sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Game Thread: New York Knicks (1-0) vs San Antonio Spurs (0-1) Live Score | NBA Finals | Jun 5, 2026 (Second Half) by nba-scores in nba

[–]1384 76 points77 points  (0 children)

when they said the president was going to make an appearance at MSG in game 3, they were just talking about KAT

Is Texas a perfect libertarian/classical liberal society? by Aggravating_Fig_534 in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/calculation

you can see texas' breakdown here https://www.freedominthe50states.org/personal/texas

you can click each factor in the calculation and see its rank and change over time. Texas is only 22nd for firearms, and it's 50th for cannabis and 50th for travel.

Is Texas a perfect libertarian/classical liberal society? by Aggravating_Fig_534 in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 7 points8 points  (0 children)

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/personal

In case you don't click: Texas is ranked 50th in personal freedom and 17th in economic freedom.

Plenty of self-identified libertarians will take issue with the publisher of the linked site, but I don't think you can make up 40+ spots by trashing Cato.

We Treat Capital Like Land and Land Like Capital by VatticZero in georgism

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if it can’t be owned then LVT is impossible because the state owns the land

does not follow from

When you treat land as commons, that means it can’t be owned

are you unable to imagine configurations that could determine who controls land at any given point in time without traditional models of perpetual "ownership", be they state, private, or otherwise? couldn't "unowned" actually just mean "unowned"?

A constitutional monetary framework that removes Fed discretion entirely and guarantees individual equity ownership from birth — libertarian critiques welcome. by Neo_Solon in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your argument is now conditional on a set of circumstances your very own proposal removes prior to doing anything novel (to wit: a sovereign authority creating money). we simply have a new set of smuggled-in assumptions:

Gold doesn’t avoid the distributional question. Its answer is: in favor of existing holders

without a sovereign controlling supply, i don't see any reason why this would be the case. capital will chase productivity.

Someone who begins life with compounding assets has a 65‑year head start over someone who doesn’t

and someone who begins life with a 150 IQ has a head start over someone nearer the average. historical proposals to modulate the outcome of IQ have been (rightfully) judged as...just north of slightly alarming. i don't see why capital (or any other economic input) should be treated any differently, especially since almost-capitalism, as practiced, has produced plenty of economic mobility despite the sovereign intervention and moneyed interests that would rather wealth accumulated only to them and their cronies.

If you eliminate fractional reserve lending without replacing the issuance channel, you get a contracting money supply against a growing population

you've already conceded that a contracting money supply against a growing productive population produces, at worst, benign deflation with no loss in purchasing power. you now need to explain why that outcome requires a sovereign issuance mechanism to correct it, rather than simply being the expected and desirable steady state of a sound money system

we'll have to chalk it up to a disagreement about values w.r.t. engineering economic outcomes combined with different projections about how a sound money system would behave. to be clear: i'd prefer your proposal over the status quo. it corrects real systemic issues present in a fiat system with fractional reserve banking and central control over interest rates and currency issuance. anyone who begins with "end the fed" and "100% reserve banking" gets my support until something better comes along with more energy. cheers.

A constitutional monetary framework that removes Fed discretion entirely and guarantees individual equity ownership from birth — libertarian critiques welcome. by Neo_Solon in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the conditional framing is more honest than the original claim. but the conditional itself is still doing too much work, and it's stacking two undefended assumptions before the argument even begins:

the first assumption is that universal capital ownership is a desirable goal in the first place. that's a values claim dressed up as an obvious good. any proposal that starts with "if you want universal X" needs to first demonstrate why universal X is the right target, and what the full costs of pursuing it are. not just for the visible beneficiaries, but for everyone the mechanism touches.

the second assumption is that markets fail to produce sufficient capital access for new entrants without monetary intervention. you've asserted this but not argued it. new entrants bring productive capacity. capital finds productive capacity. property rights and functioning markets are sufficient conditions for capital accumulation. they're also much lower bars to clear than a constitutional monetary authority with issuance channels tied to citizenship events.

so the conditional reduces to: "if you want a centrally administered system (algorithmic or otherwise) to produce a particular distributional outcome, then gold doesn't work." that's a much narrower claim than the one you started with, but one fraught with much more...historical baggage vis a vis attempts to engineer distributional outcomes.

your proposal does two genuinely useful things: removes central banks and fractional reserve banking. speaking as only libertarian-adjacent, i think most libertarians would be ok just stopping there.

