Posts by Eric Olson

There are a number of problems...

With welfare as practiced today with goods and services as the main benefit, with a side of cash, as well as the idea of the negative marginal tax, which speaks about your idea of exempting further income from taxation. Both suffer for gross inefficiencies and both try to satisfy moralist on either side of the aisle (to speak from my American based experience).

I can't speak for the UK, but the problem here is that both the right and left tried to appease moral outrage by either attaching work for credit schemes (the Earned Income Tax Credit is nearly a real-life version of the negative marginal tax) or by offering an almost cash benefit but restricting what it can be used on. Both were compromises, from what I can tell, that came out of the hand-wringing that began in the Reagan administration in the 80s and culminated in the late 90s with the Clinton welfare reforms (attaching work, looking for work, and retraining programs in exchange for benefits).

To make matters worse in the US, at least, a lot of these welfare programs are administered by the states. That means moving to find a job (something that is even more important in the uneven recovery happening here) results in a loss of benefits and a lag time before new benefits kick in, plus the process of reapplying using new paper and pen forms, going through the same invasive investigations instituted to combat fraud, and in some states prone to inchoate bouts of moralist rage, drug testing (pity the person moving from the many states that allow medicinal or recreational pot use to a state with absurd alcohol and nicotine consumption that wants save 5 cents on the dollar spent for drug testing).

Basic minimum income is something that at least in the US is going to be a hard sell exactly because the reactionary wing of the Republican Party (right wing) are the kind who get all sorts of laundry in a twist over the idea that someone might be using a cash benefit to by a few joints, a candy bar, or saving it to make a purchase on a TV or other item. I won't leave out my scorn for Democrats, as I'm sure some of that party will still want to continue some other benefits, like hands off Social Security, which would make the entire thing completely unworkable.

This is one of the few times that I agree with Worstall, mainly for the same reasons. It increases agency, allows a person more dignity and privacy on their choices, is more efficient both in terms of cash can be spent most anywhere and administration would be next to nothing compared to today's process, and it allows for a way in which many disparate programs trying to accomplish the same end can be rolled into one. And unlike the UK, the US's top marginal rate is 39.6%, even for those Warren Buffett types... at least on income. There is a whole other discussion on how to handle the various excise taxes that end up punishing the bottom 20% even more because they are generally inelastic costs.

Re: I love the black or white logic here...

I think there is a world of difference between yesterday's friendly local shopkeeper knowing what your "usual" was, and the ability to collect much more personal habit data than before; which means there is an emergent issue.

I don't disagree with the idea that the ability to collect the data and disseminate it beyond the shopkeep is greater than before. Or at least the velocity. However, there was nothing other than social capital at risk that prevented the shopkeep from telling every third customer that you were buying hair tonic at an astounding rate, and then go further and speculate as to the why or cause. Maybe he'll remember another data point from gossip or conversations with you that led him to believe the hair tonic isn't for your scalp, but maybe the base of the tonic is spirits and you're a drunk.

That's how personal information was disseminated before: through the use of individual observation or interaction, conversation with others who might have observed or interacted at the same or different time, then a "profile" of you, the hair-tonic swilling drunk, would be making the rounds in town. Your best bet to find it out would be the stares or the weird looks you got, and there's a chance that your social standing might take an undeserved plunge.

I would say that since relatively accurate profiles are the only thing of value to the credit card companies today, they have no profit-driven reason to create a false narrative about your hair-tonic purchases. That's not to say malicious uses can't be found for accurate profiles either, but all this really represents is a technological adaptation to a human behavior that probably separated us from the primates: the ability to assess, create, store, and disseminate thousands of interactions with countless combinations of our social group to devise a usable, actionable profile that could be used for a variety of things beyond just getting laid and filling the belly.

The story on The Verge talked about how the program will win over the long run. It will always break-even or be ahead. Additionally, the computer is supposed to be playing a style that has no bearing on the opponent, as by playing the odds and using its experience, it will always come out ahead over the long-term.

