I listened to the Radiolab podcast. I remained fairly unconvinced by the reporting on the show, but the part that really didn't make sense to me was, what is their definition of death? My (limited, non-medical) understand is that death has a bit of a spectrum associated with it. At what point does this light stop emitting? When you flatline exactly?
I came here with a similar thought. Given that we don't have a really precise definition of that transition from living to dead, I wonder if this could be it.
Some parts of the dead mice still emit in that spectrum. There won't be a clear and distinct "the lights went out" moment but a gradual fading, so you'll have to define some threshold to translate from radiation distribution and intensity do dead/alive. I don't think an image of photon emission will help pronounce someone dead.
It would be wild because it would be wrong. We acknowledge someone who has suffered brain death to be truly dead, even if their body can be kept alive (and presumably shining!) for weeks and weeks through modern medicine. If this light is a side effect of biochemical processes then presumably someone who is decapitated will also continue to shine for minutes.
The fading of the light would be sufficient but not necessary for someone to be considered dead, so it would make a poor definition.
This is over simplistic and if everyone knew this is what happens when PE comes into play then no one would lend to PE-backed companies. Often times these debts can work out.
PE strives to make things more efficient from a capital point of view. Business foois making $X in profit, and the PE firm's analysis says the can make X+Y dollars with some changes. This is 'better' because now the capital usage is more efficient and more can be spent in other places - new products, new jobs, new businesses, returns to investors, etc. And of course returns to the PE firm.
In principle an efficient economy is important on a macro scale - if all the business are stuck in how they were doing things 30 years ago then we would have reduced innovation and ultimately less jobs.
In practice there is of course a lot of money that flows back into the PE boss's pockets and.... thats it.
It trades robustness for efficiency. It makes the business/service altogether less robust, unable to withstand shocks, unable to survive the tests of time.
I think what GP is saying is that if I was a homeowner for 30 years, paid HOA fees all those years, then last year sold to someone else, who gets the HOA reimbursement then? I paid thousands over years and would presumably get nothing, while some other guy who just moved in all of a sudden gets a big check? That seems unfair.
I would assume the sale price of your property would be higher if it's part of a well managed HOA with 500k in reserves than if it's part of a dysfunctional, insolvent HOA, so the previous property owner kinda already got paid out for their contributions.
It's like selling shares of a company with significant cash reserves before/after they choose to liquidate a chunk of them into dividends or stock buy-backs, I would hope you priced the shares accordingly and have nothing to be mad about.
Imagine you dissolve a company that has a lot of money in the bank. What do you do with that money? Distributing it to the shareholders seems like the right way to dispose of it. What if somebody sold all their shares a day before? Well, they get nothing, that's how it works. The company's money should be accounted for in the share price, so it all works out, there's nothing unfair.
An HOA is no different. All the owners are also owners of the HOA. When you buy a place in the HOA you also buy into the HOA, and when you sell you also sell your interest in the HOA.
Except the HOA governing docs say the money goes to the State and it’s expected that the State provides the same amenities and services that the HOA was providing.
If State doesn’t then a non profit corporation is formed that does
Where I'm from we call a HOA a body corporate, and every home owner in the scheme has a % ownership in the BC. The title deed includes the ownership share. So if the house ownership is transferred, so is the share in the BC.
Size of the share is determined usually by the dwelling floor area divided by the sum total of all dwellings in the scheme.
So if you sell your house after decades of contributions, and then the BC is dissolved, then too bad, you sold your share in a going concern and lost your say in it's affairs.
Arguably you benefitted from the contributions from someone who came before you, and now someone will benefit from yours.
Hoa funds practically never get redistributed back to owners. I've never heard of such a case. We are only talking about it here because a legislature is talking about changing something state wide (and realistically this won't happen anyways).
So there is no realistic scenario where hoa reserves factor into home price
Reserves are money available for HOA expenses which would otherwise require new money from the owners. For that to factor into home prices, you just need buyers and sellers to be aware of this and what it means for their wallet in the future. Which may not be the norm since people are often clueless, but it doesn't seem completely absurd.
