| ▲ | dataviz1000 3 hours ago |
| There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for. What boggles my mind is that I make coffee at home because I'm frugal. I guess it is good the government and DoD are seeking cheaper alternatives also. My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them? There is a group in South Florida who stand watch over turtle nests on the beach to ensure the hatchlings make it to the ocean instead of instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels. I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there. What would you do? |
|
| ▲ | kingnothing an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them? What signal are you looking for with that question? It feels much more like a thought experiment with friends while having a few pints than something reasonable for a job interview. |
| |
| ▲ | dataviz1000 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The it was the initial culture / behavioral interview for a job developing AI for education of children. Considering how these drones are used in the article linked, the question is apropos. | |
| ▲ | bcjdjsndon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would make them fly around helping people and stuff | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. I like to think about how providing 4-week paid parental leave would cost $2 billion annually and actually help US families. Meanwhile we have spent over $100 billion on this war. |
| |
| ▲ | toephu2 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | California already more or less provides 8 weeks of paid parental leave (PFL program). | | | |
| ▲ | joenot443 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My back of napkin figures gave me about $20-40b. I'm curious how you got to the $2 billion number? | | |
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm curious about your napkin math, care to share? I got mine from a paper published by the University of Chicago: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/735565. | |
| ▲ | adityashankar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you even estimate that, human productivity is non linear to worktime and often, employees, when given good benefits are likely to be more productive. also there's the fact of this having a ROI since people generate economic value in the longer run, and hence, more taxes |
| |
| ▲ | milkytron an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Considering the push for reproduction from this admin and his technocrats, I'm curious if they would consider something like this. | | |
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand an hour ago | parent [-] | | One would think, but the flip-side is that this supports more women in the workforce. Traditional roles of men working and women caring for kids seems like a bigger priority of this admin. I do think it is a policy point that Democrats should absolutely be hammering them on. This is pro-worker and pro-family at very low cost. |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So far…. | |
| ▲ | CMay 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The cost of not having this war could have been 8 trillion and countless lives, or some arbitrarily huge number. Many of the actions taken this year are directly intended to curb the possible events that could lead to World War 3. Iran is directly connected to all of that. Seems like money well spent. | | |
| ▲ | 5upplied_demand 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > the possible events that could lead to World War 3. Iran is directly connected to all of that. If any event has pushed us closer to WW3 it is the US's decision to preemptively attack Iran. > Seems like money well spent. Based on what outcome? The regime is still intact, if not stronger. They are likely more resolute in wanting a nuclear weapon, as we almost certainly wouldn't have attacked them if they had one. They have validated their control over the Straight of Hormuz and it's impact on our economy. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hundreds of billions spent on a war you lost and best case scenario is going back to the deal Obama made. Money well spent indeed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stronglikedan 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels. > I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there. And put brighter lights on the drones to lead them in the right direction! But if you asked me that in an interview, I would probably question whether I wanted to work there. I don't think random, irrelevant, put-me-on-the-spot questions help anyone on either side of that coin. |
|
| ▲ | willio58 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >It pales compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for. Thinking of country-scale finances in the same way you think about personal finance is wrong in many ways. Take debt for example. As an individual, it's arguably best not to have debt at all. As a country, sovereign debt is the foundation of the world's money supply and fuels continuous economic growth. Also, though the U.S. has $31 Trillion dollars of debt, $22 Trillion of that belongs to U.S. domestic traders. If we were to cut our debt down to zero, we'd cripple ourselves with taxes and stifle growth. We'd have zero debt but we'd be sent into a massive economic depression, and that would likely ripple out across the planet. |
| |
| ▲ | HNisCIS 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I see this parroted constantly but it seems to be getting proven wrong by Japan and, frankly, the US |
|
|
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those drones are pretty noisy though. |
| |
| ▲ | dataviz1000 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Probably is an issue but sea turtles hearing is adapted to ocean not air and low frequencies. Also, waves and wind blowing likely muffle a lot of noise. The organizations that do this have mobile apps and collect tons of data. If I'm use ML, I'd start with time series forecasting to see if I can get the window done to a few hours. |
|
|
| ▲ | FatherOfCurses 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| $3 is still too much and I would rather it go towards paying the debt down. |
|
| ▲ | jschveibinz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Side note: The federal government costs about $19 billion per day to operate based on an annual budget of roughly $7 trillion. So $1 billion is about equal to 4 hour hours of government spending. |
| |
| ▲ | pchristensen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Operations is about 1/4 of the budget ($1.75T), and half of that is DoD. 60% is payments for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The remaining 15% is debt service. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The federal government costs about $19 billion per day to operate based on an annual budget of roughly $7 trillion. $7 trillion is not operating expenses. Much goes into assets that are retained decades or more. The Interstate Highway System isn't an operating expense. | | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yikes, that is a lot. |
|
|
| ▲ | mmooss 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for. (Your share of overall defense spending is ~1,000x higher, of course.) I wish political leaders would express it that way. And you need to include the time factor: $10/year for 10 years differs from $20 for a one-time event. And somehow figure in capital accumulation (as opposed to e.g., consumables) and depreciation. But there are clear, effective ways to communicate it: 'I propose each American spend an average of $80/year for 50 years on this fighter jet program'. 'This moon mission will cost everyone $5/year for 2 years.' To nitpick a little, I think your math is off: There are 350 million Americans, but we need to exclude most children, elderly, etc. |
|
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for. tax billionaires, then |
| |
| ▲ | vicnov 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | not a fan of defending billionairs, but is mostly a useless populist slogan* You can do full Dekulakization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization) on them and it won't change anything in current economic situation. Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T)
covers
- ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T)
- ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T)
- ~23% of debt (~$36T): and pretty much kills US ability to rely on private sector
(and I dont think we have a way to rely on public sector) The sooner we all start focusing on things that actually matter -- like improving democracy, quality of education (btw spending more may not solve it) etc -- the faster we will improve situation. Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).
