> Watch good foreign films and spin them into Americanized versions
That's the entire history of Hollywood and american music industry. Those businesses who wouldn't like us to share made their fortunes on entirely borrowed things from other cultures. Many of the great revered american singers copied note-for-note traditional african songs, for example.
> My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez).
A couple things. Chavez is of a different category from the other three just on the amount of death under the other regimes. The question of the results of socialism and capitalism is complex. It's worth reading both historical and economically focused works to get a more nuanced view than the one that you've laid out. For a few suggestions:
On historical critiques of the US-centric perspective:
The Jakarta Method, Vincent Bevins
The Darker Nations, Vijay Prashad
A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn
Economic works:
Competing Economic Theories, Richard Wolff
Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, David Harvey
There are more authors (Kliman, Moseley, Shaikh, etc.), but these two would be a good start.
These are works with particular perspectives and should be read as such. If you want competing ideological works, read a standard history book and Hayek, Mises, Friedman, etc.
I'd second the other response's recommendation of Richard Wolff's work. He's a marxist and democratic socialist, so read his work understanding his perspective in relation to your own, whatever that might be. That being said, I found his book Competing Economic Theories on neoliberalism, keynsianism, and marxism to be very fair to all sides.
Richard Wolff's primary argument in favor of socialism is that your employer is stealing from you by making a profit off of your labor. He fundamentally does not understand how markets work.
I am a software engineer. I have a rate of pay that I consider to be more valuable than my labor, for which I will gladly exchange my labor and feel as though I have profited from the transaction. Prospective employers have an amount of labor output that they value more than a rate of pay, for which they will gladly exchange in an attempt to profit from the transaction. We engage in a mutual arrangement, wherein we both walk away having benefitted from the transaction. The fact that the employer has the capacity to profit from my output is not theft. In fact, I would feel absolutely horrible if my employer didn't profit from me at all, because I ALWAYS profit from them.
> He fundamentally does not understand how markets work. I am a software engineer.
I can assure you that the Harvard and Yale educated professor that's written textbooks on the subject knows how markets work. He might be heterodox in his adherence to marxist economics, but he fully understands the orthodox position, almost certainly in more detail than you or I ever will.
It's not just that he's a professor, it's that he has a PhD in economics. The field of economics itself has given the stamp of approval that he both understands the field and has contributed in novel ways to it.
Kurt Wise has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard and is a young earth creationist. Again, just because someone has something on their resume does not therefore mean that they are correct.
The op isn't using the fact Wolff has a PhD in Economics as a argument that he's correct in everything he says, only that the claim that he "doesn't understand how markets work" is absurd on it's face.
Similarly, saying that Kurt Wise doesn't understand geology and paleontology when he has a PhD in the field and has contributed good science is pretty absurd.
Claiming that something is right because it exists as it is under the current system without further justification is equally, if not more short sighted. It's where "plainspeaking" and begging the question combine into a kind of catnip for people that want reinforcement for their impulse towards the status quo. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but I've read one of his recent books and it was full of this sort of thing.
I am not, and nor do I see the quote in question claiming that because something exists it must be right. In fact, I'm arguing against that since it is the same as saying that something being a law does not make it just.
It's not "just" running JS, it's also running JS. Part of the control flow into and out of the native widgets is JS, and part of it is abstractions over scripting bridges employed by RN (and its various forks).
And Option 5 - Invest in research and development: better engines? Lighter materials? Better interior arrangements so that flyers can feel comfortable while you still turn a profit? I get that airlines don't directly create these things, but they could throw their excess cash into R&D contracts for manufacturers...
You can really only increase base compensation when you have the cash and you expect to have that cash down the road as well. Employees are not happy with incomes that are as cyclical as business income is. A bonus could be a good option.
Yes, it's a similar idea. The only difference I can see is that in our library, the dependencies are automatically tracked, and there is some additional clever scheduling around when a function should be run.
