0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1A, 1B, 20, 21, …, A0, A1, A3, …
You can use your hands to count in base 12 if you want to, and some cultures have done so. Just use the segments on your fingers on one hand, using your thumb to count each segment.
Sixteen times as much compared to 1080, four times as much compared to 4K.
It’s got that cinematic feel, bro.
Yeah, I love when the camera pans slowly and everything is a blurry mess. Pure cinematic excellence.
Target shooting or trap and skeet.
Honestly? I can’t do the searching for you this time, but it’s all the top results when you look for average wait times between countries. The data is easy to access. Pretty much all developed nations have similar numbers, with wide variation between specialties.
Sort of. The US medical system has multiple choke points, but an undergraduate degree is the least limiting. The bigger barriers are the limited number of med school spots and the even smaller number of residency spots. Med school is a whole discussion, I don’t even think you should need an undergraduate degree, but whatever. The final filter is residency spots, which are functionally set by the government. They pay hospitals to take residents, and will only pay for a certain number each year. We gotta increase that number if we want to stop throwing away educated doctors before they can even get to helping people.
Well but they aren’t roots, they’re from a stem that goes back under.
We’re arguing past each other.
I think you take my defense of the usefulness of the profit motive, and the wonderful things it’s gotten us, as a declaration that it is the best external motivator and should be used in all situations. Of course not.
Your first paragraph is simply not true in the sense that even if everyone’s basic needs were met (and we should create a society where they are) money would still be the main source of power outside violence. Most people are not satisfied by basic necessities, especially when given examples that better is possible.
Your second paragraph is an excellent example of the limitations of the profit motive, and it’s why we should continue to fund public research and development in areas where the profit motive fails. We already do it and in fact we should significantly increase our funding levels. There are other areas where the profit motive fails (utilities, healthcare at the point of delivery, national defense, education, etc.) and I think we (the United States) should expand into internet and universal health insurance.
For your third paragraph… What do you want? For humans to be better? They will nearly always go with the easy solution. It’s weirdos who look at difficult problems and take the honest, long term, responsible solution at the expense of themselves or even just short-term pain. This is fine. You’re not going to change human nature. I just don’t know what kind of system you want to set up where money still exists, yet greedy short-sighted people don’t exist or work their ways into leadership positions at companies? I think the current punishments they receive for their bad behavior isn’t nearly harsh or immediate enough, but… They’re still gonna do it.
I have lots of improvements I want to make to the world, they just don’t involve denying human nature when you keep the fundamental structure of the system they exist in.
But like, money is what creates the profit motive? How do you keep money and remove the ability to accumulate wealth? Money is power and there are those who crave power. I agree, the less money you have, the more help you should get. Same with the opposite. But like, this discussion is based off “innovation exists without the profit motive” and I chimed in to point out that it’s not really the innovation that the profit motive is good for. It’s all the support systems around the invitation that enable these ideas to become big. The ultra-fast pace of innovation is enabled by these systems and given us all the wonderful medicines and quality of life improvements. I am on disability. My lifestyle is immense luxury compared to royalty from even just a dozen generations ago.
You’re looking at the source of new ideas: inventive people, and saying they would exist under any system. I’m looking at the system and saying great ideas go nowhere without a way to engage people who don’t care about your idea.
Imagine a world without money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to convince them it’s valuable, beneficial, and actually a great idea. Imagine a world with money. In order to convince people to promote and enable your great idea, you have to pay them. I’m being serious here: which do you think is easier?
Seriously, we do not need to live with unpredictable, dangerous billionaire middlemen in order to make the world a better place.
You’re right! I do not believe the concentration of wealth into so few hands is necessary or even a good thing. What I am saying is that the profit motive is necessary in order to mobilize people who do not care about your great new idea, no matter how great it is. Do you really think intentional shipping would function at any recognizable level if there wasn’t profit in it for the sailors, ship builders, insurance companies, port authorities, and so on and so forth? None of then give a shit about your really cool idea. They don’t even know about it. But they’re necessary for you to get ahold of that molybdenum you need in order to prove your idea works, much less scale it to production levels that would actually benefit society.
You have to remember, the world is filled with people who mostly just want to hang out with their friends, and that’s fine. Some of us are movers, shakers, and innovators, yes, but we need help from all those people who would rather be tanning or at a soccer match. How do we get them to help out? Pay em. Give them money for their trouble.
When the Tulsa race riots happened, black applications for patents in the US fell dramatically. Why? Because black people saw that they could put in lots of hard work, become hugely successful, and the US government wasn’t gonna protect them and their wealth like it would other people’s. Why spend your time on something that could be taken at at any moment? It should be unsurprising for you to learn that increases corruption and authoritarianism cause decreases in inventions and economic activity. Why? Same reason. Why put in the hard work and take the risks if some official’s cousin is going to get a contract at ridiculous rates and drive you out of business? Why even bother when the government could just nationalize your industry on a whim?
You mentioned that businesses will kill ideas they don’t think are profitable or will cannibalize sales. Do you know who used to be the biggest killer of innovation? The government and the workers. Most innovation is fundamentally finding ways to do things better with less labor. You know who doesn’t like suddenly not having a job? Workers. Why would a government oppose labor saving devices? Too many people out of a job can lead to political unrest.
I suggest: Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.
In order to take an innovative idea, develop it into a product or service that can be delivered for reasonable time, cost, and effort, and then spread that innovation to anyone who wants it, you need massive bureaucratic organizations and simple ways of trading effort between organizations. Very few people are passionate about bureaucracy, even fewer when they’re not getting paid. Without the safety systems in place to allow for big organizations and reliable imter-organization collaboration, most cool ideas would stay in the garage.
Also, in the modern world, most innovations require access to machines and resources too expensive to be secured by some guy playing with ideas and materials in his free time.
There are examples of innovative individuals doing amazing things for the love of the game on their own dime and on their own time, yes, but their achievements are dwarfed by the innovations created by people working in systems and bankrolled by organizations.
That’s really the crux of this stupid argument. Is a neural network that analyzes x-rays before handing them to a doctor AI? I would say no. At this point, AI means “over hyped LLM and other generalist models.” But the person trying to judge others over AI would say yes.
Fucking love my Framework 16 and I’ll tell everyone every chance I get.
No, only 13% have the kind that specializes in your genitals. Where they have it and the other kind is not a part of the static. (However it’s pretty likely the numbers sort of self-balance and it ends up that about 13% of people have one of the herpes virus on/near their junk.)
Both kinds can infect anywhere on the body, they just each have a zonal preference.
I mean, it infects your nerve cells. That’s a tricky place for medicine for obvious reasons.
Maybe you could categorize it under poor impulse control and poor understanding of social norms. But like, one incident doesn’t make a diagnosis.
I know that coding time is much more expensive than I can afford, but if I had the money I would clean up and fully-feature their macro system.