you can't survive there maybe the others don't agree. Move to a house bigger than a shoebox with less traffic, less filth, and less crazy politicians, and lower costs. Whats the hangup? I don't understand these people who watched pirates of silicon valley and now they have to live in a shack on location.
You are right that it is a bit weird and hard to understand why productivity differs so much.
But that labour productivity (eg measured in salaries the market can bear) differs so much is a fact. Whether we like it or not.
That puzzle is mostly about productivity differences for tech workers. For the baristas in the Bay Area relatively standard explanations like the Baumol effect do most of the explanatory work.
The productivity is higher because you have one of the highest concentrations in the world of big companies at the top of the field employing the best people and most resources. Not rocket science.
This has nothing to do with people that think they deserve to work there (which I frankly don't get what the big deal is, you're not a teenager scoping out the best colleges anymore) but obviously the marketplace disagrees.
I'm not sure it has much to do with anyone deserving anything. It's just good for the economy if more people work in more productive places.
So if the best companies could employ more people in those places and pay them high salaries, those people would also pay high income taxes that could finance public infrastructure for the rest of the country.
Yeah, thats why we're seeing oodles of houses now that the Democrats practically control all of california. Are you trying to argue that the current one party rule is a good thing?
You having problems reading your past posts? You just basically said evil Republicans are blocking common sense housing solutions and indicated the solution is an even greater proportion of Democrats but then said that a Democrat blocked it and their numbers don't matter.
Yep, everybody and their mother that I went to school with aspired to become a doctor. There should be absolutely no shortage. Getting to more reasonable numbers doesn't seem like it would worsen the already abysmal quality we're getting now with sleepwalking insanely overworked physicians.
>> Yep, everybody and their mother that I went to school with aspired to become a doctor. There should be absolutely no shortage.
There is a shortage...sort of...there is a very limited quota of Medical Resident spots opened up by various AMA medical boards (read: cartel.) There are a line of aspiring physicians, but they can only practice as board certified specialists if the boards open up seats, and there is a forced constrained supply (probably to increase wages for those inside the club.)
If you can consistently wake up at 430AM in a standard workday and just carve out 5 hours of freetime in addition to the time others have you're either a savant, an inhuman monster who doesn't need sleep, or your job probably doesn't require you to do that much. Either way I'm not going to take your advice too seriously when it comes to universality.
Children. I get up about 4:45 AM. Thirty minutes for myself, then microwave my son's bottle. Twenty minutes to get him ready, if I'm lucky, then twenty more to get to a diner that opens at 6 for breakfast. Daycare opens at 6:30, at work at 7AM. Don't work more than 10 hours because daycare closes at 6PM.
Yeah, Before Children (BC) the World is your oyster.
> Children. I get up about 4:45 AM. Thirty minutes for myself, then microwave my son's bottle.
Sure, but that's when kids are fairly young. That'll pass when he heads off to primary school (elementary?). Well until the next one and then you decide NO MORE! :)
> Don't work more than 10 hours because daycare closes at 6PM
My advice would be cut that back to eight hours at most (or else burn out will hit you), unless of course you've got some mad distanced round trip between office/home/daycare in which case that's understandable. Or you get paid a stupidly amazing salary where sticking this out for 5-7 years means you can extricate yourself to a slower pace of life.
The good thing about children is every phase will pass. Them waking uber early will gradually lessen and you will be able to get up a bit early and enjoy some time to yourself. I’m finally past the super early phase with my second and I can now get up early and play guitar with no interruptions.
I do this. I exercise, chill out, and then write fiction for a few hours before I go to work.
I wouldn't say I'm an overachiever but I do work at a fairly high-pressure, competitive BigCorp. Haven't been fired yet, and my performance reviews are fine. The truth is that if somebody else owns 100% of your highest level creative output, he owns your soul too, and I'm just not down for that.
It does mean making sacrifices in other areas, but for me personally the alternatives are worse. Obviously not everybody has the luxury of so much (theoretical) free time.
It's amazing to me how many of the responses in this thread missed the "and" clause in the first sentence. If you're getting up early and your kids get up an hour or so after you, you don't have "5 hours of free time[sic]".
I tried this regime back in the 90's for a year or so in my late 20's. Woke up at 4:45am, showered, coffee, quick listen to the news on Radio 4 then read a book for an hour, fiddled with some code for work then jumped in the car to head to work at 8am.
At the time I was also a field engineer so I could be sent off on a 400 mile round trip to resolve a customer issue on-site. The drive to the office was 50-60 mins as well.