Taxing more may not be the answer. *it should be studied what motivates people to repeat it | | |
| ▲ | cloverich an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO its a useful populist slogan because it solves a different problem: The power that comes with being a billionaire. E.g. its all well and good to focus on fixing democracy instead, but if (some specific) billionaires are focused on deploying their wealth to destroy democracy, then what? I've generally come around to believe that we need to limit wealth from a purely power / control point of view. | |
| ▲ | danans an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T): Adding a wealth tax doesn't mean eliminating existing income taxes. > Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc). Perhaps , but what about poor states like West Virginia or Alabama. It's not universal if they don't receive benefits also. | | |
| ▲ | godwinson__4-8 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Just remember those states are already handout states. They take more money in than they give back. They also have some bizarre cultural hatred for the blue states and cities that make this country an economic superpower. The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve. | | |
| ▲ | danans 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve. Absent a federal wealth redistribution, yes NYC must do its best for it's residents. I'm not disagreeing with that. A federal wealth tax, however, would tax Alabama billionaires as much as it would tax NYC billionaires. | | |
| ▲ | godwinson__4-8 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Good point. It is a good thing as you point out to remember that even so called "poor states" also suffer from pretty severe wealth inequality, in some cases perhaps more stark than one would find in the blue cities, if only because the floor can appear far wider and lower. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | selimthegrim 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would have been nice to do that in Lebanon so that woman could still be alive. |
|
| ▲ | Noaidi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Now you know why there is war. We have war because the U.S. is failing. Just look at the reversal of the 10 and 30 y bonds over the last 20 years. All the free money that was given to the oligarchs killed our economy. |
| |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 10y rates are almost exactly where they were 20 years ago, and about 10% lower than they were 20 years before that. So...what are you talking about? | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean just before ‘08? | | |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean 20 years ago, just like the original comment said. What is confusing? The last 20 years of interest rates are unremarkable, and certainly don't indicate the US is failing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dawnerd 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And they’re still on cnbc daily saying rates need to go down to save the us. There’s a guy on right now saying rates need to be lower to save the ai bubble. | | |
| ▲ | Noaidi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, save the asset holders, damn the peasants. even Trump said he wants to see housing prices go higher. These people do not care about you. You need to hate them more. | | |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you think the common person benefits from high interest rates? Pray tell, how? | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It helps keep inflation under control, for one thing. For another, it helps prevent billionaires from wasting even more money on boondoggles. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xienze 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In this particular case I think it's just because Trump can't resist doing every single thing Israel wants. | | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | its because they have him on tape having sex with children | | |
| ▲ | Noaidi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But what about Graham Platner? /s | | |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sexual assault allegations and literal Nazi symbolism tattooed on his body. Those things are acceptable now? These were the exact things that Democrats went after Hegseth for (who, for the record, is also a doofus like Platner). The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds. | | |
| ▲ | khriss 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You can guess where the bar is when the guy in the white house was literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law, and he still won the republican nomination. Now compare that against a credible accusation being enough to derail a senate hopeful in a must win seat for the Democrats. Sorry, I don't see the hypocrisy. Actually, I do see it, just not on the side you insist it's on. | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm willing to put up with a lot to put the brakes on Trump. But since I'm not in Maine, it's not up to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Or we can go even further with the fun thought exercise, by spreading the cost even more: Even $100,000,000,000,000,000 doesn't matter if you evenly distribute it across each atom in the usa. |