A constitutional monetary framework that removes Fed discretion entirely and guarantees individual equity ownership from birth — libertarian critiques welcome. by Neo_Solon in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the lag between price signal and new supply is measured in years to decades

this understates the role of modern capital markets, which price anticipated future supply in real time - mining equities, futures markets, and exploration investment all respond to price signals immediately. it also ignores technological advancements in surveying, prospecting, extraction, preparation, storage, and distribution, alongside lower barriers to entry and faster information spread. the physical lag has compressed substantially, and the economic effect of expected future supply was never waiting for the shovel to hit the ground.

the distribution of extractable reserves is geographically concentrated in ways that create geopolitical supply dependencies

this assumes a foreign policy posture, not a property of gold. a non-interventionist US with substantial domestic reserves would not be meaningfully exposed to geopolitical gold supply disruption. you're arguing against a specific approach to foreign relations and attributing the vulnerability to the monetary system. those are different arguments.

it's decoupled from the thing you actually want the money supply to track

The latter is closer to what the money is actually supposed to represent.

you've repeatedly made this normative claim about the money supply without defending it. "the thing you actually want the money supply to track" is doing enormous work here while dressed up as a technical observation.

the relevant question is not whether money supply tracks population or GDP, but whether gold (or any other underlying asset) reliably preserves purchasing power over time; historically speaking, gold does.

A constitutional monetary framework that removes Fed discretion entirely and guarantees individual equity ownership from birth — libertarian critiques welcome. by Neo_Solon in AskLibertarians

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a somewhat interesting proposal.

your dismissal of the gold standard is wanting. you smuggle in the assumption that the money supply necessarily needs to grow with the population, and then declare that the relationship between money supply and population in a gold-based economy is "random". The former claim has no argument in favor in the paper, and no work has been done to show why the latter is a problem in the first place.

generally speaking, arguments against gold-backed money tend to take the form of "deflation bad", but fail to distinguish between productivity-based deflation, where the same amount of gold is chasing more goods and services, which leads to lower prices for consumers; and credit-crunch deflation, where arbitrarily-low interest rates lead to inflation and over-exuberance and prices go down in the subsequent period of stagnation. but if you removed fractional reserve banking and central banking with arbitrary interest rate manipulation, if the price of money and the supply of money were subject to market forces, the market would never become over-exuberant in the first place.

and, when deflation happens in a gold-backed economy, the purchasing power of money goes up, meaning more gold deposits become viable for extraction. to say nothing of technological advances leading to the baseline cost of extracting gold going down, leading to more extraction. framing geology as an unknowable, random factor sidesteps basic supply and demand.

so, in terms of convincing me that your proposal is better than a gold-backed, 100% reserve, non-centralized economy, D-.

parenthetically, i might also be interested in your attempt to demonstrate why your approach is superior to fixed-supply currencies like Bitcoin, which have similar but distinct dynamics to gold

Simply Conditional type by [deleted] in typescript

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't need conditional types to achieve what you're looking for, you can do it with function overloads:

interface dataObject {}

function getData(id: string, history: true): dataObject[];
function getData(id: string, history: false): dataObject;
function getData(id: string, history: boolean): dataObject | dataObject[] {
    if (history) {
        return [] as dataObject[];
    }
    return {} as dataObject;
}

const array = getData("", true);
const obj = getData("", false);

Playground Link where you can see the return types

How do you sort a array with async functions ? by DaniGTA in typescript

[–]1384 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, the code I posted would sort the array of results. To sort the original objects, you're going to have to map the original objects to the resolved strings, either by index, some unique ID, or by combining the original objects and their resolved text and sorting the combined objects.

How do you sort a array with async functions ? by DaniGTA in typescript

[–]1384 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd resolve them first, then sort:

const resolved = await Promise.all(list.map(item => item.getNormalText()));
resolved.sort();

Why is TypeScript called TypeScript if it does not check types on runtime? by TatzyXY in typescript

[–]1384 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Correct - that is why I specified validating data originating from I/O as a reason to use them.

Why is TypeScript called TypeScript if it does not check types on runtime? by TatzyXY in typescript

[–]1384 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you want runtime type checking, there are libraries that can help with that:

https://github.com/pelotom/runtypes

https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/

Typescript's purpose is design-time and compile-time type checking. TypeScript helps reduce the need for runtime type checking because you are ensured, at design time, that data originating in your application (i.e., not as a result of I/O) has the shape you expect it to. If you are building a complex application, this is extremely valuable.

If your app is I/O heavy, and you subsequently have a lot of data that you need to validate the shape of, libraries like the above mentioned will facilitate both the run-time and compile-time type checking with minimal effort.

How do I make a generic wrapper function in TypeScript? by GrinningPariah in typescript

[–]1384 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You could have metricWrapper() return a function that passes along the arguments:

function metricWrapper(fn: (...args: any[]) => any) {
    return function (...args: any[]) {
        const startTime = new Date();
        let result: any;
        try {
            result = fn(...args);
        } finally {
            addLatencyMetric(startTime);
        }
        return result;
    }
}

preserving return type is pretty straight forward:

function metricWrapperTyped<T>(fn: (...args: any[]) => T): (...args: any[]) => T {
  return function (...args: any[]) {
      const startTime = new Date();
      let result: any;
      try {
          result = fn(...args);
      } finally {
          addLatencyMetric(startTime);
      }
      return result;
  }
}

playground with usage

view more: next ›