hoopd's comments

> The findings are intuitive and validate that surge pricing is an overall good thing for the market.

Good compared to what? Good compared to having a giant monolith set prices for half the market, or good compared to a real market where drivers are allowed to set their own prices?

Surge pricing is Uber taking a small step away from their static central command pricing structure and moving an inch towards market dynamism. The real question is if they believe so strongly in markets why are they setting prices in the first place?

The current regulatory structure (in theory) sets prices on behalf of the public, 1000-to-1 odds says Uber sets prices on behalf of their shareholders.

They'll think those thoughts not before abusing students but before doing anything that might offend or hurt the feelings of somebody in a protected group.

The good teachers end up with students who should be punished but they're afraid to do it because they might lose their jobs for doing their jobs. The bad teachers will know to aim their abuse at the white males because nobody's watching for that and many who people picture that scenario think to themselves "Good."

I think if it's working that's great, I support a cultural plurality. It's like adopting kids - if you're doing well with the ones you have then have at it. If your kids are starving and can barely read, don't adopt more. In my state less than 7 of 10 of both our hispanic and black students are even graduating high school right now. We have too many districts with on-time graduation rates below 60% and those are the districts immigrants and refugees are most likely to flow into.

19% of high school graduates in the US are functionally illiterate[0]. Nationwide only half of black males are graduating at all. Half. We're already failing to take care of our poor. We're spending a very large amount of money trying to but it happens to be expensive.

If you go back to the start of this thread you'll see I've been consistent that there's a point where taking in more people is no longer a good thing. That doesn't mean I think it's always a bad thing, just that we should be honest that it can be.

[0] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3...

If the prison system is working at all we would expect to see violent crime drop as the prison population increases. There's a profit motive as well but we have to remember why societies build prisons in the first place.

Only 10% of California's prisoners have never been convicted of a violent crime. I doubt they all need to be locked up but I'm not seeing those prisons as being filled with peaceful drug dealers like the rumor has it.

I would guess in New Hampshire there isn't much of an immigrant population. I just looked it up and it's about 93% white there. My state's about 2/3's white, I live in a part of town where I don't walk around after dark because I might get jumped for being white which does affect my perspective. I have neighbors who immigrated from Mexico decades ago and still don't even speak basic english. I'm not saying my state should become all white or anything like that, but maybe we've reached a good mix and we could deal with the problems our hispanic and black communities already have because that's a challenge as it is. We're struggling to get them to stop killing each other, make it through high school and to read at a basic level. If we can't do that I don't know why we think we can take on even more people.

First, I think your intention is to silence me as opposed to engaging in discussion.

Second, my main assertion is the existence of a point where immigration is problematic. Example: colonialism.

Third, as to the side conversation of whether or not America is experiencing a problematic level of immigration I've already submitted the fact that 10% of students in US public schools are ESL learners. We can add to it that 16% of California's prisoners were not born on U.S. soil and they're so overcrowded the Supreme Court ordered them to do something about it. I'm calling these things "strain". I hope we can agree that immigration plays a role in both examples.

If you don't know what a problematic level of immigration looks like then you have no idea if you're looking directly at it or not. You're telling me you haven't seen any chickens lately, I'm asking what you think a chicken looks like, and you're saying you don't see any right now.

A 10% ESL student population doesn't solve itself. That's like a child thinking that their refrigerator magically fills itself when it gets empty. If you ignore that solutions have costs than yes by your definition ESL students have no costs associated with them.

I asked about the strain on the legal system due to immigrant populations, specifically the prison system in California. You said we should put less people in jail. While that's true it doesn't solve the problem unless we're going to change our laws to the extent that aggravated assault is no longer a crime. Then we've once again solved the problem by refusing to admit it even exists.

You've once again avoided giving even a qualitative answer as to what strain caused by immigration would look like. A first step would be admitting that it's even possible.

You've also made the mistake of thinking that just because you've found one problem that others must not exist. We can have broken systems and problems caused by immagration.

10% ESL students in our public education system should qualify as a strain. 17% of California's prisoners being born abroad should qualify as a strain. Are these numbers not high enough for you? If not, what does too high look like to you?

By what measure? If you don't know how to recognize when it's become a problem then it's not meaningful when you say you don't see a problem.

What is straining to you? I would describe our education system, our legal system, our prison system and our welfare system as all being currently "strained" so we must have different definitions.

(and to the downvoting crew, feel free to explain to me what productive disagreeement looks like, eh?)