So to answer your question, it might not win over 30 hands. But it has a statistically significant probability to come out ahead in those few hands. Keep in mind that the version of Texas Hold 'Em being played here is the most basic variant, where there is no such thing as all in, and with only a single opponent, there is no chance that there will be collusion (something banned by the rules but can happen).

The Verge article also noted that an earlier program had played this variant against some of the top poker players in the world, and over six games, it had three wins, two losses, and a draw. So even it's granddaddy was able to hold its own against people who play the game for a living.

Re: We get it...

You mean the Kotaku interview where he says they didn't plan for it when stumping for cash on Kickstarter, but then when the idea was floated on the forums, they thought it could be done, though a bit empty-ish? I hadn't read that one before, but that to me means that those people upset about its removal doesn't have much of a leg to stand on if they supported the Kickstarter, and I don't recall it being advertised when I was deciding if I should buy into the beta, though it could have been part of the alpha push.

And that interview does still show that they were agonizing over how to include it right up until the point they axed it. Could they have made it clear sooner that it would have been a problem with the way the rest of development was going? Sure. Would it have changed anything? Probably not. And it probably did suck up valuable development resources that could have been used to focus on the online mode.

As far as the need to purchase the rights to Elite, I haven't been able to find anything about that other than forum posts and hearsay from jilted gamers. That's not to say it wouldn't be truth, but I would like to see a researched or validated source, not some anonymous post on a Reg or gaming forum. If you have that, please share it so I can take a look.

Re: Project Managers

I've worked with good and bad PMs. Often times I have to stand in, as I'm the poor sap who has the BA title appended to my name. A good PM keeps people focused on the task at hand and gently steers the ship towards the goals. They cut out scope creep, keep the numbers looking good for finance, and if necessary, throw themselves in the line of fire when management comes calling, wondering why something isn't being delivered on time, under budget, and with pristine quality.

The newer PMs often come out of school and/or training with a specific set of tools in hand they are to use, and when one tries to upset that particular apple cart, they have a tough time. I've noticed in my travels the PM is the one who struggles to move from one methodology with one set of tools to another, as they are raised in a world with specific metrics and reports. You put story points and velocity in front of them when it used to be IT spend and burn rate, and suddenly the foundation of their world takes a huge hit. The PMs I've worked with who have multiple methodologies under their belt tend to take whatever crap their current company throws at them. Just like any other professional, experience and thick scar tissue is what makes for a good PM.

And it's a job I never want to do. Ever.

Speaking as the requirements gatherer...

As a Business Analyst, I prefer the quicker turnaround times afforded by a sprint, as there is always going to be a change in what a requirement holder wants when even the most basic of features is demoed (or demoed as it self-destructs) in front of them. Having worked in a waterfall-esque environment where requirements documents contained a whole quarter's worth of development, to be delivered two quarters from now, it's impossible to keep the requirements to come in mind while gathering the requirements still needed (especially when there are multiple BAs working on a larger project). This goes double when there is migration from an existing app to a new one with different user bases, as you're also likely to run into duplication of requirements worded differently so you end up with two ways of doing similar things in the same application.

At the same time, I find that code fast and break things is a feature of the current agile-esque methodology at my new company. Things are produced, shit hits the fan, and we move on. Things break; it happens. That's why we hire support staff and keep the software architects employed.

Re: Dear Marriot

While it would be a refreshing change of pace, it might endanger the notion that unfettered capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be on a personal level.

Re: American Bacon

As a US Citizen, I will point out that maple syrup on bacon is purely a personal decision. Pork belly is cured then smoked, making what we call bacon. What happens after that is entirely up to the one consuming it.

At the same time, maple syrup is delicious (the real stuff, not the corn syrup version) and as bacon is often served at breakfast along with pancakes, waffles, French toast, or other syrup-friendly item, a bit may spill over and touch the bacon, which some people enjoy.

As far as cinnamon... are you talking about the real stuff of cassia? Here in the US, both are called cinnamon... though the use of either is generally restricted to sweet or dessert items.

