111–120 of 421 posts
A mistake only possible from someone with extremely poor subject matter expertise, or by text predictive AI?
Or, am I totally out of whack and have no idea what the author is writing about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
Economics doesn't stipulate selfishness anymore than physics requires cows to be spherical creatures that live in a vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think there was any risk in the Middle East invading the US after September 11th, that is an exceptionally weak position to take. No one is invading the US, it’s either terrorist attacks you can’t defend against due to the asymmetric nature or ICBMs. Making peace with that is emotionally expensive but financially cheap. America has no appetite for emotional fortitude at nation state scale. Cheaper to send econ…
Terrorist attacks are defendable against. But anyway, you don't need to defend against terrorist attacks as much if you convincingly show terrorists you can come to their home and blow it up if they try.
The next time you’re in line at TSA, at a public event (sporting, concerts), at a major transportation hub, any large gathering of people, think about this position you’ve taken. There is a multiple victim shooting event almost every day in the US, and your argument is terrorist attacks can be defended against? We can’t even protect the country from ourselves. These outcomes are a choice.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?yea...
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
> In a 2017 US study, researchers found that the average police response time was around 10 minutes. Department of Homeland Security research revealed that the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes yet the average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes.
https://criticalarc.com/cutting-your-teams-response-time-in-...
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/response...
https://jasher.substack.com/p/police-are-taking-longer-to-re...
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/17/1149455678/why-data-from-15-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that’s what the post was kinda trying to argue, no?
The post presents a simplistic point of view - that there are universally-agreed-upon solutions to these problems that, through a failure of organizational or coordination capacity, we're unable to enact. The actual reality - that these "solutions" are not as simple or effective as he thinks and that's why we're not doing them - is a lot less gloomy than the thesis he proposes. His call to "build social systems that…
I got a feeling that in the political space we are given a binary choice between two dudes. The winner is then being courted by big-something to make a decision that benefits said dude.
All the nuance and actual say about pressing questions has been removed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think there was any risk in the Middle East invading the US after September 11th, that is an exceptionally weak position to take. No one is invading the US, it’s either terrorist attacks you can’t defend against due to the asymmetric nature or ICBMs. Making peace with that is emotionally expensive but financially cheap. America has no appetite for emotional fortitude at nation state scale. Cheaper to send econ…
Terrorist attacks are defendable against. But anyway, you don't need to defend against terrorist attacks as much if you convincingly show terrorists you can come to their home and blow it up if they try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.
as this fantastic video about the popcorn button explains. Our economic race to the bottom has been sabotaging almost every aspect of engineering in our society. To save a few cents per microwave, the cheap microwaves don’t include a humidity sensor and then lie about having a popcorn button when it can’t actually work properly, which leads to everyone saying “don’t use the popcorn button” and now nobody uses the pop…
Technology Connections just did a thing about this. I can confirm that some KitchenAid microwaves use a sound sensor instead of humidity.