Almost, that will set the foundation for fully using the DOM APIs. The host bindings proposal mentioned at the end of the article should close the gap.
The DOM builtins should be helped by the Reference Types Proposal for WebAssembly. [1]
`The host bindings proposal` is going to help speed up new and getter/setter calls. [2]
1:
`Currently the only built-ins that we support this for are mostly limited to the math built-ins. That’s because WebAssembly currently only has support for integers and floats as value types.
That works well for the math functions because they work with numbers, but it doesn’t work out so well for other things like the DOM built-ins. So currently when you want to call one of those functions, you have to go through JavaScript. That’s what wasm-bindgen does for you.
But WebAssembly is getting more flexible types very soon. Experimental support for the current proposal is already landed in Firefox Nightly behind the pref javascript.options.wasm_gc. Once these types are in place, you will be able to call these other built-ins directly from WebAssembly without having to go through JS.`
2: `there are still a couple of built-ins where you will need to go through JavaScript. For example, if those built-ins are called as if they were using new or if they’re using a getter or setter. These remaining built-ins will be addressed with the host-bindings proposal.`
"A new proposal has been made to the WebAssembly specification committee a few months ago: to add reference types to the type system. Reference types are a new way to represent a reference to any host values. In a Web environment, this means being capable of playing with JavaScript values within WebAssembly. This is a huge difference with the existing type system, which only contains primitive types: integers represented on 32 or 64 bits, IEEE754 floating-point numbers represented on 32 or 64 bits. This is also a first step for implementing garbage collection (GC) integration within WebAssembly: since these reference values have been allocated on the GC heap in JavaScript, they need to be traced during wasm execution."
There is nothing fake about the news coverage that CNN provides. It cannot be honestly or rationally equated with the fake news phenomenon that we saw on Facebook during the election.
Also, 538 was the most accurate model during the election. They were the only ones fighting against the narrative that it was a sure win for HC.
Cutting out sugar to the level described in the article and expecting a long list of health benefits is just as extreme as diets from the low fat craze were 20-30 years ago. It amazes me that this kind of misinformation continues to thrive.
You need minimum a amount of fat and protein to survive, but glucose can be metabolised from either of those. Sugar has no other nutrients, and the processing of fructose by the liver produces hormones which suppress satiety. Given these, there is no reason why you shouldn't cut it out, meaning that this is the first 'diet fad' I can actually support because, to be honest, I don't see any negatives.
They're all just attempts to simplify. Actual balanced diet and nutrition is really conplicated and has no formal fast rules. Picking an ingredient (sugar) or macronutrient (carbs, protein) and demonizing it makes the story simple, and something that someone with no interest in nutrition can follow.
"Eat all things in moderation" I think is good advice, but it's too vague for anyone to take it.
So we can expect at least a few more generations of bogus diet books before people will accept nutritionally balanced human chow, which is the true simple way to do it right. :)
Eat in moderation is good advice. The problem is that refined sugar is a recent invention that the human body is not designed to handle well. And one consequence is that it tends to fuel hunger and so steers people away from eating in moderation.
Exercise makes your hungry, so it is particularly hard to eat less when exercising more. So it doesn't work for most people, because they aren't able to to both.
The problem, most scientists agree, is that exercise makes us want to eat. Many studies have shown that if people start a new exercise program, their bodies begin to pump out much higher levels of various hormones that increase appetite. This reaction seems to be most pronounced if someone starts a new, moderate, aerobic exercise routine. (There are hints in some studies that intense exercise, such as interval training, may dampen appetite. But the relevant studies have been few and small.)
'eat less' is not the same as 'eating a balanced diet'. There's plenty of people out there who eat a small but terrible diet. I knew a guy in IT once who lived on a diet of basically chips and Coke. He was rail-thin, but his doctor diagnosed him with scurvy (!)
Well, I am assuming people eat normal food. Like, you know, bread, cheese, eggs, meat, tomatoes and potatoes... Who the hell lives on chips and Coke...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Games_(film)