Re: Why not just unauthorized

Morality is yours. Do with it as you wish, but try to pause for a moment to recognize the hypocrisy of telling me that my morality is meaningless while yours trumps it.

If you are unable to recognize that, consider this: You participate in society and society provides a framework around your actions. Society has a set of rules. You can rebel against the rules, rail against them, raise holy hell, even outright ignore them. Consequences can be minor like being ostracized by people you don't like. It can also be incarceration, confiscation of property, freedom, or even your life in extreme situations. Them's the rules. You don't like them, use the levers of power provided and recognized by society to change them.

But if things don't change, they don't change. You don't win hearts and minds by prattling on about how your morality is superior to mine on the basis that my morality shouldn't be used to override yours. The circular reasoning there is astounding. That's why I said a true libertarian will disappear into the woods, never to be seen from again. You want to live by your own set of rules and have no one ever tell you where you might be wrong, you need to remove yourself from society.

Otherwise, life is about compromise and realizing that some things just aren't going to be your cup of tea. If you can't change it, you can't change it. I agree that there are some actions currently criminalized by the government that maybe shouldn't be due to either arbitrary bright lines (alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine good, everything else bad) or political process by a group better connected than another. But that's how things are done. Try to change them, move the needle. In the US, that's worked for gay marriage and the pot smoking thing is starting to take off. Things change, they take time.

Sometimes, however, things don't change.

Re: Why not just unauthorized

Because most libertarians start off as stoned lax bros or frat boys who feel entitled to a certain amount of respect and/or deference, and it turns in to a full-blown case of megalomania, swimming in the intelligence of the same depth you find in a kiddie pool.

Private actions with no harm is one thing. I don't care how many bowls are smoked each day after class or if you shoot heroin into your eyeballs while tottering on the line between life and death. You do it in your house, your apartment, or anywhere else that is private, and that's fine. But what if you start being a negligent parent? Or you let your home fall into disrepair? Or you have late-night parties that attract folks who then engage in criminal activity after they leave?

Libertarianism, for all intents and purposes, is an anarchist, anti-social mentality that can't even rise to the level of basic philosophy. It wants everything without consequence, or worse, it wants everything regardless of consequence. At best, libertarians express a cute amount of naivety about the world and the community in which they live or how what seem to be private actions actually cause harm to that community. More often than not, however, libertarianism is the breeding ground of nativism, ignorance, refusal to accept responsibility, and rigid social constraints (ironically). Someone isn't part of the majority or ruling class, too bad. They have no protection because if they try to dismantle anything, they'll be outmanned or outgunned.

Libertarianism rejects a central part of the human experience and our evolution: society imposes constraints on participation. It's what society did in the past, does today, and will do tomorrow. The only true libertarian is one who disappears into the woods and lives off the land, far away from the rest of society. The rest of them play at politics while claiming they don't want government to exist.

Re: Why not just unauthorized

I'm not a fan of libertarianism, as it seems to have all the hallmarks of a philosophy hammered out while passing around a bowl, wondering why such private activities that harmed no one should be prohibited. It's rather bereft of intellectual rigor, and even the organized groups tend to leave the most contentious questions unanswered, probably because they realize the footing of their belief system is as firm as a greased skid on an inclined plane.

Nevertheless, the reasonable person standard is about the best way one can protect the speaker while also protecting the spoken against. It's mushy, it's gray, and it's damned near impossible to apply in a consistent manner. The downside is it means that every single situation has to be litigated rather than decided before it gets that far, which often means the person with the deeper pockets (or nothing left to lose) wins.

Re: Why not just unauthorized

Part of the reason (currently being litigated at the Supreme Court) is that the First Amendment tends to protect "off-the-cuff" or undirected speaking, regardless of how rage-filled or angry it is. Generally unspecific threats that have no target are allowed or at least tolerated, as is speech against a person or group where no harm is likely to come to them. However, the case before the Supreme Court is testing a different online harassment law where a man who was either estranged or divorced from his wife, went online in a public forum (his Facebook account) and made graphic and specific posts about wanting to see her die, watch her bleed out, etc.

