571–580 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true - these things might be better implemented as regulations out of the Executive branch - but that would still require legislation authorizing somebody to implement the regulations.
Interesting that the US governance model is devolving to "decrees from the king" thanks to exec orders
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…
Then there is the case of things are illegal, but are not enforced. Leading to the question of what is the law? What is written, or how it is enforced? How many of you went above the speed limit today? I suspect that much of what goes on in the stock market is similar.
Ah, I really appreciate this point. I imagine when it comes to law, I would want the goal to be the alignment of what is written and what is enforced. If law is what is written but not enforced, then it seems to be law-in-name-only, whereas if it's enforced but not written, then it seems to be, I don't know, chaotic? Haha, I can't think of a better term right now. I suppose the latter might depend on how much unwritten agreement there is amongst people on the rules. If a lot of agreement, then maybe it's more like ethics. If not much agreement, maybe it's more unpredictable, almost lawless.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
Not everyone has the same moral compass. It isn’t even clear that the whistleblower herself was guided by concern for society: she first went to the SEC with these complaints. That’s a weird place to go with concerns about social media’s impact on society. I wonder why? Perhaps…just maybe…it was because the SEC will give her 10-30% of any fines levied against Facebook, leading to a potential windfall of $1 billion or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly how does it affect you if you're vaccinated?
Medical resources are finite, and there are people who need non-Covid medical care competing for those limited resources. Getting pretty tired of having the same argument with people who are smart enough to figure this out on their own.
Getting pretty tired of the hypocritical and illogical dissonance displayed from people who should be smart enough to think the ENTIRE picture through on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. A common phrase in law is "the law often allows what honor forbids" and that is because there is a difference between the law and ethics and IMO that is a good thing. Is it ethical to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and leave none for anyone else? No. Should it be illegal? No.
Let's say that if there are two or more cookies in the jar every morning I add another one to it - under that scenario (especially if we go so far as to say cookies reproduce at some fixed proportion) then yea - it's totally illegal to eat all the cookies. The most common example of this tragedy of the commons is fishing but it happens all over the place. Specifically on the topic of cookies - it honestly is "forbidd…
Your parents can punish you for eating all the cookies but the government will not sanction you nor them for doing so (even if a hypothetical and tyrannical government in theory could; maybe let’s not theorycraft absurd ordinances).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly how does it affect you if you're vaccinated?
What @heartbreak said, but also far more. Vaccines aren't 100% so the continuing circulation of the virus will cause some number of those to get sick. Then there are variants. Kids being sent home because someone else tested positive. Travel restrictions. The list goes on. None of this should be news to anybody who has actually been paying attention, and such a person better not be saying "do your own research" to an…
You're negating your own point. Full vaccination is not achievable just stop with this silly pointless rhetoric.
>Travel restrictions.
The un-vaccinated aren't restricting your travel. You've got a bit of stockholm syndrome going on.
I don’t personally use FB and don’t have a very favorable view of their products. I would, however, like to see the same level scrutiny applied to the general American media, especially the news media. FB has come in and started eating their lunch. There’s a deeper problem here, and it feels more like the powers that he want to take down FB. I’m not denying any allegation made against FB, but why is it that Fox News,…
One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and c…
I mean, you really need to watch a whole Tucker Carlson episode.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize ending the drug war is largely favorable to most people on here right?
I haven't polled HN, but I get the sense it's more about regulating formerly black market drugs, rather than deregulating pharmaceuticals. Anyone on the 2nd side should do a deep dive on buying "clean" delta 8 THC.
That's called cognitive dissonance. Pharmaceuticals already have the shit regulated out of them and it obviously doesn't work.