Estate tax valuations of assets should be made public, particularly the taxed value of professional sports franchises. We know that NFL teams are worth $6+ billion dollars, and seeing the billionaire owner families pay tax on 1/10th of that might infuriate voters enough to demand reform.
The supply of doctors in the US is primarily limited by the number of residency slots. Unlike many countries, foreign medical graduates can't practice here without doing a residency. I think the number of residency slots is kept low by the federal government (which funds them) and also by physician organization lobbying.
Exactly, just like the number of homes is artificially limited by zoning, permitting, etc. It's all artificial scarcity and it's for life's essentially--which is why I said it's a scam because it seems intentional.
This is why it is dangerous to think that the best scientific theories always prevail and that science is a meritocracy. The people invited to give talks are usually well known or have connections with the program committees. There is also an element of bias since the people on the organizing and program committees will invite speakers whose research is consistent with their own work.
I don't think anyone with even the slightest awareness of scientific philosophy or history actually thinks that though. Everyone knows that there are social factors involved to varying degrees in different fields, and that paradigms and research programs often only shift when the old guard in a field dies. The scientific method is a directional force guiding this messy social enterprise in the general direction of truth but if anyone thinks science as an institution is purely meritocratic they haven't thought about it hard enough or done the required reading.
>I don't think anyone with even the slightest awareness of scientific philosophy or history actually thinks that though.
I don't know, this whole 'marketplace of ideas' thing is still very popular in politics and media (perhaps not academia; but what does academia count for in a neoliberal world?)
Not true in any field I have been associated with. Many, if not most conference review processes use blind reviews. Conferences are not full of "invited" speakers. Maybe one or two plenary sessions at the beginning, but the rest submitted their own papers and went through the blind review process. Certainly true in the best EE, CS, and ML conferences. I've served on program committees for international conferences. Around 100 papers selected typically, only two invited papers.
Most of the physical sciences have open conferences so anyone can submit without peer review. If a session has an invited speaker they are invited because the organizer knows their work.
This is such a weird denialism. Let me ask you something: if you go look at the top 100 cited researchers do you really think their enormous citation counts come from the brilliance of their work? Or is it just possible it's something else?
I'll tell you first hand, my advisor who is among those top 100, accretes citations like a black hole because he/she is famous, sits on committees (at uni and a national lab), speaks in front of Congress etc etc etc. and thus gets invited to be a coauthor on a billion papers a year (and not because of his/her brilliance).
Also if you think program committees and reviewers don't know who wrote a paper when the same group has been submitting to the same top conference every year for over a decade then I have a bridge to sell you.
Speaking as a failed scientist (I was “dishonorably discharged” with an MS from a top US institution) I will tell you that the brilliant people around me knew that paper citations don’t correlate exactly with the impact of work within. Certainly didn’t feel fair. But I can also say the system is way more meritocratic than medicine or finance
> This is why it is dangerous to think that the best scientific theories always prevail and that science is a meritocracy.
This is because people form trapped priors and so some scientific advances come "one funeral at a time", but it's equally dangerous to think that science won't or cannot form clear consensus on observable, factual matters or that if there isn't always meritocracy, then there must be none.
Science is the only reason we can even have this conversation right now, after all.
At this point, I’d ask what you mean by meritocracy here. Is the (supposed) lack of meritocracy in the awarding of accolades the same as a lack of meritocracy when it comes to the recognition of the actual science done? Clearly from your comments, while these scientists didn’t win the Nobel prize, their work certainly got the recognition it did and made the impact it’s supposed to have.
This whole thread is a cesspool of bait and switch and moving of goalposts surrounding the idea of meritocracy. Has the Hacker News community always been so dogmatic about such topics, or is this a recent trend I’m observing in the last few years?
Douglas Prasher didn’t make it in academia, he was a shuttle bus driver until Roger Tsien hired him back as an associate after prizes were won.
I don’t know what kind of goalposts you’re thinking about, but doing nobel prize work but not being able to have a career in science is evidence that people fall through the cracks of this supposed meritocratic structure.
The fact that prizes were won and he got hired back because of that are both evidence that merit is recognized. You made points that contradict your own stance.
The comment of mine you were replying to describes an example of the moving of goal posts; conflating the merit of the issuing of accolades with the merit of recognition of work allows one to fallaciously reject the notion of merit altogether if one of these definitions of merit fails. Yet clearly, they are not the same thing.
