> saving under your pillow, especially if you had a non-inflating currency, isn't good for the economy.
It actually is. It you earn $100, by producing $100 worth of goods for the economy, and you don't spend it, you're producing more than you consume. This increases the supply of all goods on the market, decreasing the price, effectively making the entire world richer by that amount. Other people can use that extra money partly to increase their consumption and partly for investment purposes. When you take your $100 out of your pillow and spend it, you're then having the opposite effect. So in the end, you're allowing people to consume more at an earlier time (when you put the money in) and less at a later time (when you're taking it out). This is a very valuable service, as shown by the fact that people are willing to take out loans where they pay money (interest) for the ability to temporally distort their consumption patterns in this way. Some people can even use the temporary possession of additional goods as capital to generate permanent wealth.
A constant pattern of people saving under their pillow will simply reduce prices by a certain percentage and hold it there. If deflation is small, then this secondary price reduction will be lower than the primary reduction and the economy will remain stable. The problem only arises when deflation becomes too high - then, the secondary reduction becomes greater than the primary reduction, and causes a still greater tertiary reduction, leading to a deflationary spiral (ie. bubble), which screws up the economy until it inevitably pops, but if deflation is within reasonable margins it should not be an issue.
> Even if it should be encouraged, it doesn't matter the logic of it, people won't accept making less and less money over time.
How do we know this? One could imagine a deflationary society where people ask how people could possibly stand their money buying less and less over time.
Philosophical question - why do people with disabilities have the right to higher priority than everyone else? Let's say you've calculated that there are 4000 blind people who might be interested in your website, but 11000 Spanish speakers, 9000 Korean speakers and 7000 Portuguese speakers. If someone comes to complain about accessibility for the blind, won't it be perfectly reasonable to answer (in more polite terms) "no, we won't handle you, we're going to do a Spanish translation first, then implement UTF-8 so we can do a Korean translation, then do the Portuguese translation, and only then maybe get to you"?
The Spanish speakers might be only a niche in the case of this one website, but they don't face being a niche practically everywhere they turn. I'm not going to weigh in on how that difference should affect how you deal with accessibility, but it's a real one.
I agree. If I got an email with "lawyer pomposity" in it, I would likely pretend I never got it and deliberately push back any accessibility plans out of spite. You don't have to stick "please" in every sentence, but you have to phrase things correctly. If it's phrased as a request, I would see an opportunity to make people happy and gladly go along. If it's phrased as an order, I would probably perceive it as an affront to my individual sovereignty and would be motivated to fight back rather than capitulate.
Isn't the fact that entropy increases over time itself just a result of a priori statistical laws and the condition of zero entropy at the Big Bang 13 billion years ago, rather than a physical law of the universe?
Stalinism has two widely known parts to it. One part is starving millions of people. This is not happening. Another part is killing enemies of the state. This, and some other high-profile political murders in and relating to Russia, fits that second definition perfectly, and in that way it is Stalinist.
Bias your comment ordering system in favor of new comments so that every comment gets its 5 minutes of fame before staying around with a good score or floating to the bottom with a bad score. it's not perfect, but it should mitigate the problem.
For the website, I would recommend putting some of the non-content bits (links, buttons, login, etc.) on the side, not on the top. Studies have shown that reading is faster and more comfortable with narrower columns, and the 30-45 cm found in modern laptops is way too wide. There's nothing wrong with having a lot of vertical screen space though.
It actually is. It you earn $100, by producing $100 worth of goods for the economy, and you don't spend it, you're producing more than you consume. This increases the supply of all goods on the market, decreasing the price, effectively making the entire world richer by that amount. Other people can use that extra money partly to increase their consumption and partly for investment purposes. When you take your $100 out of your pillow and spend it, you're then having the opposite effect. So in the end, you're allowing people to consume more at an earlier time (when you put the money in) and less at a later time (when you're taking it out). This is a very valuable service, as shown by the fact that people are willing to take out loans where they pay money (interest) for the ability to temporally distort their consumption patterns in this way. Some people can even use the temporary possession of additional goods as capital to generate permanent wealth.
A constant pattern of people saving under their pillow will simply reduce prices by a certain percentage and hold it there. If deflation is small, then this secondary price reduction will be lower than the primary reduction and the economy will remain stable. The problem only arises when deflation becomes too high - then, the secondary reduction becomes greater than the primary reduction, and causes a still greater tertiary reduction, leading to a deflationary spiral (ie. bubble), which screws up the economy until it inevitably pops, but if deflation is within reasonable margins it should not be an issue.
> Even if it should be encouraged, it doesn't matter the logic of it, people won't accept making less and less money over time.
How do we know this? One could imagine a deflationary society where people ask how people could possibly stand their money buying less and less over time.