What you are saying is not typically in HOA governing documents nor State law so law would have to be changed and / or governing docs updated which would take a majority vote by all homeowners (60% in some cases per State law)
Very cool & pretty, but I feel a little let down. There is a huge leap from the basics of 3d plotting & spheres to the crazy pattern you tease and then show at the end. I understand it as someone who kind of knows this stuff already, but I think its way too big of a leap for someone who doesn't have the background.
I think the crazy plot at the end is not intentionally constructed to be exactly that way, just an example of what you can get if you vary the parameters of cosines and sines in parametric equation setups similar to the ones shown earlier (instead of seeking to align them so they wrap a sphere exactly).
Yeah, but a nation state server farm can probably cut that down to minutes because their budget can buy a lot of processors. You only need a few hundred to really shrink it down to manageable numbers. And it turns out that nation starts aren't the only ones that have this budget
It's trivial to force a collision. Here's the same UUID twice:
6e197264-d14b-44df-af98-39aac5681791
6e197264-d14b-44df-af98-39aac5681791
Typically, you don't care about UUIDs that aren't in your system and you generate those yourself to avoid maliciously generated collisions. Your system can't handle 2^61 IDs. It doesn't have the processing power, storage, or bandwidth for that to happen. Not to mention traditional rate limiting.
>2^61 is still a very large number of course, but much more feasible to reach than 2^122 when doing a collision attack. This is the reason that cryptographic hashes are typically 256 bits or more (to make the cost of collision attacks >= 2^128).
I'm not sure. 6ghz is around 2^61 CPU cycles in 12 years. I.E. basic CPU instructions; counting, not computing a cryptographic hash. Otherwise, where is the cluster that's bruteforcing ~122 bit cryptographic hash collisions in minutes?
For what it’s worth generating a random UUID for the purposes of collision isn’t generally much more complicated than a few arithmetic instructions which is why I used counting as an example. And as the other poster mentioned generating a UUID collision isn’t a security problem since the UUID tends to be generated within your infrastructure where you can’t really go full blast at generating UUIDs for all sorts of reasons anyway.
For cryptographic applications it is really small because the previous poster is correct that 2^64 is very small for that purpose - a small supercomputing cluster or two could decrypt such a cipher in a reasonable amount of time, which is why symmetric keys are all 256 bits and up to guarantee there’s no way to attack them.
I don't think that's quite right. A 128-bit UUIDv4 having a 50% chance of having any collision after 2^61 generations is very different from finding a specific 128-bit symmetric key. The best cryptanalysis of AES-128 is 2^126; nowhere near 2^64. Which is why standards bodies like NIST still recommend AES-128 as a baseline.
You're right that AES-128 is fine. Normally the birthday paradox only applies to cryptographic hashes.
The only way it would apply to symmetric keys is if you have a server that stores 2^64 encrypted messages, and can somehow find out which messages used the same symmetric key (normally not possible unless they also have the same IV and plaintext), and can somehow coerce the user who uploaded message #1 to decrypt message #2 for you (or vice versa). Obviously that isn't realistic.
Yes but it's a question of finding targets. Why was Ukraine able to decimate the Russian Air Force? Partly because they are all based out of big, well known bases. Even in wartime they have to be in a big base.
A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
True, but the Gripen is not a big strategic bomber and Sweden doesn't have nukes to threaten other countries with. They do air policing and would employ guerilla tactics in case of war, like put a gripen in a cattle shed somewhere and operate it from a road¹. It's a good strategy for a smaller country with lower population density to defend itself. Possibly not such a great option for Benelux, but for most of the EU, save for the big boys it's great. Even Germany could employ it, with the amount of sheds and the highway network that they have. Russia and the US needs aibases to operate strategic bombers from.
They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
It depends on what you are optimizing for. If you are just optimizing for making the numbers go up, the yes letting big tech hiring all the available foreign workers so that they can do even more big tech stuff, increase their revenue, lift their share price, produce GDP, increase tax revenue etc. But what if you care about the diversity of the foreign workers in terms of field or specialty? What if for example you have a "Made in America" slogan and want to hire manufacturing workers so that we can have a renaissance in manufacturing?