She got a restraining order that was to prevent him from making such posts in the future, so he created a performer identity of an angry rapper, and then wrote lyrics that said much the same thing. He also made reference to going to a kindergarten and shooting the classroom up. Oddly enough, the FBI investigated him after that classroom thing, and he then wrote some rap lyrics about how hard it was to no slit the FBI agent's throat while being interviewed by her.

So he was tossed in jail for violating a restraining order and making terroristic threats. The law he was charged under is widely believed to be too broad, and the argument before the Supreme Court included a moment where the Chief Justice recited Eminem lyrics from the bench, in which Eminem also describes actions he would like to take against an ex.

The concern is what standard needs to be applied before speech turns criminal, with the defense arguing that the state has to prove that the speaker actually had intent to carry out the things they were speaking about, while the government wants a standard where causing harm to others, regardless of intent by the speaker, is all that matters. The court watchers think that the standard will land somewhere around a reasonable person standard that states that a reasonable person reading the words would believe that the speaker intended to harm or injury the person or party that is the subject of the speech.

The TL;DR version: You can say some pretty harmful and injurious things in the United States, and usually intent is the dividing line between "venting" and criminal activity. That line has moved a lot and will continue to do so.

Under a criminal case, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, per the letter of the law (and allowed clarifications by the judge) the accused did the crime. This means that any evidence that would prove that the photos were posted with permission, posted using a fake identity to frame a party, or a myriad of other things would be admissible to court and would be weighed by the jury. The last thing a country prosecutor would like to do with a law that was a huge PR win is to misuse it or ignore evidence that the accusation is false or other wise trumped up.

At the same time, you have to be careful about tarnishing the accuser in what is essentially a sexual exploitation crime. Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other.

@Michael Thibault

You forget this is the United States, a nation that has a hate/self-abuse relationship with most parts of the female form. Breasts are indeed considered pornographic when in any context other than art at the museum, and even then it's a minor scandal every time the little ones are exposed to such filth on a field trip.

My fellow citizens tend to write angry letters to their representatives over public breastfeeding, a pierced and covered aureola, and the thought that some woman somewhere might be naked in the shower. They then furiously rub one out and shuffle to the mailbox with the stained letter in hand, imagining all the righteous sex they will force on their wife.

Personally, I blame the Brits for being too licentious in the 1600s and causing the Puritans to don pointy hats, sail across the ocean, and "bring the Lord" to the natives.

Re: Good, good

Do not take pictures of yourself naked. Don't allow other people to do that. If they do it without your knowledge, I'm sure there are laws covering that already. Actually, don't get naked for someone who will leave you. Crazy I know, but sex outside marriage is a very high-risk activity which leaves you open to abuse. Entering into a legally-binding agreement to "forsake all others until death us do part"- provides an indication of how highly your partner esteems you and dramatically reduces the risk of you being abused.

I can only imagine you are suffering from oxygen deprivation which is impairing your cognitive abilities. That's usually the problem with such tall equines.

You and all the others who are so sanctimonious about what other people do in their private lives must be true saints. You must never have been in love, thought you were in a forever relationship, sent your special someone a video or picture to cheer them up while on a long deployment, or otherwise did anything that a single person would deem "wrong."

None of us can see the future. What seems like a sure thing now may fall apart in years. The man or woman you know today could have a latent psychological disorder, develop an addiction, or just turn out to be a total ass clown. In short, whatever secrets you think are safe may become public knowledge because you trusted the one person or people who you thought you could trust with everything.

So your options are to either pretend everyone is a leaking sieve waiting for the right moment to dump your dirty laundry on the world or realize that life is short, you have to take risks, and sometimes, especially when you're young, you do some things you will regret. That doesn't give a single person anywhere the right to use it to intimidate, harass, or otherwise try to ruin your life. Taking a nude picture of yourself, writing risque letters or prose, or even engaging in kinky sex are not crimes that demand prosecution. Violating restraining orders, making specific threats, and maliciously posting any kind of material in the hopes that an employer, friends, family, or significant others will use it to harm you is a crime.

