Boeing whistleblower found dead in US

Are we arguing that it shouldn't be?

Let's try an analogy/thought experiment approach:

Imagine a scenario where a technology is invented, and it is working pretty good, and in some places it is objectively better than other places (it is better on a relative basis), which results in it having the appearance of being very good on an absolute basis.

Now, add in someone suggesting that it could plausibly be much better (for the sake of argument lets say 50% better), and this improvement could be very beneficial to humanity (let's throw in some compounding, self-reinforcing positive feedback loop effects), and this person just so happens (in this thought experiment) to be correct, though it is not possible to know he is correct (perhaps because of the nature and quality of the technology itself). However, for this 50% increase in optimality to actually happen, it just so happens to require substantial (say, 10%) public support, but that support cannot be achieved because of limitations caused by the technology itself.

((It would be nice to be able to branch thought experiments....I think doing one with and without that last attribute would produce interesting results.))

Now, we could swap in various object level technologies into this thought experiment, and see how things appear. My suggestion is that when swapping in education, this resembles the situation we are actually in, but because of the nature of this particular variable, we are not only not able to realize it, we cannot even consider it.

Hopefully this is clearer?

--------------

Or another angle: consider how we are constantly improving so many things, like really working hard at it (that's what I do all day every day where I work), yet: are there (or might there be) some things that we are not working really hard at improving, that an omniscient Oracle could see (and maybe we could as well, if we were able to look, or at least try) contain massive amounts of unseen, low-hanging fruit? And, might education be one of these things? (Or: culture, "democracy", etc?)

Or another angle: do humans in 2024 have any sacred cows?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom)

>> Sacred cow is an idiom, a figurative reference to cattle in religion and mythology. A sacred cow is a figure of speech for something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so.[1][better source needed] This idiom is thought to originate in American English, although similar or even identical idioms occur in many other languages. Background

>> The idiom is based on the popular understanding of the elevated place of cows in Hinduism and appears to have emerged in America in the late 19th century.

>> A literal sacred cow or sacred bull is an actual cow or bull that is treated with sincere respect.

>> One writer has suggested that there is an element of paradox in the concept of respect for a sacred cow, as illustrated in a comment about the novelist V. S. Naipaul: "V. S. Naipaul ... has the ability to distinguish the death of an ordinary ox, which, being of concern to no one, may be put quickly out of its agony, from that of a sacred cow, which must be solicitously guarded so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference."

I think a legitimately relevant reference to things like climate change, nuclear weapons, etc could be made here (with respect to the "so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference"....if we don't smarten up, we may be walking blind into big trouble), but I have to get my ass into work!

Occam's razor says you should not multiple entities beyond what is necessary.

Our scenario is this: There's a guy in a vehicle. He is holding a gun. He has a gunshot wound. He has been under a lot of stress.

Explanation 1: The guy shot himself. Number of entities (people) required: 1

Explanation 2: Someone else shot the guy and staged the scene to look like a suicide. Number of entities (people) required: 2

Occam's razor says suicide is the most likely explanation

So he got his handgun despite South Carolina's lack of reciprocity with his native Washington state.

Same article mentioned disposition next day, so you think he stayed two weeks at the seedy motel? I say he went back home between dispos.

So he skated background check after three days of non-response from ATF which automatically allows him to secure his firearm purchase?

I wouldn't write that off if a certain candidate wins in 2025 to be honest. It's not like they haven't laid hints that such things are on the options list.