The current H1B program is terrible in that it has a lottery. A strict salary-based distribution is marginally better but I would hope that it should incorporate multiple factors.
The issue is that people opposing it don't have a coherent view of what they want. They don't want a free market solution; they don't like the socialist position where the government picks the people; they don't like the lottery either. They want their preferred type of people to get the visa in a manner not too different from quotas/dei/affirmative action etc., which is impossible to engineer. It ultimately ends up creating a compromise brokered by lobbyists and politicians, kind of like how we do everything else in the country.
It only works if hiring H1Bs is cheaper, or otherwise much more appealing, so that paying the premium on an auction makes sense.
It used to be the case, say, 15-20 years ago. It not need to be the case today. Since we're talking about big tech, let the minimal bid for a company be the median salary across that company's relevant line of work (engineering, sales, whatever). This would make hiring an H1B candidate a merit-based decision, not a cost-cutting measure. This would make hiring a US-born engineer and, say, an India-born engineer approximately equally expensive, so the company would hire the better engineer, not the cheaper.
If the price arbitrage were gone, I bet there'd remain enough H1B slots to invite better researchers, better flute players, better sea captains, etc.
That really incentives you to under pay the H1-B though.
The fee should scale with the cost of training a US resident to do the job. If the fee is too low than toss the application cause the applicant should just pay for somebody's training instead.
Creating an artificial market around an artificial limitation that dumps cash into the government general fund is not what most economists would describe as "efficient allocation of resources".
It might create a local maxima around revenue per visa, but "google bought all of the H1-Bs to make life harder for Apple" is both an entirely foreseeable outcome, and one that has such a wide range of negative externalities that even in the context of the local maxima, it would be a challenge to argue of efficient allocation of resources with a straight face (if that argument is, in fact, the goal).
I mean, would big tech really buy them all? The argument against H-1B is it's being used to replace American workers with cheaper workers who are locked into their employer.
If H-1B requires massive comp, there would be little reason for Big Tech to hire Jr H-1B developers unless the employer lock in is worth it.
Would they? I know that they've engaged in a ton of wage suppression historically but deliberately paying out the nose for H1B visas seems like it wouldn't be worth it.
It’s funny how the HN hive mind is against H1-B visas and AI because they suppress their wages and take their jobs. However, the millions of unskilled illegal immigrants are a good thing, because they have that effect on the working class instead.
Personally, I think we really need to take a hard look at all forms of immigration until average Americans can have good paying jobs, affordable housing, and affordable healthcare.
There are plenty of people that are against both types of immigration, or against one but not the other in each category. The Hive mind is often not that much of a hive.
> Personally, I think we really need to take a hard look at all forms of immigration until average Americans can have good paying jobs, affordable housing, and affordable healthcare.
You are making big assumptions that the USA is a closed system that can generate its own prosperity, and that is far from the truth. Wrecking America's competitiveness (by not taking in skilled or unskilled immigrants) is just going to turn us from a rich country into a poor country, your goals are never going to be accomplished.
>is just going to turn us from a rich country into a poor country,
What value is the country getting richer if the people are still poor?
Wealth inequality is a real thing, and importing more labor competition for the working class people only devalues their labor, serving only to make the business owning elites richer while keeping workers poor. Bernie Sanders even said that himself.
The "line goes up" stock market and GDP numbers are abstract numbers for the working class people that don't reflect in their purchasing power or quality of life. The person flipping burgers at McD for $12 an hour, isn't gonna be better off now that Microsoft and Nvidia are worth 4 trillion instead of 1 trillion. It literally makes no difference to them.
So as long as there's no trickle down, why would people care about their country getting richer, when it's just the top 10% of the country who are seeing that richness and not them?
> maybe we should focus on other ways of dealing with wealth inequality (improving productivity, education so our kids can compete on the world stage when they grow up, etc...)?
Yes we should. And when politicians are gonna fix those issues first, then people's opinion on importing more competing labor will change. Until then, they'll vote to tilt the supply-demand balance in their favor, as per democratic process because the business class is also doing the opposite so you have a conflict of interest you need to fix.
