Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#131

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

taejavu wrote: post #120

yongjik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until the last paragraph. If "smugly" insisting X would make them dig in their heels, what are we supposed to do? Say "Oh of course it's totally in your rights, please send your unvaccinated children to the same school my kids go to"? Because I don't think it will change their minds either. What happened to "personal responsibility" that these people like so much? If the whole country tells these people to…

[flagged]

The vaccines don't prevent those things. They do lower the probability - or at least, that's the claim. That's not perfection, but it's not nothing, either.

As to whether the claim is accurate... that's outside the scope of this comment.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#132

Post by imwillofficial » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

Noumenon72 wrote: post #101

imwillofficial wrote: post #87

This article is a sad way to look at the world

Executing strategy #5, I see.

No, it’s empathy. There is something human about our irrationality. Rising above that, we lose a bit of that magic that makes us unique.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#133

Post by BeetleB » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #23

slg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get…

Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people wou…

>for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while.

For clothes, for the purchaser, have you done the math to show it isn't worthwhile? I find it's cheaper[1] to buy low quality clothes than to buy high quality ones in the long run. I'd buy shoes that would last only 6-9 months, but paying double wouldn't make them last twice as long, etc.

[1] Cheaper for the purchaser, not society.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#134

Post by the-dude » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #94

bsedlm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…

> the point I am trying to make (granted not very eloquently) starts out from this idea [1] that humans are kind of crazy, and that maybe this crazyness is what makes us so successful; so I put that too much safety may undo this crazyness, it puts it to sleep? You are blurring the lines between taking a personal risk in one occasion at a specific time and taking the risk of not wearing a mask or washing hands or cook…

What is wrong with cooking meat?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#135

Post by reactspa » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:01 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #48

this is the best explanation I've even seen for a positive aspect to secrecy. yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time

> You consider telling everyone “OK, here are some promises that we’ve designed to maximize how embarrassing it would be for us to break up”, but decide it’s better not to make that explicit.

I didn't understand this sentence. Anyone care to clarify please? (E.g., what would be an example of a promise that would be embarrassing?)

Thanks.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#136

Post by antiterra » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:03 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #97

908B64B197 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a dollar figure on it (i.e. triage) That's not how triage works. > similarly the fact we have $1200 'solutions' to COVID that could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can't 'afford' it, What is this mysterious cure? > or that masks do not protect yo…

--- "That's not how triage works." Triage: "the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties." Seems exactly like triage. --- "What is this mysterious cure?" Monoclonal Antibodies are a very effective treatment that we would use almost ubiquitously were it not for the cost. If they were $1 and easily administered, they are in some…

Public health is hard. How important is the truth if you know lying will save millions and millions of lives? Of course you can’t lie too much, or people will ignore you even when you tell the truth. What if your research on the disease model of alcoholism shows it to both be effective and a fantastical fabrication? Is it noble to publish this? Is it elitist to selectively distribute this knowledge?

As for masks— when I reviewed the research last, there were clear benefits in the case of SARS-CoV-1, especially when compared to influenza (which appears to be unaffected by surgical masks.)

So, the interesting and, perhaps, less controversial discussion is what sort of masking we would do if we were talking about a pandemic where the body of research data very strongly implied zero (or even slightly negative) effectiveness with masks for that specific contagion. And then the same scenario with a very high effectiveness. I’m not sure we would do anything different either way, and everyone would feel smugly correct while arguing based on the title of studies rather than their content.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#137

Post by slg » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #78

slg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to fill some internal void for people for a short while. You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options. >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items…

Nah, I don't buy that. People wouldn't be "giving up" anything for the benefit of the planet by not buying a new pair of shoes every month or something. It would actually be for their own benefit to be more content. That's kind of the whole problem, the people who would lose are the sellers and advertisers who cultivate the insecurities in discontent people for their own benefit, not the consumers.

Just to be clear, you are saying that you know what makes people happy better than people know themselves. And even if you are right, people's current behavior shows that they disagree with you on what is best. Therefore they won't voluntarily give up buying new shoes. You will have to force people to agree with you and this type of paternalistic "I know what is best for you better than you do" leadership is rather dystopian.

Also the human desire for endless consumption predates advertising as evidence by the lifestyles of much of history's royalty, aristocracy, and wealthy. People consume because it feels good.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#138

Post by taejavu » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #131

taejavu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The vaccines don't prevent those things. They do lower the probability - or at least, that's the claim. That's not perfection, but it's not nothing, either. As to whether the claim is accurate... that's outside the scope of this comment.

Who's claiming that? My impression is that official sources are now acknowledging it does nothing but lessen the chance of serious illness & hospitalisation for the person taking it.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#139

Post by bryanrasmussen » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

gipp wrote: post #113

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #103

As an authorial technique starting off with a just so story about how marriage came to be that lasts several paragraphs and is obviously not at all how marriage came to be and doesn't even have the excuse of referencing some sort of supernatural source for being wrong might seem interesting but bored me too much to continue. I'm supposing the rest of it is also wrong and badly argued.

It is not talking literally about how marriage came to be. It is just laying out a set of incentives that probably play a role in the success of marriage as an institution.

yes I realize it is not literal, but the structure of that part of the text as you progress from two people in love come up with a plan to always stay together ends up a just so story about how marriage was created.

Does it work as a list of incentives for how marriage came to be a successful institution? Well since it structures it as an origin story of marriage that you realize is an origin story of marriage at the same time you realize this is obviously not at all how marriage came to be, no it does not work. And I mean - for how marriage came to be a successful institution even has the phrasing came to be inside it. How do you explain the lasting success of an institution based on a fairy tale of it's creation - well lots of things are explained as fairy tales but not rationally. This document has a style that argues the author believes they are making a rational argument, which grates.

It's frankly idiotic the more I think about it! Which I guess would be ok if it was something you told your 5 year old when they asked hey how did marriage come to be. Fairy tales can be charming and funny, but I think the author thinks they're being clever and serious.

So now I went back to read more just to be sure they didn't deal with the fairy tale aspect better further in, but it was a waste of time.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#140

Post by JackFr » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #12

calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and…

I don't think the OP is being pedantic to make a strawman, rather I think they are pointing out that the bulk of policy proposals are for the most part internalized assumptions about what is to be desired.

"Why is climate change undesirable?" is the fundamental question which is not often talked about. Is it bad because it will affect humans adversely? Is it bad because it affects non-humans adversely? Is it bad because there is some particular state the Earth should be in?