Author here. You're right. The project is still in beta - so we're still working on ironing out some of the kinks. The host key verification issue is being worked on today actually. I'm not sure what you mean by "bootstrapping the chain of trust with pre-verified credentials" though. If you want to open an issue on https://github.com/CypherpunkArmory/holepunch we'd love to get your feedback about how we can improve security prior to a general release.
We absolutely cannot all agree on that. As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much. So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed. Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists? So in that case can we all agree that arranging the incentives so that the only thing Universities produce are engineers, MBA's and medical professionals is an awful idea societally and for the individuals involved?
> As you point out - the fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree in business, engineering or medicine costs the same as a degree in art, social work or childhood education and pays about 3-4 times as much.
And one of the major reasons for that is that we continue to produce an oversupply of liberal arts graduates, who then get stuck in food service rather than actually working as a teacher or psychologist, while their existence suppresses wages for anyone who can actually find work in those occupations because the employers can choose the lowest bidder from a desperate population of qualified applicants.
It's like saying corn farmers are having a hard time, so let's subsidize the production of corn. Well, then there's too much corn, and what does that do to the price of corn?
But why does the "degree" require paying for college football or fancy dorms or student entertainment? College has lost its focus on education and, nationally, colleges are competing on providing amenities and costs of college are skyrocketing.
Wouldn't it make sense to bring college education back to its original purpose?
Which original purpose? The elite school one of allowing the next generation's ruling class to network with one another, or the land grant one of doing the same thing for flyover country, but also discovering new ways of applying fertilizer at the same time?
do you think it's likely that the number of teachers, psychologists, etc. could actually approach zero without significant increase in pay for these positions?
Thank you for this. Can we start backwards from a model of what we believe a rich, healthy society should look like, and then figure out how to get there? A society that depends only upon "market signals" to determine which jobs have value is not one I would wish to live in.
Arranging the incentives to be responsive to market signals would move us towards a situation where there are paying jobs for all who graduate, not one where everyone graduates in what are currently the top-paying fields given a different system.
> Do you really think a society is going to function without teachers, psychologists, lawyers and artists?
This is a loaded question based on a faulty assumption. A societal shortage of people in these professions would cause their compensation to increase accordingly, incentivizing more people to enter them until an equilibrium is reached. This is basic supply and demand. Also...
> So it's individually quite stupid to major in anything _other_ than engineering, business or premed.
This is based on the faulty premise that everyone has the same skill set and can succeed at engineering, etc. as opposed to other fields where they may have a comparative advantage.
The thing is, society doesn't survive a drought of teachers, for example. If the number of teachers fall below a certain amount, the new generation will not be correctly educated and the knowledge transmission link is broken.
I think the education market is ripe for disruption with increased online education and collectives for socialization. Homeschooling 2.0, which doesn't require expensive physical plants for every neighborhood.
I've been through and used several different styles of interview and the one that stands out as being "the best" at predicting whether a person will fit on the team is just to bring them in and work with them for a day on your actual product
1) You don't do problems you've already solved that they have to come up with same answer to.
2) You don't do algorithm / problem testing that they're never going to use on the job.
3) You don't do whiteboarding except as you would in real life.
Engineering teams are people working collaboratively to solve complicated problems where nobody knows the "right" answer. Any interview that's going to tell you something is going to measure along those metrics, and not "can you invert this b-tree on a whiteboard."
The policy I got was with a good company (I mean, once you actually had a policy), for a reasonable rate. They then exited the individual market in my state. I ended up being shunted to a lower benefit, higher cost policy with a "second tier" company (if that). My premium costs about tripled in the span of a couple of years.
The Affordable Care Act's full enactment came just in time, for me.
Unfortunately, all legislation consists of two essential components: 1) The law, itself; and 2) funding (the budget process).
Republicans baldly stated, after Obama's election, that their primary, number one objective was to make him a one-term president. Before all else.
Despite its coming out of what was essentially a Republican design, then Governor Romney's health care insurance program in Massachusetts, Republican's went after the Affordable Care Act -- after labeling it "Obamacare" -- with a vengeance.
A primary way they crippled it, was by not providing the funding that was written into the law.
Insurers were given a 2 year time frame in which they could recoup their losses, until new participants' "deferred care" was taken care of and the companies had better demographics and cost projections (actuarial studies) upon which to carry forward.
When they went to the government to be made whole, under this provision, they were paid about 15 cents on the dollar.
So of course, premium costs increased dramatically, plan options became more limited, and companies started to exit the ACA marketplace.
Meanwhile, the Republicans made endless attempts to "repeal" the ACA in one fashion or another. Claiming they had a "better plan", that would provide better coverage at lower cost.
Now, they've had both houses of Congress and the executive for over a year. Still no sign of an actual "plan". Just continuing efforts to destroy the ACA.
So, going forward? No, I don't think this problem of pre-conditions can be considered solved. The party in power keeps trying to reintroduce it.
And I, for one, have no more trust in our society. Maybe I'll find another position that includes an employer-provided group insurance plan. Or a group plan through a professional organization.
If I didn't have various things tying me here right now, including elderly parents, and I had the opportunity, I'd leave the country.
I've always lived modestly. And it seems that is even part of my problem. The U.S., always somewhat hypocritical, is becoming more and more a land of "winners" and "losers".
Just look at our "fearless" leader, using the "L" word -- quite derogatorily -- left and right. If we're supposed to take our cue from our leadership, well then, f-ck this place.
Republicans used the ACA as a wedge issue to motivate their base. Driving up premium costs was them hitting the hammer. The press failed to hold them to account. There was a big backlash though in some town halls where they would get called out so much so that they stopped attending town halls! Insurers want rescission and pre-existing conditions because it is a very profitable business when you don't have to pay out claims. I agree that we are lacking in trust as a society, we only trust the almighty dollar and maybe our local communities. The real problem is that people keep voting republican because they refuse to think. But that excludes the massive voter suppression they engage in in their red states as well. You can see that if people vote most states will turn blue. We need more engagement.
>Despite its coming out of what was essentially a Republican design, then Governor Romney's health care insurance program in Massachusetts,
Calling anything that comes out of MA "republican design" is a little less than truthful.
Regardless of how you feel about the merit of the MA system or the federal system there are no republicans in MA, just democrats who will say what they need to say to run against incumbent Democrats.