People not seeing the argument of this side of the isle, are in a bubble who have never had to compete in a zero sum environment against people who will do anything for money, and love writing cheques that other people have to cash. Which is why you're seeing the backlash from this at elections. If you want people to agree with you politically, you have to take care of their grievances first, before you take care of imported people form abroad and business owners.
>it doesn't work now that the immigrants are no longer primarily white?
Nowhere was the skin color part of the argument till you brought that up witch says everything about you and why I'm exiting the convo here.
The issue isn’t race. Typical Americans would be just as against illegal immigration if it were white Europeans flooding into our country.
The uncomfortable reality is that illegal immigration is a net negative for society, particularly when it reaches the numbers it did under the Biden administration.
Until we hit zero percent unemployment, we have a surplus of labor in this country and have no need to import any more. It is up to employers to pay competitive wages and train people to fill the vacancies.
Zero percent unemployment is viewed as a bad thing by almost everyone with a familiarity of the employment markets.
Zero percent unemployment means that no one without a job is looking for one. It means no new entrants into the job market (since by definition, you are unemployed the moment you start looking for your first job). And it means that no one is transitioning jobs or careers without a firm job offer in hand. It means that no business ever fails. It means that it is remarkably difficult to find employees. It means that there are no employees that quit instead of doing something immoral.
You should look into the different types of unemployment, as well as the definition of "unemployed", and specifically, frictional unemployment since you seem very unfamiliar with the base concepts.
Okay, maybe not literally zero percent unemployment, but my point still stands that we do not have a shortage of labor in this country and we do not need to import any at this time. We should incentivize workers through better compensation and retraining to fill skill gaps.
There is not a shortage of labor in general. There is possibly a shortage of specialized labor (although arguably not in high skilled and technical positions like the H1B intends/typically aims to fill).
Again, people study this and have a name for it: structural unemployment. This is the unemployment level caused by employers needing to hire for skills that the market cannot currently provide. Think of the town with high unemployment due to a car factory closure, but a local business that needs scuba diving instructors can't find one. Plenty of labor, but no scuba diving instructors.
I think this is what you are getting at: If you want to hire someone foreign because the skills don't exist in the local labor market, you should be obligated to prove that the skill is being developed in the local labor market.
The argument (not mine, just an argument) against that is that individual firms should not necessarily be forced to bear the cost of training workers in a portable skill when you can just bring in non-local labor (H1B). Back to the Scuba shop example: it costs 5 figures and 6+ months to train a non-diver to the level of scuba instructor. It is good for the labor pool to force the shop to train a new instructor, even if they have to pay a massive cost for them to get certified, and the labor can quit the day they get certified. It is bad for consumers and the shop. They would much rather pay lower prices and bring in a foreign instructor than run short handed for months while they plow money into training someone in a skill that the worker can take to their competition.
My feeling is that H1Bs are probably useful in much more limited circumstances than they are used in now (probably something more like O-1 visas that are given for people who are leaders in their fields, or demonstrably and uniquely talented). If the H1B job can be done interchangeably, then it should be done by domestic labor. If you want to hire the one guy who just won a nobel prize to work on your time machine, that is when we should allow foreign labor.
> it costs 5 figures and 6+ months to train a non-diver to the level of scuba instructor. It is good for the labor pool to force the shop to train a new instructor, even if they have to pay a massive cost for them to get certified, and the labor can quit the day they get certified. It is bad for consumers and the shop.
I believe the common situation is a company pays for your masters degree but the two of you end up with a contract where you'll stay at the company for X years afterwards.
I don't see why there can't be a non-"At will" situation for the scuba instructor.
If you do this, you'll have unintended consequences:
- You don't allow the US to import skilled workers anymore, and rather than hire locally from a non-existent labor pool they simply move the jobs abroad. What's worse, hiring someone from India on an H1B to work in your AI lab, or moving your AI lab to India?
- You don't allow importing unskilled workers and expect farmers to pay $30/hour to have Americans pick apples. Or maybe...they'll just figure out how to automate those jobs or go out of business since no one wants to pay $5 for an apple.
How many minutes do you think it takes to pick an apple?
