I think you might be thinking of the hyperinflation of 1923? That's when Germany printed money to pay off war debts. But the hyperinflation was over long before 1929.
"[Brüning] enacted a draconian policy of deflation and drastically cutting state expenditure.[5] Among other measures, he completely halted all public grants to the obligatory unemployment insurance introduced in 1927, resulting in workers making higher contributions and fewer benefits for the unemployed. Benefits for the sick, invalid and pensioners were also reduced sharply.[52] Additional difficulties were caused by the different deflationary policies pursued by Brüning and the Reichsbank, Germany's central bank.[...]Brüning triggered a deflationary internal devaluation by forcing the economy to reduce prices, rents, salaries and wages by 20%."
This made unemployment skyrocket and arguably caused the rise of Hitler.
EDIT: I'm not sure why all the downvotes, maybe because it looks like I Godwin-ed the thread? I was just paraphrasing the rest of the wikipedia section:
"In 1933, the American economist Irving Fisher developed the theory of debt deflation. He explained that a deflation causes a decline of profits, asset prices and a still greater decline in the net worth of businesses. Even healthy companies, therefore, may appear over-indebted and facing bankruptcy.[57] The consensus today is that Brüning's policies exacerbated the German economic crisis and the population's growing frustration with democracy, contributing enormously to the increase in support for Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party"
> EDIT: I'm not sure why all the downvotes, maybe because it looks like I Godwin-ed the thread? I was just paraphrasing the rest of the wikipedia section:
Well in a thread about the re-emerging dominance of idiocy in silicon valley, consider it more supporting evidence.
> A loaf of bread in Berlin that cost around 160 Marks at the end of 1922 cost 200,000,000,000 Marks by late 1923.
I was not previously familiar with the events you referenced. It sure seems like the Chancellor made very poor choices when the Great Depression began, perhaps because he was terrified of inflation happening again.
Wait, hold up. Are we talking about a policy of deflation (decreasing government spending), or deflation of the currency (contraction of the monetary supply and an ongoing increase of value of the currency)?
I thought we were talking about the latter.
I could still be wrong, and if you have any data on the value of the mark used at the time, I'd be willing to move on my position.
Ultimately what I'm asking here I guess, is do we have any evidence that what Brüning was trying to do worked?
That can change, and quickly. It isn't really plausible at this point that the US is, under any voluntary circumstances, going to attempt to pay its debts down unless the financial system completely collapses. Debt to GDP has been in a pretty solid uptrend for 40 years now. US economists are starting to lay a theoretical groundwork for why the government can just create money at will too.
At some point something will give. It is frankly stunning to me that merchants accept ongoing crisis level debts from the US as part of the normal order of things. Someone thinks they are owed something and in real terms they aren't going to get it.
If they’re giving up on autopilot then fine. But if people’s lives are riding on the quality of the work then I think it sets a high bar for personal projects.
I'm sorry, what? Are people not allowed to have free time and hobbies anymore?
Just because someone's working on a high-profile high-risk project does not in any way change their personal time: it's theirs to do what they want with.
Society has given Kaparty et al a lot of latitude to take liberties with other peoples lives. In my view this creates an obligation to do the best job humanly possible.
That's all well and good for his job, and even that assertion is debatable. He's a human after all.
But this is a personal project. Something that is unrelated to his job. So it doesn't really matter what "bar" it is because he's doing it for his own benefit, not Tesla's or "humanity's".
Unless you're implying he can't have personal hobbies anymore. Which was the exact point of my previous comment.
His job affects peoples lives. He certainly is human. I'm not criticising his project. I'm not saying he can't have personal hobbies.
And I'm not the one that decides the bar.
I'm saying that there is a bar and it's higher when lives depend on it.
There is a long list of activities that people could do in their personal time that would be considered inappropriate. What is done outside of work is relevant. It can form part of a character assessment which can have political and legal ramifications.
If Tesla ends up with a dangerous product then it becomes very relevant.
There is no bar on personal projects. Period. That's the whole point of it being a personal project.
At least you've made it perfectly clear that you don't think people should have lives outside of work. Hope you also subscribe to the same ideology yourself and don't have any personal projects or hobbies (why are you on HN anyway, shouldn't you be working right now?) or else you'd easily be considered a hypocrite.
There is a bar on personal projects. Period. Period.