Re: You can't use science to disprove theories not based on science

My problem with research like this (other than wasting money finite research money to debunk yet another idiotic claim) is that other folks who go on about the stupidity of other people will take the study to it's own absurd limits to prove their own crap. Not that anyone here is doing it (yet), but this study does one thing: it takes a single proposed mechanism for the supposed lethality of cell phones and gives it the spurs. Nothing happens, so it can be concluded that the evidence for this specific hypothesis takes a shot to the groin, one which might stagger it and send it to the ground for good.

But, and this is a huge but, it does nothing else. Other forms of artificial or unnatural levels of non-ionizing radiation are not considered here, nor are other mechanisms of action of this specific type of magnetic field. That's not to say I think there is any kind of link, but we do have plenty of examples of mammals and other higher lifeforms being negatively impacted by EM pollution, though maybe not of the cancer variety. So once again, a very tiny piece in a very large puzzle has been placed... but we still don't know what the entire picture is.

Re: Too far, on both sides

If I was an employee, I would be working with all the lawyers to sue the company, the individuals involved in security, and maybe even the consulting firm and activist shareholders who pushed Sony Entertainment down these paths. No one should be spared and as an employee, I would care little over who got screwed in the end; the only appropriate punishment for such malpractice and negligence is hefty legal bills, settlements, and a PR nightmare that might rock the foundation of the current practice of blaming the fish for being eaten by the sharks.

That's not to say that each defendant would be responsible, but it would set off a nice merry-go-round of recriminations, investigations, and perhaps even a few ruined careers. If the C-suite, management firms, activist shareholders, etc. want to justify their huge salaries, returns, and power, a little responsibility (and associated consequence) should go a long way towards ensuring that if nothing else, they are paying through the nose for personal liability insurance.

It seems the only way we can ensure that people play by the rules is to make the punishments much greater than the profit. This is a lesson we've been learning for since 2008 and will continue to learn as long as we allow people and entities the ability to get away with negligence or outright malfeasance for a minor penalty that still made the behavior profitable.

</rant>

Re: Strictly off the record, I'll explain these welts..

To use a role-playing game analogy, "off the record" has the same impact as saying "no meta-gaming." We all know that when Fiznab the Sorcerer is told something by the DM and he turns around and tells a lie to the rest of the group, the group will pretend they didn't hear the truth but then subtly tailor their actions in a way that keeps them from falling for the lie.

Anytime you tell any one that what you are saying is "off the record," you're just telling them that whatever they uncover better not be traced back to this conversation.. So in the case of this "off the record" event, a journalist who cared about getting access in the future would have found someone with a personal or professional dislike that attended the event to pretend to be an "unnamed source", followed by some garbage about wanting to change the company culture. I'm sure that if this man is as loose of a cannon as described by some, he could have been a suitable scapegoat for when Uber was forced to clean house.

Obviously in this case, a few roasted bridges were a small price to pay to be the first to put a name, face, and target to a company that is clearly run like a frat house with too many legacy or trust fund kids to finance their debauchery.

Re: Hairshirt, Sackcloth and Ashes

Nuclear is all well and good, but the costs to building a single plant are huge... and sadly the know-how has disappeared due to the unspoken moratorium on building them since the late 80s. Only France has any real experience, and even there many of the plants are 20+ years old.

Can you describe how we ramp up from 0 to 120 on these plants, all without driving up construction costs because everyone decides to employ the same set of experts across the planet?

Re: Free speech... @malle-herbert

My guess is that you were too lazy to read the comic. The point is that Free Speech is a two-way street. In fact, to shout the idiots down, sully their reputation, and destroy their business through boycott is the price they pay for the hate and garbage they spew.

So yeah, the reality is that if you open your mouth in a public square, the public square can and will respond. And the response might nott be flowers and chocolate but a destruction of your online persona.

Free Speech is not protection from your stupidity; it's an invitation to be a moron so we know how to handle you in the future.