For what it's worth, meritocracy is not a topic that I have a concrete stance on (yet). However, the top comments for this topic lacks nuance, and resorts to the kind of motte and bailey arguments I remarked about earlier. Imagine trying to have a productive conversation about anti-corruption, only to get remarks like "anti-corruption has failed with respect to my specific conception of anti-corruption in some specific scenario, therefore anti-corruption as a whole is a terrible goal or ideal". Given how broad the notion of "anti-corruption" can be, someone's specific conception of it in some scenario doesn't (necessarily) represent every conception or instantiation of the notion of anti-corruption. It's in this broadness where nuance can be found, and unfortunately, I don't find that in the top comments.
"Sometimes people do good work and don't win major awards" is hardly a rebuttal to the notion that meritocracy exists, because it's not some binary state. To say there's no such thing as merit, you have to say that recognition of merit is on average directionally wrong.
Given the huge technological advances of even just the past few decades, that's a pretty hard sell.
Well, we went from talking about whether the best 'scientific theories' were recognized to whether certain individuals won certain awards, so it's hard to do anything but broad strokes.
I'm not here trying to refute the idea that sometimes people get passed over undeservedly, I'm refuting the all too common idea that this means that meritocracy is binary and anyone ever getting passed over means that merit doesn't exist and cannot be recognized.
If you don't hold that idea then good, we don't have to argue.
It should come as no surprise that if you develop a new theory and then proceed to burn it and all evidence of its existence that no one is going to hear of said theory. If you care about your theory prevailing, you need to go out and make an effort to communicate it. Science is meritocratic in the sense that even the small guy has a chance of fighting the machine as eventually things need to be defended on their technical merits. After all, Galileo was able to defeat the Church which was the largest country in Europe at the time. I think its dangerous to conflate meritocracy with not being required to communicate.
> Galileo was able to defeat the Church which was the largest country in Europe
The Church is not a country and never was? And Galileo was forced to recant then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The Church defeated him.
> Science is meritocratic in the sense that even the small guy has a chance of fighting the machine as eventually things need to be defended on their technical merits
Nobody who has followed the shenanigans of scientific institutions in the last decade believes this anymore, sorry. Modern science consists of credentialed charlatans plying entirely fraudulent claims and those being accepted, over and over, with no end in sight, and everyone who tries to point out the problems in The Science end up being cancelled or burning out because the employers of said charlatans are the modern Church. They simply do not care if their people tell the truth or not.
Just addressing the Galileo part, but as was recently linked in hackernews [1][2], Galileo was wrong (in the sense that he was arguing for an already discredited theory, and that the theory he was arguing against was also already discredited).
Using Galileo as the standard of the suppression of free thought is sorta painting the Church as overzealously standing up for good science, not highlighting the Church as an enemy of truth.
The Papal states were literally a country, although surely not the largest in Europe. Galileo did not live there but rather in the Duchy of Florence (later Grand Duchy of Tuscany); however, as a Catholic he could still be tried by the Inquisition, which was essentially the Interpol of heresy.
It's true in the same sense as the efficient market hypothesis or saying that the truth will prevail. It just tells you nothing about the timing of it.
Which is why it is especially important to have different expectations regarding newer science with little data and testing. But that's still where all the active research is going to happen.
My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV. Add to that the issue of people who live in apartment buildings and condos and I don't see how we can scale up consumer demand quickly enough.
How does PG&E have the authority to regulate the instalation of EV charging? Do you mean they won't install a higher amp service panel like 200A instead of 150A?
If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.
It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.
Either way, charging an EV on a 150A panel can still be pretty easy depending on what else is there. People think you need a 60A circuit to charge an EV, but even charging at 12A at 240V will give you well over 100 miles of charge overnight. My charger uses 32A and finishes charging my normal days in a little over an hour.
It's cheaper and easier to install a smart panel than to upgrade your service. You probably only need >100A service if you run your oven, dryer, aircon & car charging simultaneously. A smart panel will ensure that never happens. A cheaper alternative to a smart panel is the "Dryer Buddy" and competitors.
> My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV.
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
The problem is using too many of these high energy devices at the same time you are charging the vehicle. We need smart meters which can turn off vehicle charging or hot water heating while the dryer or kitchen stove/oven are in use.
Do you know what the story is with that prerequisite? Speaking for literally everyone, I'd rather have charging infrastructure I can't utilize quite yet than a car I can't charge to use quite yet.
Not directly related to cars, but PG&E is unable to handle the incoming requests for electrical system upgrades[1]. Many older houses don't have the electrical panel capacity and they need engineering signoff from the utility.
Subject and writer are idiots. Any electrician worth their master license would not have installed a 125A panel in 2019 unless this woman lives in a converted cottage. Also unless this woman is running a grow house or has a 4000 square foot home they intend to heat with resistive heating she will never use 300A service.