Either you're misunderstanding logic, law or society. If Karparthy fails he runs a real risk of having his life very closely examined. The rules are different for different people.
I do machine learning medical work for the coronavirus. I work at near optimal as humanly possible. Occasional hackernews is one of my few indulgences.
Agree to disagree. My company has no control over the work I do in my personal time, and neither does some random person on the other side of the world. This applies to me, you, and everyone else. Nobody is special because "they do important work".
By your logic, you should have no indulgences, so you should probably stop posting.
This is not merely "ham-fisted normalisation". In many cases, the student's attainment is being completely ignored!
> but I think the bigger issue is
The tricky thing about this scandal is that it is actually about 8 different catastrophes for students all enmeshed together. This makes it hard to know where to start critisising the government.
Maintain 3 gigs simultaneously and drop the lowest paid one on occasion. Or devote fewer hours to it. Negotiation becomes, “sorry I can’t do more hours for you, someone else is paying me more for my time.” This will also mean you don’t have to worry about who gets what cut, just your cut. It means only doing part time and keeping a float of 40-60hour weeks.
Motor cyclists and bicyclists tell the same. I as a bicyclist do too. Because apart from the sting of the wind in the eyes it was necessary to drive with sports glasses/lenses/some visor because otherwise you'd be almost certainly hit by insects in the face or eye. That isn't the case anymore. There simply are less of them in the air.
A single virus probably can cause infection, but it appears not to be anywhere near a linear correlation between dose and risk. And severity can be tied to initial dose, too.
This is one interesting thing about masks: they may do more to improve prognosis than reduce infection.
Further, when we're talking about ... e.g virus on cardboard... the way you do the test is after the droplet on the cardboard has dried, you use a buffer to dissolve the virus back out of the cardboard and see if you can grow it in culture. This may recover virus in cases where there's absolutely no chance for casual contact to get it out.
there is such a thing as minimal infective dose. they do not know what the minimal infective dose is yet though. there is no you get one virus particle and now you have the virus... rather, you have a worked out average dose of the virus particles that if you gave a population of people that much of the virus 50% of them would become ill.
The one thing I liked about MS was that it didn’t have a successful social media asset. This allowed it to stay generally apolitical and out of the fray.
This will be the beginning of the end of MS. (As opposed to the middle of the end of a very drawn out decline.)
I’m sure they see it as another Skype. The US govt subsidizing an acquisition to get access to data.
TikTok optimizes hard for popularity which involves many unpleasant choices in their algorithm. MS will feel compelled to ‘fix’ this both for a perceived social good but also for the benefit of the US government who is no doubt subsidizing this.
MS will become a target for lobbying by interest groups and the US government to a degree it has never dealt with and I don’t think MS can handle it. This is not the same as criticism for being a monopoly or making crappy software.
The best case scenario will be they screw with the algorithm early enough and bad enough that people leave en mass.
These are the same people who couldn’t leave Skype alone.
I wonder if it’s inevitable that we will get denial of entry based facial recognition systems. It’s legally difficult to stop people from leaving the store whereas it’ll be much easier to prevent them from entering.
If someone shoplifts then they get banned from the chain, or a network of chains. This would be an alternative to police involvement. Restitution could be done proportionality and privately.
Of course there will be issues with it but I’m sure it could be cheaper to figure this out than the alternative loss prevention solutions.
From a profit motivation, Rite-Aid (and everyone else) would really like everyone to give them money instead of banning them forever. So I really feel the market will sort this out, maybe a 3 strike system or temporary suspensions.
Now that I think about it, we already have temporary suspensions from Walmart and the like if you get caught. How is this different than a guard just watching the CCTV all day?
It will happen, and it will become a constitutional issue once it becomes ubiquitous enough.
These systems will likely be networked together, building and sharing profiles on known undesirables such that they can be banned from most, if not all stores eventually. Once that happens, there will be a class of people who cannot legally buy food anymore, because to enter a store would be trespass.
If rich people sold the assets they wouldn’t have them anymore. The mechanism is more that rich have access to lower interest rates. The proportional difference of interest rates between the rich and poor increases as the risk free interest rate decrease.
> If rich people sold the assets they wouldn’t have them anymore.
But they’d have more money, presumably more than what they paid for the assets. Not that money and goods are exactly fungible, but buying assets from the wealthy makes them wealthier, not poorer or status quo.
