Fun. I have a visceral dislike for the NYT, so the association is actually a negative, haha — but I could get over it.
The tradeoff of the Hacker Times design is increased information for each story but lower density of stories compared to the HN homepage. The high-density design of the HN page is probably optimal for my habits, even though some of the user-submitted headlines are opaque enough that I miss some things I would otherwise click on.
It comes and goes in waves. The Thomas Bowdler from whom the term "Bowdlerization" is derived published his sex-sanitized Shakespeare editions in 1818.
As to what the odds are that any random copy would be censored, it's hard to say. For a work that's out of copyright, there's no copyright owner who can take legal action to thwart publication of modified versions. However in the US at least, such editions are typically advertised as modified because they are being marketed to schools and such as safe for children. If an edition is explicitly labeled as "unabridged", it's probably fine because otherwise there's the possibility of an ornery anti-censorship advocate pursuing a false advertising consumer protection claim.
The racial slurs are critical as Twain used them to indict the culture of the antebellum American South, and not to endorse its prejudices. When Huck Finn chooses "All right then, I'll go to Hell" by helping Jim, he goes against his ingrained social training as a white Southerner.
People who want to censor Twain misunderstand his message, either out of ignorance, or purposefully so as to take the sting out of Twain's social commentary and rewrite history.
Perhaps you can think of some works of literature set in India where characters utter analogous slurs, and the purpose of the author is to criticize the caste system?
I agree in the case of Huck Finn, but if you look at the slurs in Tom Sawyer there are not many and they are mostly inessential, which is funny because Tom Sawyer functions as a racist book, whereas Huck Finn is anti-racist.
Happy fellow TR7 owner here, though I am curious if Whirlpool’s latest foray into seemingly reliable washers will pose any real threat/competition. The TR7 is definitely one that “just works” and fades into the background of your life.
Sadly Bosch didn’t take the same tack; the prospect of slurping up all that sweet, sweet data must have been too hard to resist. I love my 800 series dishwasher but I do wish it were as “dumb” as the TR7.
Who can tell which Whirlpool appliances are actually quality? It's so hard to trust anybody. Between the short-time-horizon thinking of public companies driven by the share price and the brand cannibalism of Private Equity, the brand you thought was reliable a couple years ago is today dialing up short-term gains so that its current leadership can gut the company and retire.
Reviews are so easily gamed that it's hard to trust them. Only companies with small product lines can build and maintain a durable reputation for quality.
I like my Bosch dishwasher, too. Never connected it to wifi; never downloaded the app. It broadcasts a Bluetooth channel I wish I could turn off, but I've not seen any other ill effect. There's just no compelling use-case for a "connected" dishwasher, lol.
I own a speedqueen. I love my speedqueen. I wouldn't buy speedqueen today and instead opt for a different, cheaper dumb model.
My speedqueen dryer needs a new control board after 9 years. A new dryer isn't as high quality. From what I understand the dryer quality dipped in the past 6-9 years whereas washers are more or less the same. Maytag and GE have much cheaper dumb options you should consider, and save yourself several hundred. It will also make replacement less painful if a critical part dies.
I don't trust Maytag and GE. It's good that they have simple interfaces and lack surveillance tech, but their cheap machines are almost certainly built for price-driven consumers who don't consider that they are built to fall apart.
Household appliances have been around for a long time now. I wish that there were open-source hardware designs that a certification organization could evaluate.
don't do it! i just got rid of my set i purchased new in 2020. i'd rather have a washer/dryer that i have to replace every 5 years than the terrible function of both the washer and dryer. the washer i'll forgive a little being it was the front loader model, but their door seal is a terrible design and pools water, just reeked of mold all the time. i'll forgive it because it's a common front loader issue. the dryer on the other hand had failed heating element in the first few months. whatever these things happen, however the heating element on that model gets too hot. it would melt the synthetic lint onto the screen as it passed out of the main dryer body, which after a couple months would form these plastic stalactites on the grill that i would have to grind off every two months, because they would start shredding my clothes.
That stability claim is an average for all American households, gathering together high-income households and long-tenure homeowners along with poor renters. But in a K-shaped economy where the wealthy do well and the rest do worse, averaging the two forks of the K hides the hardship of those on the lower fork.
> The net effect of this longer history is that renters today spend much more of their incomes on rent than they did in previous generations. The median renter household in 1960 spent less than a fifth of their income on rent. By 2022, housing costs consumed 31 percent of the median renter’s income. And in inflation-adjusted terms, the median rent is up 75 percent over these six decades while the median renter income has risen by just under 15 percent.
That's not dispositive, though, since it may be that people spend more on rent because they can, i.e. other things have become relatively less expensive.
A lot of people spend more on housing because standards have greatly increased. The average square footage of living space per person has doubled since the 1970s and tripled since the 1950s. A modest home in 2020s was a luxury house in the 50s. Families have gotten smaller and houses have ballooned.