The claim is always made that if Americans have to do the work, food prices will skyrocket, but it's just not true. Labor is a portion of the wholescale cost of food, which is a portion of the retail cost. A lot goes to shipping, packaging, processing, marketing, etc. If all migrant workers were replaced by Americans being paid a competitive wage, food prices would go up a little, but you wouldn't pay double for apples, let alone several times more. Highly-processed foods like cereal and pasta wouldn't change noticeably.
> The claim is always made that if Americans have to do the work, food prices will skyrocket, but it's just not true
My claim isn't that "if Americans have to do the work", my claim is that "Americans don't want to do the work", even at $30-40/hour most Americans still don't want to pick apples, and that is already an unreasonable price.
It might be that (barring automation) we simply don't grow/pick apples in the USA anymore, for the same reason that other industries/jobs have become obsolete because the economics simply don't make sense anymore. Farmers will grow something else that is more economical to deal with given the labor costs they have to deal with, they simply won't grow apples anymore if it no longer makes sense.
> My claim isn't that "if Americans have to do the work", my claim is that "Americans don't want to do the work", even at $30-40/hour most Americans still don't want to pick apples, and that is already an unreasonable price.
There is no evidence that this is actually true. Decades of illegal immigrant labor has suppressed wages and supplanted American citizens, so you have no way of knowing that’s the case.
There are plenty of food and things that have gone out of production because the economics don’t make sense anymore, even with illegal immigration. Apples aren’t going to be different. Demand isn’t somehow magically going to be present at any price.
No, it means the elevator operator just doesn't exist anymore. We didn't pay them more, we got rid of them. If agriculture workers don't exist anymore at the wages the market is willing to bear, we just won't bother with those foods anymore, or import them from somewhere else.
I'm uncomfortable with how racist HN has become. Because your ancestors were white they were permitted a chance to work from the bottom up, but because today's immigrants aren't white, you think its either slavery or exploitation, and they should just stay in poor countries accordingly (a situation that was not forced on your ancestors, for your benefit). Or if it isn’t racism, what is your reasoning for pulling up the ladder today?
> If agriculture workers don't exist anymore at the wages the market is willing to bear, we just won't bother with those foods anymore, or import them from somewhere else.
Expand H-2A: Temporary Agricultural Worker visa then.
We shouldn't be encouraging black market activity. If as the US we want to have cheap imported labor pick apples then write it into law. If we as the US want to experience the Baumol effect [1] then don't. I think most people want to experience the Baumol effect as opposed to losing out gains to trade.
> I'm uncomfortable with how racist HN has become.
You’re the one that’s bringing race into the argument. I don’t care what race they are, I don’t want any illegal immigrants in this country.
America’s obligation is to its own citizens first and foremost. This should not be a controversial opinion. Every country should put the interests of its own citizens first.
So ironic that your post full of racist name calling and wanting to support a perpetual underclass of people stuck in indentured servitude, masquerading as empathy, and then you're the one calling everyone who disagrees with you racist.
Pro tip: in case of actual racism, use the flag button.
> It’s funny how the HN hive mind is against H1-B visas and AI because they suppress their wages and take their jobs. However, the millions of unskilled illegal immigrants are a good thing, because they have that effect on the working class instead.
The hive mind is greatly exaggerated. The existence of cognitively dissonant opinions on a website is more likely evidence that the site has posters that have differing viewpoints, rather than evidence of a group thought process that is illogical.
At some point the contradiction is so flagrant that the typical "we're all individuals here" dismissal no longer suffices.
Like if you showed up on a homeschooling moms facebook group and half the moms are spewing religious mumbo jumbo and the other half are spewing trans rights stuff it immediately begs the question how the heck are these groups coexisting without fighting at every turn without massive cognitive dissonance or not actually believing what they're saying. Same thing here with immigration, among other things (wouldn't have been my first pick of an issue to highlight the dissonance but here we are).
This is not a homeschooling mothers' Facebook group though. There is absolutely no requirement for people here to agree, and/because the place will not fall apart if they don't - as you can see from its continued existence.
Very fun. My only suggestion would be a small highlight when you submit your fish so you can easily see which fish is yours - at least for a few seconds.