A totally legitimate use case for crypto is moving money into countries that have bogus official exchange rates (e.g. Argentina). I've got multiple friends that hire developers in Argentina and pay them using crypto in order to avoid the 90% haircut.
I've probably driven half a million miles and I don't remember having 10 incidents (I probably have, just don't remember). So I'd conclude I'm at least as safe a driver as Waymo. Even if not true, most people are going to feel that way when they see the data. Human nature.
In addition, 40% of the waymo incidents were while the waymo vehicle was parked. I expect that (1) most drivers are unaware of incidents that happen while their car is parked and (2) waymo vehicles spend more time parked in less protected places (i.e. in parking lots waiting for riders to appear/enter/exit and not in a parking spot).
The same "Builder's Remedy" kicked in last year in many Southern California cities when they missed similar deadlines, and as far as I know it has led to approximately (if not exactly) zero new construction.
Here, for instance: "Santa Monica officials later indicated they would wait to respond until WSC filed its full project application, which is due six months from the preliminary filing."
Interesting that the developer that started the commotion is listing some of the sites they started the application process on for sale, but not necessarily indicative of it not going to happen - "Even as it prepares the listing WSC is still moving ahead with the full application, Walter confirmed this week." from this Jan 2023 article. Could just be looking to offload some risk to someone else who now thinks there's enough of a chance of these things getting built to pay more for the lots than they would've last year.
Under the builder's remedy, a developer can propose any housing project, regardless of existing zoning and land use codes, and it is automatically considered “approved,” as long as it doesn't present a clear danger to public health or safety.
I have a ski cabin (not on AirBnB) and I don't think most people realize how difficult it is to get these places cleaned reliably. You can hire a very expensive cleaning service that brings in their own sheets and towels, but it's entirely impractical to have a regular cleaning service wait around while the dishwasher and 4 loads of laundry run. In terms of taking garbage to the dumpster, it's difficult to have someone take the garbage cans to the street and bring them back on garbage day. It's basically impossible if there are bears around. If the guests help out the cleaning fees can in principle be much lower. If you want to leave the place trashed like you would leave a hotel, don't complain about $400+ cleaning fees as that service is extremely expensive in resort areas.
When we leave in the spring, we pay a $110 cleaning fee and the property management company takes care of everything - cleaning, finding guests, cleaning, replenishment, maintenance, and they have a warehouse full of furniture when they need to replace everything.
True they take 48% of the proceeds + 4% escrow to handle major repairs. But I don’t have to deal with anything.
It’s in Florida so of course it’s cyclical. But since we stay there during low season, it covers its own expenses the other half.
This is investment advice. This is not an investment idea. This was a lifestyle choice to give us a place to stay during the winter.
But I would rather get two anal probes than be a traditional landlord again.
Edit: I just noticed you said it was difficult in a resort area.
Our Condotel is very much in a resort area. Three pools onsite, three restaurants, a lake for fishing, a water park, arcade, etc.
Not bragging, we downsized from our the house in the burbs in GA we had built in 2016 (3200 square feet) to a condo 2000 square feet smaller, paid the same price and we saved over $12000 a year in income taxes.
I wonder if you've got that info in the listing for your place? "Listen, cleaning would cost me money, and that's impractical (and difficult!), so, y'know, might want to bring your own towels and check the bedding."
>If the guests help out the cleaning fees can in principle be much lower.
is it ever, though?
This cavalier attitude to, like, the basic overhead of running a hospitality business, is why I'm back on team hotel for most stays.
To be clear, my place is not on any listing service. Purely family and friends, I never rent it. I tell everyone "the cleaners are supposed to come but leave it so that if they don't the next person is not grossed out."
It's entirely reasonable to expect family and friends to properly clean up a place that you have kindly allowed them to use. But that is an entirely different domain (i.e. non-commercial).
I somewhat disagree. The key to profitability in the audio space is moving listeners from pay-per-stream content (music) to owned content (podcasts, shows, etc.). For that latter costs are fixed even as listenership grows. The only profitable subscription audio service is SiriusXM, and they do this through exclusive licensed content (Howard Stern being the most notable example). Getting people to switch back and forth between apps makes it hard to get people to substitute the profitable content for the unprofitable.
This is a big reason why I left Spotify. Seemed like they kept pushing me to lower cost content like covers and live performances instead.
The other is that unfortunately things are ecosystems these days. Spotify just didn't seem to work as well on Google Home and Android Auto. Probably not their fault as Google can barely keep their shit working.
Even Sirius isn't THAT profitable...they have several satelites that will need to be replaced in the next few years, each of which will eat about 9 months of profit.