As usual, a challenge to the drive-by downvoters: answer the question. At what point have we done all we can? We "can" give ourselves as slaves to refugees to make their lives easier but I don't think that's what was meant. So A) where's the line and B) how close are we to that line?

define "can"

The price vs. users graph[0] is hopelessly wrong, dangerously wrong even. So wrong I can't take anything the author says about economics or markets seriously at all. I think they're trying to make the argument that Uber will achieve economies of scale but that would be cost vs. users, not price. Price and cost are different things.

The graph also implicitly makes the assumption that there are an infinite number of users and Uber has competitors. In reality as the number of users increases Uber looks more and more like a monopoly and the price approaches whatever maximizes Uber's profits as opposed to "free". The bigger Uber gets the more they become the government they're fighting against.

In a healthy free market price will approach marginal cost, but Uber isn't fighting for a healthy free market. It's the last thing they want.

> While zero car ownership will undoubtedly and unremittingly be a net social good—can’t wait until driving is something one does for fun, ban cars!

Can't tell if the author is for or against regulation.

[0] - http://cdn.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/price.jpg

> interesting statistical information like police violence per capita,

Or maybe the violent crime rate in general?

> violence against minorities normalized by population

What about violence by minorities, or would that information be racist?

We give police the job of dealing with the most violent members of society, perhaps we should figure out to what extent they're just doing their job.

I suppose I gave him too much credit in assuming he would avoid this topic entirely.

This map was designed to cause outrage, not to inform.

Your "partner" may have three other sexual partners that you know about but that doesn't prevent them from having a forth that they keep hidden from you because they know you'll flip out.

You're not immune to this kind of scandal unless you're in a sexual relationship with somebody and you have no expectation to be made aware of their other sexual activities, in which case you're not in a healthy relationship.

I doubt Bertrand Russel would be very fascinated by polyamory - it's just another concept that works great in theory but becomes endlessly complicated in reality.

Of course piracy better solves the distribution problem, distribution is easy. Copyright helps solve the problem of artist compensation. That problem's hard but ask any artist* who isn't living off a trust fund and they'll tell you how important it is. If you skip the hard part by definition you've made things easier on yourself.

If the community of music listeners took better care of musicians then they wouldn't run to the arms of the music industry. Unfortunately music listeners want and expect free or near-free.

> It's remarkable that progress can be achieved mostly through breaking regulation theses day

Not to be offensive but I think it's completely uninteresting. Human decency has always slowed progress. Which empire obeyed the laws of the lands it invaded? Think of how our medical knowledge would progress if we abandoned all ethics, or how efficient our criminal justice system could be if we abandoned due process, how much oil we could drill or ore we could mine if we abandoned environmental regulations.

We don't do these things because local actors pursuing locally optimal solutions don't always benefit the group. In fact it's possible for the opposite to happen like in The Tragedy of the Commons.

IOW I dislike regulations too but they solve problems we don't have better solutions for.

*who you know well enough to ask personal questions

> Are you saying that people whose career or reputation depends on not harassing women should be allowed to get away with harassing women more than others?

Not at all. I'm saying the only evidence provided from the author is a flirtatious text where the "harasser" was attempting to engage in consentual intercourse with another adult. Was it inappropriate? Apparently, but reaching out for human contact is a normal and healthy part of life.

The person I was responding to was fantasizing about destroying this person's livelihood and the livelihoods of others who refused to take part in this destruction. One person fantasized about a natural and healthy human activity and the other fantasized about crucifiction. There may have been some vague power dynamics in the (alleged) harassment but that doesn't measure up to active and aggressive threats.

The Clarkson sacking was the result of a police investigation and regardless of whether the ass-kicking was deserved or not there was a physical assault with evidence that it happened. Why we would even compare a woman having to say no in a clear and adult way to a man being physically assaulted is beyond me.

You're bieng more of a bully than the author's harasser.

Look at your language, you want to crucify people because they didn't destroy somebody's reputation and possibly their entire career when a member of your group asked them to? That's scary.

> Not if the preferred way to become a "perfect student" is to go only after the easier/safer challenges.

That's nowhere near becoming a perfect student and it isn't even high on the scale of parental pressure.

> Now their is a pervasive attitude - if you study engineering for example you pay 4X for tuition compared to humanities.

What? If you want to be an engineer you can go to a state school, work hard and pass the FE/EIT exam your senior year for 1/4 the price of a private school.

Half of the top ten engineering schools are public: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...

The top ten liberal arts schools are all private: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...