Even when I was a kid in the 1980s I didn't know a single person whose household had multiple bathrooms, a dishwasher, or air conditioning. Not a single one.
Part of the reason why standards have increased is because incomes have increased.
Since the 1980s, the wealthy have done fantastic while the rest have not done nearly as well. The argument from CATO and others is that we should be content with the majority of households taking home a shrinking share of an increasing pie so long as their absolute purchasing power isn’t decreasing, but that argument feels wrong in part because it’s human nature to measure status relative to others rather than in absolute terms.
Furthermore, wealth applies more pressure against certain costs like housing[1] than against others like food or durable goods. Cheap toasters only go so far in making people feel like they aren’t falling behind.
This seems to be a common argument essentially “If a rich guy get $1000 and as a result I get $10, then I shouldn’t complain because I got $10” but this glosses over the fact that money is a proxy for power. The rich guy got more power over resources from this deal. Over the years this leads to more power inequality which is bad because now the rich guy can start doing other things to me and I have no recourse.
I agree, but I don't think many wealthy people are open to that perspective. Many seem to credit themselves with having created an environment where everyone's lot is improving in absolute terms, and don't see anything wrong with accumulating outsized relative power for themselves.
The reluctance to give up resources also an understandable aspect of human nature, but power concentration in the hands of the few is always problematic. I'm very much a capitalist but the last few decades have persuaded me that wealth taxes are a necessary and moral correction to capitalism's unfortunate spiraling acceleration of inequality.
It’s a difficult conversation to have because critiquing the wealth accumulation tends to get you shouted down as a communist. I’m a believer in capitalism as well but our current system has produced people that are so wealthy they are effectively above the law. Some limit on wealth accumulation really needs to happen.
To escape the "communist" critique, I think it's worthwhile to grapple with opposing all concentration of power, whether private or public, governmental or corporate.
For instance: marketplace competition requires some regulation, but recognizing that regulation is a necessary evil with many opportunities for abuse (e.g. regulatory capture) helps inoculate against socialism's worst excesses.
> the average number of hours worked per worker have fallen
Hooray for just-in-time scheduling where workers have to be available full time but rarely get scheduled full time. It’s an innovation that has been great for capital and terrible for labor.
shakes fist at sky "if only we didn't have to pay those pesky benefits then we wouldn't be forced to make the roles abusive contractor/part-time roles...Wild people even try to take this stance.
I'm baffled. Do you not see the normative vs descriptive claim here?
The reality is that requiring benefits imposes a cost, and employers manage that cost by limiting who qualifies. So yes, this hurt many workers - and disproportionately impacted disadvantaged people who didn't make the full-time cliff.
Ignoring increntives is actually shaking your fist at the sky.
I do agree. A government funded benefit is an explicit tax and spend. A mandate to provide a benefit is a hidden tax where it's not clear who is paying.
We like convictions because there's a hell of a lot of actual crime that is never punished. Just my circle of friends has suffered car break-ins, burglaries (no suspects), grand theft auto (never recovered the car), and devastatingly, a rape on school property. Most of these crimes weren't investigated, despite real damages, and the couple that were never saw a conviction.
In theory, if crimes exceed prosecutions, then number of convictions being closest to the number of prosecutions should indicate an effective use of resources. The real problem is that thorough investigations are rare for most crimes and it's just and industrial-scale process to show the elements of an offense were met by a preponderance of the evidence.
Sure, but it feels like you're doing something helpful. It's like self-help books, or new years resolutions. The emotional fulfillment of feeling like you've done something is vastly more popular and marketable than doing the actual work.
In recent years we have also witnessed the outcomes from DAs who refuse to prosecute -- having someone more hard nosed in office seems vastly preferable to losing the local Walgreens and still not having my burglaries prosecuted.
So then is your need for "justice" satisfied by rounding up a bunch of unlucky people and convicting them? To me it seems like you're just describing the other side of the exact same coin where the justice system isn't doing its job, but in a way that absolves it for not doing its job.
It's outright fallacious to want higher convictions (or even just higher arrests), because crimes aren't even being investigated, right? The goal isn't some scalar "number of people convicted" but rather justice in every case. If cases aren't being investigated, that's a specific problem with a specific part of the system, which needs to be addressed specifically. It can't be fixed by tweaking the numbers further down the line, rather that just creates further corruption.
The way I see it, every time the public demands the justice system (prosecutors, police, etc) do their jobs better, the people in the system respond by doing anything but focusing on their jobs. Either raising the false positive rate ("hard on crime"), going on [possibly silent] strike (raising false negative rate), or even rioting to create disorder from whole cloth (then blaming it on the protestors). What is really needed is accountability in general, so that specific wrongs (either way) can be rectified.
The tradeoff of the Hacker Times design is increased information for each story but lower density of stories compared to the HN homepage. The high-density design of the HN page is probably optimal for my habits, even though some of the user-submitted headlines are opaque enough that I miss some things I would otherwise click on.
reply