Readit NewsDeleted Comment
zhte415 commented on Blaming Capitalists and Workers for Inflation profstonge.com/p/blaming-... · Posted by u/janandonly
Well that's how it was taught to me. This new thing just confuses me and I wonder what the old inflation should be called now.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/inflation#etymonline_v_6450 >Monetary sense of "enlargement of prices" (originally by an increase in the amount of money in circulation) first recorded 1838 in American English.
Even the oldest wikipedia entry has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&oldid=2... >In some contexts the word "inflation" is used to mean an increase in the money supply, which is sometimes seen as the cause of price increases. Some economists (of the Austrian school) still prefer this meaning of the term, rather than to mean the price increases themselves. Thus, for example, some observers of the 1920s in the United States refer to "inflation" even though prices of goods were not increasing at the time. Below, the word "inflation" will be used to refer to a general increase in prices unless otherwise specified.
To me inflation means this. What should I call it because nowadays inflation simply means prince increase. What's the term for the "old inflation"? I want a word for it and apparently I can't use inflation anymore because its meaning has changed. Debasement? Can you use that when the central bank expands the money supply and causes the value of currency to decline? Because you can't call that inflation anymore as language has apparently evolved.
The 'oldest' Wikipedia article you linked isn't the 'oldest'. Should you want to go by Wikipedia for a 'truthyness' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&oldid=2...
But.. we could reference "a rise in the general price level caused by an imbalance between the quantity of money and trade needs" [1] (Cleveland Fed; On the Origin and Evolution of the Word Inflation).
[1] https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentar...
On reverting to to 'old' meanings, Adam Smith's The real price of everything...is the toil and trouble of acquiring it isn't inconsistent with Marx as long as toil and trouble is, in the end, people. Or perhaps myths of old beliefs that there was no sectoral, geographical nor temporal stickyness to anything. It's as if there were no sudden and unexpected changes in prices during times of a roughly constant amount of specie backing 'prices' that make 10% look like a storm in a teacup, though was it ever 1:1 or was hope to have the means to provide backing more accurate; specie based currency has a long history of volatility over the world, from West African empires to Asia.
We could even go farther... to say that inflation, a change in prices, is caused by expectations of inflation; that the supply of money is driven by the demand for money... and that gets us to whether demand is liability or asset driven which may be full circle.
I just asked my rabbits this question for you. Do they count as who?
They continued chomping down celery tops and coriander.
One of them likes to watch planes. It sits on its hutch in the afternoon watching planes from a local airport fly away, more interested in them on days when the wind's blowing such that when nearby they're taking off rather than days when the wind means they're approaching. The other one doesn't care for planes, but stamps whenever a wasp's nearby. This second one also likes to observe, then crush with a front paw, any ants it comes across or that come across it.
Remarkably human behaviour, though I know not what they think. Is it curiosity. Is it fear? Is something in-built and there is no 'thinking'? And what of us? Do we really comprehend? An Area51 alien is to me as a flying celery-rabbit on a magical boat with radish tops for wings is perhaps to these rabbits, if they've ever thought to imagine. They do seem to dream. That is, it's completely within bounds of their known reality. As outlandish as the very real, lived, imaginations of a schizophrenic delusion may be, and my observing it based on my 'norms', it's still somewhat based on the individual's experience, or imagination, of their reality, their experiences.
Perhaps there are aliens. Perhaps they exist in differing dimensions. Perhaps they exist as stars blinking to one another, perhaps they exist in my underpants or in fact are my underpants, what do I know, we are all in our (bounded?, there is always a bound...) existence, as Spinoza pointed out, of "Substance, its attributes, and modes".
Deleted Comment
zhte415 commented on Why is DNS still hard to learn? jvns.ca/blog/2023/07/28/w... · Posted by u/TangerineDream
> Maybe everyone sees this differently? Or maybe is more than one viewpoint to it.
> For example, if someone tells me that something is "actually really simple", and I did not get it yet, I tend to think that I likely (not certainly, but likely) have not found the right approach to that something yet, and once I found that way to look at it, things will resolve itself.
At least in my experience, people asserting that something lots of people have trouble understanding is "not hard" are doing so as a flex at least as often as they are trying to be helpful, so I'm surprised that a lot of people don't make the same hypothesis you do. When someone does so while also touting their status among their peers due to their knowledge and talking about how anyone could do it by just putting in the work, it's not surprising that people might interpret that as implying that people who don't have the same knowledge are either too lazy to put in the effort or not capable of it, regardless of whether that was the intended message. If the goal is to try to help people, it's more effective to communicate in a way that conveys understanding and not judgment; if someone doesn't care to improve their methodology of helping people, that's fine, but it does raise more doubts about whether they're being honest about their intentions.
Your post reminds me of three things -
The nature of what's being learnt. Some things require a continuity - to understand B, prior A is needed (or helps, to understand faster).
The method of learning. Book/theory-based, or practical? For either, what's the nature of scaffolding (self, or via resources) to help leap the chasm? If testing one's self, what's the complexity and can that complexity be broken down into simpler (or more discrete) parts, (perhaps testing working better in smaller parts)? Perhaps A isn't fully (or at all) required to 'know' B, depending on how it's learnt. Which goes on to -
The nature of the learner (at that point for that task). Someone that's looking to solve a task, somewhat surface, or someone that's interested and will go deeper into edge cases or approach with greater curiosity?
[I'm skipping the nature of the learning/knowledge, since 'resolving DNS' is a pretty externally verifiable result. However it might be fruitful to consider the nature of the learning is not only 'resolving DNS', and even if 'resolving DNS' fails, learning always happens (intended/unintended, positive/negative, a can of worms there).]
You point out that 'easy' and 'hard' are motivators that might have unexpected, or the reverse, effects vs. intended, depending on the reader. When putting it into those 3 parts, perhaps this shows the usefulness of framing.
zhte415 commented on A beautiful, broken America: what I learned on a 2,800-mile bus ride theguardian.com/travel/20... · Posted by u/stryan
I really love it when foreigners visit this country and pick the absolute worst possible traveling conditions imaginable. Presumably so they can go back home and share their "authentic" American experience with whoever is stupid enough to listen. It's like they enjoy wearing this badge of honor that they witnessed the misery that is America or whatever.
Were you expecting something better because you're a "white European"? I don't really get why that prefaced the story. I'm not white and I've never had such a bad experience as you in any country, let alone America, am I doing something wrong?
How would it be if I visited wherever you're from and proud of, and intentionally stayed in a terrible part of town and got around by bullock cart, and then went back to America and bitched incessantly about your shithole of a country?
Heads-up: You might want to email dang as your account seems to be shadow-banned. Your recent comments of the last couple of hours show as [dead] (logout and see).
I feel this quote
> “The app right now is really just the first building block in a much larger vision for how we want the social web to work,” Graber said.
Highlights a difference in ontological approach.