During the working week I often I wasn't getting home until around 7:30pm and by 9:30pm I was dead to the world.
It was shit. I had no social life and wouldn't see friends until the weekend (usually a Saturday because on a Friday I was buggered - I did in fact fall asleep in the pub one night after just one pint).
In the end I thought "fuck this", went back to my old regime of fall out of bed at 7:45am'ish, coffee, jump in car and life significantly improved. I got to see my pals in the evening if I wanted to and could also spend a couple of hours in the evening fiddling with code, reading books and even watching a bit of telly.
So yeah I kinda wholeheartedly agree with your comment.
2 children (1 can no longer be classified as young) and I get up between 4-5 most days. Occasionally I have breaks where I sleep in till 10 am (lol - see aforementioned kids) but it's definitely doable. Just don't be dogmatic and listen to your body.
I have young children and waking up at 5am every morning is a life saver for me. By the time I finish the bedtime routine at night I'm usually too drained to do much that's productive, but by waking up at least 90 minutes before the rest of the house it gives me valuable quiet time to after a decent night's sleep to get things done.
That was me too when I had a toddler at home. I got a lot done before the "work day" began and in the evening I was too fried to do much more than be a good member of the family.
Also could we maybe get an example of a person with a real job doing this? "Employee engagement" isn't exactly the kind of thing that requires, you know, faculties.
Accepting that actively managed funds are better than passive index funds is basically acceptance of the classical mentality that there are people who can consistently predict and beat the market and that you can make money by picking the 'right guy'.
I assumed most knowledgeable investors abandoned that philosophy in the 80s/90s
(This is my understanding of the artical with some help from other comments. I probably use some words incorrectly but I think you can get the jist)
TLDR: He is't abandoning the current stance that passive > active but rather is discussing the real value of the underlying assets.
And he isn't challenging on that stance either. I don't think the artical is out right advocating people to switch their personal investments from a passive index fund to an active one since he & we both know that passive funds tend to do as well or better than active funds after accounting for fees.
However, the article (at least how I understood it) is saying total effect of everyone moving their money into ETFs and index funds means that the underlying stocks have an increasing risk of becoming or being overvalued since no one is checking the underlying stocks/companies anymore. As someone just tangentially interested in this topic I've thought of this before in a more tangable way: since every college graduate or hacker news type person knows that index funds are the best then at some point 'everyone' or enough of the population has a stake in index funds that it's likely to be overvalued.
The market should/could correct as expected: undervalued companies go unnoticed longer since everyone is passively investing causing actively managed funds to have higher yields (since they can get 'all' of the undervalued companies passive investors miss) and people adjust their holdings accordingly. However, as a few other users stated there a few issues trying to hedge against a buble:
1. Solvency - The market remains 'irrationally' attatched to passive/index funds which means that index funds continue to beat active funds anyway despite their 'real' value/gains being pure speculation. It's difficult convincing people to let you manage their money when your making 4% and the S&P400 is making 8-11% so remaining solvent is an issue.
2. Systemic Risk - Large markets & financial products are intertwined so if index funds are overvalued then it effects the economy & financial institutitions and if it crashes/pops then it sends a shock wave throughout all of them. Finding a hedge that isn't effected by a bubble in one financial product (CDOs, index funds, etc) can be tricky.
Seems a bit backward to me. Why should we care so much more about kid's privacy than adult privacy? Are you really more concerned that people know about your Barney the Magical Dinosaur addiction at 8 than your sordid affair at 32? Would you much rather keep secret that you walked back and forth from kindergarten everyday than your employers confidential design files?
Adults and teens have secrets, kids relatively speaking for the most part don't, at least not ones worth protecting through strenuous tech laws. Okay okay, I get that we don't want them vulnerable to be manipulated into stealing their parents money. And Google is as always scrum. But the general laser focus on kids when we should be concentrating on everybody seems just like another think of the children hysteria.
The only major support site I'm aware of with a 'stupid questions' punishment policy. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself except its implemented in such a draconian and nontransparent way. Demerits never seem to expire, even after years of no 'stupid' posts and theres no explanation where they come from.
The bizarre thing is even with this and newbies banned left and right it seems the admin is on another planet running some other website as all they want to talk about is social justice and how evil heteronormative SO users somehow can psychically tell who is a woman or minority and supposedly harassing them to epidemic proportions but nobody somehow ever sees this.
Maybe get a handle on a few real basic problems before you start crowing about your geewhiz new bot.