stfp

Same observation. I’m beginning to think that it’s not about “spending” like if money was a finite resource. It’s really about the outcome of the policy: more power for elites and more access to energy and resources; vs more power and independence for regular people (and thus less for elites relatively speaking). From a “spending” perspective you could really do both and in the real economy they don’t even compete for the same resources.

I’m not economist but my impression when I learned about MMT is that it’s predicated on the idea that money isn’t like bridges at all. And is actually at this point of history a purely abstract model where “we said so” works. Meanwhile lots of people really believe a country can “run out of money” or whatever. You run out of trees, teachers and nurses, not money. Anyway what’s clear to me is that the metrics we picked like gdp or debt ratio or whatever aren’t helping us make good choices.

Because they will be popular and lots of people will buy them and use them all the time, leading to much more generalized surveillance than the concealed options that only a tiny tiny fraction of people would buy or use (and that we should also regulate)

Also, attempts to undo the damage will be painted as extreme, whether it’s rehiring / recreating the agencies that were destroyed or prosecuting the crazy corruption and seizing funds.

Anecdotally, as I spend time between the US and the EU, the divide is large and clear now. It feels like folks in the US sort of just gave up (me included to an extent), whereas in Europe there seems to be a stronger resolve at a personal level and institutional level, to keep reducing energy use, plastics, driving, waste, etc. The US on the other hand is accelerating overconsumption in all directions.

It's especially depressing for me when it comes to younger folks. In Seattle where I live (not the suburbs, actual Seattle) some teenagers drive to school in 6 seater SUVs and spend their lunch time in there, with the engine on. A minority of students of course but that's still a mindfuck... in Europe they would get so much shit from other kids and neighbors. Drop in the bucket in terms of actual emissions but a very strong symbol of the lack of awareness/motivation.

Yes, much harsher

This thread is extremely negative - if you can't see the value in this, I don't know what to tell you.

Just an opinion and not ridiculing or attacking someone specifically

Fair, but duopoly then, not much better

Unfortunately I think the social media thing is key. At this point I'm convinced that we need a ban, at least before elections. That probably seems unrealistic but these novel entertainment options have proven to be so toxic to democracy that I don't think there's an alternative.

I don’t know if that’s meaningfully true. When a candidate lies and the information distribution industries are by and large just repeating the lies, on top of decades of voter suppression measures, can we say that the popular vote really represents what people want? I don’t think so. So yeah one candidate will win by a razor-thin margin but I don’t think that actually gives legitimacy to what is happening.

True the vast majority of the time. This ad though doesn’t promote anything malicious. It’s a cute story with the message “eat healthy stuff like vegetables and fish”, with a brand name/ logo at the very end.

Criticizing fascists isn’t “speaking badly” of the US or of american people. A vast majority of people aren’t happy about what’s going on.

Let’s assume it’s simulations all the way down and we exist in plane P=n. The question is are we at n=0.

Looks like this result says we can’t simulate our plane in a computer. But the stuff in that simulation exists in P=n+1. So maybe the conclusion is “you can’t simulate n from within n+1” which means we can’t simulate our own plane, let alone our potential parent, and doesn’t mean we don’t have one

Maybe but it happens in many many other contexts. Especially apps - right now for example in Hipcamp I cannot copy the detailed instructions for my trip. In Airbnb I can copy the entire “house rules” doc but not just an arbitrary paragraph or sentence.

It’s just a tool, a weapon im their arsenal. They are still pushing the free speech narrative in other places, eg. Europe, when people try to stop candidates and pundits from lying. But then obviously once they succeed lying their way into power that tool isn’t necessary anymore, and controlling speech becomes important.

You're talking about long highway trips? Parent is probably talking local trips, where 200+ mph is never going to be safe, and would not even be useful.

It was also a lot of gerrymandering and disinformation and complacency

Paraphrasing: “I like actual dictator wannabe A and actual dictator wannabe B and I’m glad they’re working together to punish people who are trying to fighting them”

A few years ago the solution to that would have been a van, which apparently are more practical and roomy than suvs. But they are not cool, so people don’t buy them anymore. (Not saying I know why you specifically made this particular decision, talking about the general trend)

Clearly the USA could therefore never build, for example, a network of interstate highways

So if someone is proven to be corrupt we should just let them run in elections and trust that they won’t use corruption or other immoral or illegal means to get elected? Or that they won’t do more of that if they do get elected. Maybe we should never convict any politician of any crime, what could go wrong

Haha fuck you :)

That’s your definition of “the government” and it’s wrong at the very least in the sense that things aren’t that simple, except maybe if the government you’re talking about a military junta. But in a mature, stable, functioning society the government is part of society and serves a myriad of purposes, in a myriad of ways. And that’s actually OK.

Even if you think the system wasn’t set up perfectly, destroying it in a way that affects vulnerable people can’t be called “good”. That’s sociopathic.

miro

And ~hands in latin

But that doesn’t matter if your goal is to become a global brand

Feedback: change the name

The current name will prevent this product/company from ever making it to the mainstream, or at least make it way less likely.

A great name can truly make a huge difference. An OK name that sticks is a necessity. A name that is mostly “anus” is actively bad.

Do we believe that “people buy them and they like them” should be the end-all argument to judge everything? I think it’s a datapoint but it doesn’t mean that the thing is good for society or people themselves.

Like 40% of people used to smoke. 40% of people are obese today. I’m not comparing these things to teslas in terms of harm (though funding musk is societal harm) but they prove that consumers can make very very bad choices and IMO do all the time

The vocal minority acts as a valid canary, probably most of the time.

People keep mentioning elections in two or four years, I guess assuming that the MAGA mafia could lose and be ousted. I think it’s 100% wishful thinking. There is no way they’ll let go of power peacefully. But my bet is they won’t even technically lose, thanks to an arsenal of massive disinformation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, up to jailing opponents and so on.

This makes fun at a dept of labor website for listing abilities:

It tells veterans their primary skills are that they can "communicate by speaking" and "use [their] arms and/or legs together while sitting, standing, or lying down." Thanks for your service. If you don't believe me, look for yourself.

But to me it’s clear why these abilities are listed: veterans with disabilities. The author not getting that is just… do you ever stop and think?

The author is also complaining that it took two years to get approval to use the cloud and using that to show that the govt is too slow. That’s a crazy take to me, there are countless large and small companies where this did and is taking longer.

Haven't republicans been campaigning on reducing govt spending for like 50 years?

Aren't other countries adversarial enough?

I think these are made up concerns. By and large the US is dominant in the real world, and always will be given its size, location and cultural foundations. And that translates to being able to print and spent a large amount of money, which could be used to solve real world problems, such as:

- climate change and the need to transition energy, transportation over time with some urgency

- chronic housing shortage

- education costs

Instead they're focusing on fake problems and solutions that will make the real problems worse.