minikites

These are fabulous and really solidify a lot of concepts. I would have loved this when I was in school.

That's what happens when a browser made by an advertising company becomes dominant.

I have an HP Microserver N54L and it's been incredible. I use XigmaNAS (similar to FreeNAS) and it's been rock solid for many years.

Why not blame both? Pharmaceutical companies did in fact knowingly take actions to increase abuse potential because it made them more money.

You're omitting part of the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#D.C._m...

Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."

Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified as accidental, a homicide, or undetermined.

It sure would be a strange coincidence if his stroke was entirely unrelated as you say.

All you are doing when you post something like this is causing a visceral reaction in the people that need to get vaccinated of "fuck you internet guy, I am not listening to you, I am not getting vaccinate!"

This hypothetical person was never going to get vaccinated anyway. The only way "preaching" would cause the outcome you describe would be if that adult had the maturity and oppositional defiance of a toddler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_att...

Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old responding Capitol Police officer, was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had two thromboembolic strokes the next day, after which he was placed on life support, and soon died.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, some members of Congress and press reports included these two suicides in the number of reported casualties, for a total of seven deaths. In July, two more members of law enforcement who responded to the attack died by suicide.

I would love it if the government required vaccination but the last time the government did something controversial, a bunch of looters and thugs stormed the US Capitol and killed several police officers.

Is "vaccine refuser" a protected class or something inalienable about a person? Does everyone have the right to work anywhere they wish? Plenty of other vaccines are required to attend college and to participate in other parts of society, why is this vaccine different?

Why does the freedom to infect others outweigh the freedom to survive a preventable disease? You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the social compact to follow as it suits you.

Then you could say that the average person's 401k isn't being used either.

But the average person has much more marginal utility for their amount of wealth. Going by the average 401k balances here (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/01061...), the marginal utility of dollars $38,401, $160,001, etc is much greater than even millions of dollars at Bezos and Gates level wealth. What else am I missing about utility in this context?

Gains on those investments are also taxable.

At a much lower rate than income, further cementing the advantages of the ultra-wealthy.

Most of the time that is not the "money" that we are talking about here and would not be subject to the utility and use being discussed. For example, the vast majority of Bezos' worth is tied up stock.

It could be subject to the same utility if we taxed it, that's what I was getting at. Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use.

Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes.

Why settle for "some" when we could tax all of them?

I agree with your assessment and reasoning. Unfortunately, a large portion of the public, who are disproportionately powerful because of the structure of state and federal governments, are against immigration. Remember the "crisis" of migrant caravans?

If you're giving billions away in a philanthropic organization that you run (ie Gates), then you've found new utility for that money.

Billionaires give away far less of their money compared to the average person:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/ceo-says-billionaires-...

Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year.

Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, does their wealth make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/12/americ...

First off, the amounts involved are tiny relative to the fortunes behind them. Bezos’s $100m, for example, amounts to about 11 days of his income.

Well-publicized philanthropy also conveniently distracts attention from how several of these billionaires are endangering their workers and, by extension, the public.

And why should we believe that Gates or any other billionaire’s “boldness” necessarily reflects society’s values and needs? Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies.

Your comment is very well put and reminds me of this quote from Boethius:

It's my belief that history is a wheel. "Inconsistency is my very essence" -says the wheel- "Rise up on my spokes if you like, but don't complain when you are cast back down into the depths. Good times pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it is also our hope. The worst of times, like the best, are always passing away".

The cost of living and costs of raising a child have both increased dramatically while wages are flat, of course people are having fewer kids. We could increase government childcare aid, but that involves taxing wealthy people, which isn't popular. We could reduce some of the future productivity loss with immigration, but many people don't like that idea either. Instead, childless adults are called selfish and blamed for eating too much avocado toast because that's easier than addressing the real problems.

Does boundless optimism about every announcement drive innovation in the long run?

Not everyone has the time to prepare healthy meals, that's why convenience foods are so popular in our overworked society. If the average person spent less time working, they would have more time to shop for and prepare healthy meals.

Doesn't that mean the cause is related to car culture (drive-thru) and processed foods, not just overeating?

The problem is overeating.

We've had a food surplus for a long time, why is obesity a relatively recent problem?

Windows is sort of the default computer choice for a lot of normal, non-technical people, so I can understand that Microsoft wants to simplify things for them by taking some inspiration from MacOS.

That's a really good point and I agree with your solution. I doubt Microsoft would want to do the work involved in creating essentially two versions of Windows, though.

This is too bad. Apple taking the "appliance" path with their computers makes me wish Microsoft would lean into power user features and customization options to play to the strengths and appeal of Windows. I don't think trying to be a worse version of MacOS is a good strategy.

So what happens when every economy becomes developed? What happens when we can't rely on the existence of low wage workers?

I'd rather be building complex medical instruments than toasters.

Why? In what way is it better to have a handful of elite workers creating a handful of units sold to a handful of consumers instead of having many ordinary workers producing many units for many consumers?

Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The relentless drive to shave fractions of a cent off costs in the short term creates the conditions you describe in the long term. In other words, it's like being penny wise and pound foolish on a global scale.

The German edition of Wikipedia is notable in many ways, it's arguably the second largest after English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia#Characteristi...

I like https://wiby.me/ (searches pages like this) and the "surprise me" link is a nice way to fill time.

may have almost nothing in common at all, except for having a darker shade of skin color

That darker shade causes them to be mistreated in similar ways by American society.

I can think of at least two possibilities: a privileged/sheltered upbringing or an intentional mis-framing of the issue to make something reasonable seem unreasonable.

If it was tribalism, the dead posts would be extreme opinions from both sides. The dead posts here are only from one side.