Well one thing can lead into the other over time. If you can lift 405 once, 315 for reps becomes pedestrian and 225 becomes boring. Lifting that much weight will turn you into a monster faster than if you had not pushed for that capacity. I've seen people who can treat a 225lb barbell as if it's unloaded and 100% of them look like dragon ball Z characters.
Body mechanics, leverage, and neuro-muscular connection definitely come into play. I could deadlift 430lbs for reps at my peak, and I while I was no string bean, I also didn't look all that muscular compared to the other lifters at my gym. I have ridiculously long arms relative to my height and relatively shorter legs, which gives me an advantage for deadlift. I had monstrous-looking guys watch me lift and then ask me what stack I was on. They didn't believe me when I said I was natural.
The funny thing is I’ve never seen an author of a post chime in and say “hey! I wrote this entirely myself” on an AI accusation. I either see sheepish admission with a “sorry, I’ll do better next time” or no response at all.
Not saying the commenters never get it wrong, but I’ve seen them get it provably right a bunch of times.
I’ve been really impressed by how much I’ve learned listening to Panic World. At first I thought it was a humor show but it’s basically internet anthropology detailing all the ways the internet makes us insane.
Couldn’t you also say it’s largely unfactual, since the vast majority of strivers and grinders never escape their economic class?
I guess it depends on what opportunity means to you. Does it mean something that’s “likely” or “less than one in a thousand”? To me, a “one in a thousand” chance to strike it rich is not good enough to justify the immense suffering our economic system causes.
Our economic system is actually the only thing that reduces suffering to this extent. It’s basically eliminated poverty, hunger, and healthcare scarcity.
I don’t think we need zero-sum framing for a lot of the things we talk about, and the fact that we do is the result of politics, not the policies per se.
I don’t think my system is zero sum! Acknowledging that some population will be harmed is not saying it’s equal and opposite to the benefits. Medicare for all is useful to many, many people. But it does have downsides to some populations: the ownership class loses some amount of power and control, wealthy people with excellent private healthcare are likely to have worse outcomes, the healthcare insurance industry would likely be decimated.
I don’t consider that zero-sum, the benefits far, far outweigh the downsides to me.
These are the practical impacts of implementing a policy. I do not believe in some technocratic ideal where we can logic our way out of resource distribution causing some people to lose things.
How does the ownership class lose benefits under Medicare for All (MFA)? What does ownership class mean? Let’s compare China and U.S., the former has near universal healthcare, but also an unemployment rate of 20%. The U.S. spends more on Medicare than it does for Defense, and the bulk of that money goes to the healthcare industry in all its forms. They don’t touch the healthcare industry function because it’s the largest employment sector in the U.S., and comparably robust for employment even during periods of economic downturn, see the current 4.6% unemployment rate. If we did get MFA in the U.S., you can expect job cuts in the healthcare industry. So the U.S. gets by with paying for Medicare and Defense, and the balance to this is state-based healthcare, and something like ACA subsidies, while ensuring a relatively low unemployment rate.
I also don’t understand how in your example MFA results in lesser healthcare for wealthy people, that hasn’t been the case in any country with universal healthcare programs.
Let’s also examine the geopolitical angle in all this. The U.S. healthcare system is increasingly made a political issue as a way to induce societal pressure to reduce defense spending, and allocate it elsewhere. I am not taking any stance on this, but this point is often ignored for any number of reasons.
The ownership class will 1) have to pay more in taxes and 2) will lose power over their employees who under the current system are pressured to keep their jobs or lose healthcare.
As for lesser outcomes, I’m not sure how it works practically, you’re probably correct. My understanding is the current system trades based on who can pay, and m4a works triage based on need. So given the same healthcare bandwidth, I assumed those who push to the front of the line based on pay would no longer be able to do so.
Medicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it. It’s likely that changing the calculus of the healthcare industry will result in job losses, but I guess it depends on how MFA is implemented. If taxes are increased on all earners to pay for universal healthcare, then the employer burden on providing payments towards health insurance will likely decrease. In this case, maybe there might be increase in hiring because it doesn’t seem healthcare is much impacted by AI. But this is all guesswork.
I also don’t think there’s a strict technical definition for “owner class”, it’s a catch-all political smear term used by Marxist-Leninists to enforce social stratification, and alienate community members from each other.
Who is an owner? The homeowner that could lose everything without a job? The business owner that could be bankrupt in 3-4 quarters? Or is there some arbitrary income threshold? A lot of people are hand to mouth without their jobs, including some earning 500K per year. Even millionaires end up having to work normal jobs if their lifestyle eats up their reserves. Or is it investors? Basically, everyone via their homes or retirement accounts; 65% of Americans are homeowners, and 75% have retirement savings, and 62% invest in stocks. Reasonably, I think unless your family unit has sustained inter-generational wealth (I mean wealth, not high-incomes), you wouldn’t meet the technical definition of this term, if it had a strictly defined one.
“Medicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it“
I’m unsure of your point on this one. Both recent fleshed-out m4a policy proposals (Bernie and Warren’s from 2020) pay for m4a with increased taxes. Are you disputing the point that taxes to pay for m4a will not disproportionately come from the wealthiest Americans? My understanding is lower income Americans would pay a little more in taxes but would make it back (and more) in healthcare savings. Extremely high income Americans would pay a lot more in taxes and would absolutely not make it back in healthcare savings. That is effectively a savings for lower income people and a cost for rich people.
This entire thread feels like a pedantic tangent to my original point: policy decisions result in benefits to some groups and costs to others. Do you disagree with that? We’re so deep in the weeds I cannot tell your high-level point here.
It’s funny to me that because Sanders and Warren said that’s the way it might be done, then you think that’s the only way it could be done. You’re stuck in a zero-sum way of thinking, or you just want to take from people who’ve aggrieved you. That’s the problem, I think, that instead of reflecting on how you could possibly be biased in your thinking, by using words like owner class, you think me pointing out that bias is a pedantic tangent. There’s not much else to say here then.
Were they a python engineer? I interview folks all the time in languages I don’t understand, and I ask dumb questions throughout the interview. I’ve been a professional (non-python) programmer for over a decade now and I don’t really know what :-1 means, I can guess it’s something like slicing until the last character but idk for sure.
yes, they were (theoretically) a python developer, should have mentioned this was an ML role (your guess is right, slice just before the last char)
Just to be clear: the main problem is not that they did not know what `:-1` was - there are many weird syntax additions with every version - understandable.
IMHO the problem is that there's usually a single interviewer that decides go/no go.
We all have biases, so leaving such an important decision (like hiring an EM) to one person is, (again IMHO) ...stupid .
The point is that the MTA is deeply in the red even though it still charges significant fares. Meanwhile, systems like the London Tube manage to recover at least their operating costs without charging fares that are much if at all higher.
According to a quick search the nyc subway is $2.90 rising to $3 next year. This is comparable to, but slightly less than a zone 1 off peak ticket in London at £2.70. Most journeys are more expensive (on the train, busses are pretty cheap here)
I cannot tell if the author would agree with this, but here’s my take:
There’s nothing wrong with using the ?? operator, even liberally. But in cases where 1) you don’t think the left side should be undefinable at all or 2) the right side is also an invalid value, you’re better off with an if-statement and handling the invalid case explicitly.
But I’ve used ?? thousands of times in my code in ways unrelated to 1) and 2).
Trivial example:
const numElements = arr?.length ?? 0
IMO this is fine if it’s not an important distinction between an array not existing and the array being empty, and gives you an easier to work with number type.
I definitely do agree with this! It's a very helpful operator in a lot of cases. I think the two cases you point out are prime examples of cases where I would prefer _not_ to encounter them.
reply