Yeah there is an assumption in the article that technology is the leading cause of wealth inequality.
What about regressive government policies? The rich have more of an ability to influence policy in this country. Therefore they can get laws passed that are favorable to themselves, e.g. regressive policies.
It would be very surprising if you didn't see this, and if it were not a cause of huge income disparity.
But we don't have to look very hard to see it. For one, actually working for a living is taxed at a greater rate than letting your money sit around in various accounts. I'm glad Warren Buffett spoke out about this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have done much.
Another example of a de facto regressive policy is the employer-provided health insurance system. People in the middle class who work for corporations generally get health insurance for free and don't have to worry about it, while poor people went insured (hopefully this will be resolved by Obamacare; it's not clear to me how it will play out).
There is a vicious cycle between being sick and poor. People are poor because they're sick, not necessarily because they are lazy. And they are sick because they're poor and don't go to the doctor.
Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter.
This philosophy also doesn't have the motivation problem. You should be guaranteed the option to make money (i.e. by being healthy; sick people don't have the option to make money). But the first dollar you make should come from work.
> Also, I decided awhile ago that I think the minimum income idea is stupid. Being fed and healthy are basic human rights. Having $15,000 of cash every year isn't. We should get the former right first before even thinking about the latter.
But the minimum income idea might be a much better way of getting to where everyone is fed and healthy (or at least fed and has access to medical care). It's probably more efficient than the massive bureaucracies that run the massive programs that currently don't seem to manage to do a very good job...
Keep in mind that those benchmarks don't use the requestAnimationFrame() batching strategy (out-of-the-box it's not installed since it makes testing harder since you have to wait for the next frame) like swannodette mentions.
I'd be interested to see these numbers after doing `npm install react-raf-batching` and doing `require('react-raf-batching').install()`.
In general "faster without optimization" is completely meaningless because it doesn't mean fast with optimization, which is what actually matters.
Example: Average code written in node.js is typically just as slow as, say, PHP (in fact node.js was 3x slower than php in techempower benchmarks). However, it has potential to be much faster when optimized whereas PHP doesn't reward such optimization almost at all.
Certainly. As I said, I like Clojure, but I'd be happy to be able to program in Scheme as well. I guess the history of LISP should have told me that not all people who like one LISP necessarily don't mind using another.