Meditation on the Buddhist tradition is more like 'leaning in' or becoming immersed in your experience. It's certainly not at all about achieving a blank state, or detachment. Not saying there isn't a meditation tradition that works like that, but from a Buddhist/psychology perspective, that sounds more like dissociation..
It's called void meditation, and is actually part of the buddhist philosophy. There are many different methods for practicing meditation even in buddhism. The goal with meditation in general is to will oneself into any desired mental state. One "practices" meditation to the ends of being able to call that state wherever one happens to be. It is a future-oriented practice, even when doing meditation that immerses one in the "moment", it is about eventually being able to do it anytime and anywhere one needs it. Often it is about introspection, but void meditation is about self control, and creating a feeling of safety in a mind full of loose and anxious thoughts. Void helps in times of deep emotional stress, so that instead of causing trauma, one can simply ignore the thoughts until they can be processed more coherently.
I think the jobs listed are simply ephemera of the current state of the internet, technology, and media rather than a reflection of 'the future'. Although, I do agree that with the thread that jobs of the future have little promise of widespread prosperity, which Tyler Cowen details very, very well in 'Average is Over'
I wonder how many of these comments are made by Apple's legal or PR team posing as normal people... Certainly they have the reach and resources for this kind of thing too. Rarely do we get to have a real public discussion on such topics without adulteration by these parties with personal motivations and associated power.
Your comment basically breaks HN guidelines by calling into question the motivations of all commenters that disagree with you. Some of us simply believe that taxing corporations makes little sense because companies set their pricing with applicable taxes in mind. Ultimately, only people pay taxes, so only people that have not fully considered the implications believe they are "sticking it to the man," when in reality the government is abstracting the cost of these taxes on the people.
It's simply a consumption tax that people do not realize they are paying because it is built into the products citizens are buying.
Your comment asserts that corporate tax has zero impact on corporate profit. If you don't fully agree with that statement, you may want to consider whether you fully agree with everything you wrote.
>Your comment asserts that corporate tax has zero impact on corporate profit.
I didn't intend to "assert" that, and I think it's fair to ask you to elaborate, as I believe there are assumptions embedded in your interpretation of what I wrote.
edit: Grammar.
edit1: Do you think Apple incorporates the cost of the tax burden into the price of an iPhone? I think it really comes down to whether you think Apple would reduce their unit price if it would ultimately result in gross profit increases. It's like taking VC financing, "Do you want to own 100% of a $500K/yr revenue company or 49% of a $3M/yr revenue company?"
Imagine a world where there is no corporate tax. Apple does a price analysis and decides the profix maximizing sales point of a phone is $1,000. They price the phone at $1,000.
Then, a 10% corporate income tax rate is put in place.
Does Apple raise the price of the phone to $1,100? Is that now the profit maximizing decision?
According to your claim "Ultimately, only people pay taxes," the answer is yes - Apple would immediately raise the price of the iPhone to offset the loss incurred by the new tax. Except that then, fewer people would buy iPhones. We already know that $1,100 is not the profit maximizing price point for a phone. So, the amount Apple would increase its price is a function of the price sensitivity of iPhone buyers.
This is a little tricky to explain, but khan academy has a video that explains it quite well.
(1) You really think Apple cares about the discussions on one thread of Hacker News ?
(2) Even if they did how would it be an effective use of resources. It may shift a handful of people at most. When instead that time could be spent speaking with journalists or writing press releases that could actually shift a lot of people.
(3) It's a slippery slope to keep calling everyone you disagree with shills or employees of a company. Especially since on an anonymous forum they could never be able to defend themselves.
Oh, they definitely do keep tabs and actively participate in places like HN.
You must have missed seeing this a few years ago...
> Members of Apple PR seek tabloid photos of celebrities holding iPhones, while others read Apple-focused blogs actively, and keep tabs on prominent Apple beat writers using anonymized social media accounts. A former Apple PR employee notes that the team enjoys being an “overall watchdog,” monitoring what the media is saying about the company every day.
I've got numerous concerns about YC, but I really like HN. There is a certain decorum we must not violate or we risk becoming like the mess that is the rest of much of the web right now. We need to focus on the content of the arguments being made, not trying to determine what tribes the others belongs to.
Definitely worth more research into possible mechanisms, but until studies account for the numerous contamination issues (lead, etc.) that many different home supplements carry, then there is going to be a mystery factor in so many of these studies sending all kinds of mixed signals.
