I did an analysis of over 50 different startups recently, trying to figure out what made them successful (or not). As far as I can tell, "people" was the #1 difference between success and failure. Bad people can smash a good idea into the ground and not make money, and good people can squeeze money from a rock.
Meritocracy is a concept so nebulous that it's hard to say much about because "merit" is a very nebulous concept.
The summary/article is a good example of that: it says Bill Gates got rich because of his programming skills.
Now, it is true that Bill Gates had some decent programming skills, and it is also true that I am a better programmer than he ever was, and I am still not as rich as him. But they are measuring the wrong thing: Gates didn't get rich because of his programming skills, he got rich because of his business skills (and he got lucky, but his business skills were good enough he would have gotten rich even without the IBM mistakes. Just not as rich).
So if you're going to say "meritocracy," make sure you are measuring the right thing.
We aren't evolving anymore or if we are it is not for the better (see Idiocracy),
The clear evidence that we aren't evolving for the better is the people are using comedy shows as support for their ideas. Don't you have anything better than that?
Warren is the only candidate who has proposed a wealth tax. This shows that she is smart because she is the only one who knows the difference between a wealth tax and income tax. A marginal change in income tax rates won't make a difference.
Still, she's a multi-millionaire so it's kind of hard to believe she's serious.
If you can't understand scientific papers, maybe you should go somewhere else. I hear Reddit is a good place for people who want to talk without being willing to put in the effort to read scientific papers.
btw, I already replied to you, but this misconception of yours is so wrong that it deserves to be addressed specifically:
policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken
No, you are wrong. There is no consensus among experts about what we should do to stop climate change. Some want to build nuclear power plants immediately to replace coal, some want to fund clean energy technology research, some want to transfer money to developing nations, some experts think we should do nothing and wait for solar to become cheap enough, some experts want to keep burning coal and invent ways to counter the effects of CO2 (like injecting aerosols directly into the atmosphere), others want to let the free-market solve the problem by creating carbon exchanges (these experts tend to be bankers).
We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on global temperatures. We have absolutely no consensus on what to do about it.
And "heard somewhere?" rather than policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken but businesses, shockingly, do not want?
I have some friends who joined this protest. The kid quoted in the article said, "my life is literally on the line." It's not, the science doesn't support that, he's following his emotions not facts. He's just a kid who enjoys the attention. Protesting is fun, I do it, too.
I like to get my science from papers and reports, not emotion-provoking film documentaries. If you actually want to understand climate change, start here (warning: pdf).
Sanctions make it illegal to buy from them, but they don't make it illegal for them to try to sell. The real question is, who is buying all that hardware?
Hitler was very charismatic, so people who were competent (but less charismatic) flocked to him. As long as he followed their decisions, he did OK. There are many military decisions he made (for example) that show the depth of his incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Even a broken clock is sarcastically correct twice a day, eh? Unless it's military.
I did an analysis of over 50 different startups recently, trying to figure out what made them successful (or not). As far as I can tell, "people" was the #1 difference between success and failure. Bad people can smash a good idea into the ground and not make money, and good people can squeeze money from a rock.
Meritocracy is a concept so nebulous that it's hard to say much about because "merit" is a very nebulous concept.
The summary/article is a good example of that: it says Bill Gates got rich because of his programming skills.
Now, it is true that Bill Gates had some decent programming skills, and it is also true that I am a better programmer than he ever was, and I am still not as rich as him. But they are measuring the wrong thing: Gates didn't get rich because of his programming skills, he got rich because of his business skills (and he got lucky, but his business skills were good enough he would have gotten rich even without the IBM mistakes. Just not as rich).
So if you're going to say "meritocracy," make sure you are measuring the right thing.
Then We're not talking about me are we? STFU.
Good, welcome.
if the amount it saves her over, say, ten years exceeds the amount it costs her over ten years?
I'm listening to your proposal for how that might happen.
Why should competent financial management be a disqualification? It seems to me it should be a plus.
Since you seem to need it spelled out for you, most people don't make laws that hurt themselves.
All you have to do is wait 6000 years until the light beams return from the nearest black hole.
We aren't evolving anymore or if we are it is not for the better (see Idiocracy),
The clear evidence that we aren't evolving for the better is the people are using comedy shows as support for their ideas. Don't you have anything better than that?
What we need is a protest by teenagers to tell us what to do.
Warren is the only candidate who has proposed a wealth tax. This shows that she is smart because she is the only one who knows the difference between a wealth tax and income tax. A marginal change in income tax rates won't make a difference.
Still, she's a multi-millionaire so it's kind of hard to believe she's serious.
If you can't understand scientific papers, maybe you should go somewhere else. I hear Reddit is a good place for people who want to talk without being willing to put in the effort to read scientific papers.
Why not start somewhere? Nuclear and renewables are existing technology.
It's just a matter of building consensus that we should spend our money on that.
Californians....talk as reverentially of Silicon Valley companies Apple, Facebook and Google as the ancient Greeks did of their Olympian gods.
I don't think that's true haha. All I hear are complaints about those companies.
Are you kidding?? I went to DEFCON 3 times and.....met a bunch of people who couldn't program. No joke.
policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken
No, you are wrong. There is no consensus among experts about what we should do to stop climate change. Some want to build nuclear power plants immediately to replace coal, some want to fund clean energy technology research, some want to transfer money to developing nations, some experts think we should do nothing and wait for solar to become cheap enough, some experts want to keep burning coal and invent ways to counter the effects of CO2 (like injecting aerosols directly into the atmosphere), others want to let the free-market solve the problem by creating carbon exchanges (these experts tend to be bankers).
We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some effect on global temperatures. We have absolutely no consensus on what to do about it.
And "heard somewhere?" rather than policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken but businesses, shockingly, do not want?
I have some friends who joined this protest. The kid quoted in the article said, "my life is literally on the line." It's not, the science doesn't support that, he's following his emotions not facts. He's just a kid who enjoys the attention. Protesting is fun, I do it, too.
I like to get my science from papers and reports, not emotion-provoking film documentaries. If you actually want to understand climate change, start here (warning: pdf).
Instead, let's base policy on the personal opinion of kids who only believe what they heard somewhere? Sounds reasonable.
Good thing California doesn't use annual agriculture then....the alfalfa grows all year round.
Sometimes you do solve a problem by tipping the scales the other way. Don't reject a solution before studying it. That's a cognitive bias.
Sanctions make it illegal to buy from them, but they don't make it illegal for them to try to sell. The real question is, who is buying all that hardware?
Hitler was very charismatic, so people who were competent (but less charismatic) flocked to him. As long as he followed their decisions, he did OK. There are many military decisions he made (for example) that show the depth of his incompetence.
You don't think rich people were able to get out of military service in Roman times?
truth and reality is, at least superficially, the overriding concern. It usually win out, often in battles fought long ago.
Yeah but sometimes it takes a thousand years for truth to win.
the guy is somehow at the same time both Hitler and incapable of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time.
That more-or-less describes Hitler: charismatic, but basically a failure at everything else.