twomoretime

This is such a toxic, selfish modern view.

For most people, even with shitty parents, your still parents sacrificed for you and raised you. A loyal human would not abandon them without great reason. Cutting contact should be a last resort, even if that means slightly worse mental health for yourself. Yes, you do owe them some minimum of respect and kindness if they showed you the same in raising you. That leads to better outcomes for society.

I think the main issue is that most mental illnesses are vaguely defined clusters of problems - if you represented a diagnosis as a vector where each index corresponded to severity of a particular symptom, the diagnosis space would not properly aligned with the actual disease basis. This introduces ambiguity - a single disease tends to fall into multiple clusters when your representational domain is misaligned with the actual data axes.

The solution is ML. Neural networks with appropriate architectures effectively perform a change of basis, mapping the data basis to an output coordinate system. When properly trained they can automagically orient their internal representation with the true data bases.

I don't doubt that Google pre IPO probably believed in their motto. It's the investor influence that has gradually steered Google into lucrative but ethically questionable domains.

Except people are by default being told their opinions are incorrect because they disagree with the so called experts.

Experts in a soft, non experimental, survey based scientific discipline. Soft sciences are institutional dogma because by and large there is no way to experimentally verify anything. This is a particular debate in which the establishment is clearly in the wrong to anyone who isn't determined to believe in a nonexistent equality.

Moreover, a person's field of expertise doesn't have any bearing on whether their ideas are correct

Nor does their expertise preclude them from succumbing to personal or institutional biases.

but once you’re in my ear with some misinformed ideas

How the hell do you expect to get anything done in a society if you presume that any hurtful idea is misinformed?

How can you seriously pretend that gendered differences in humans magically stop above the shoulders? You're denying realty. It's black and white.

You can bend over backwards and sweep rational arguments like Damore's under the rug, or you can accept that consistent inequality of outcome across the time and culture is very obviously indicative of at least some degree of intrinsic cognitive differences.

Multiple times per year in a country with 300MM people and what, tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of police interactions yearly?

Obviously in the ideal case it would be 0 but that's not realistic and, again, the current rate is far lower than the original poster implied. That's my entire argument. A couple times a year in the news does not justify worrying about being killed during a traffic stop or some other typical, mundane interaction.

You claim that police abuse of power is exceedingly rare

I made no such claim. I said that being hurt or killed by an officer is an unlikely occurance for a typical person. That's all I'm arguing and there shouldn't be anything controversial about it.

Well then you are no doubt aware that these statistics skew overwhelmingly toward those who are noncompliant, combative, and/or felons, correct? Such that the actual rate for "average" people (including minorities, although their rate may be higher) is probably miniscule.

The implication of OPs post was that this was a frequent enough occurrence to legitimately fear interactions with police.

My point is that this is excessive, and partly a result of the eagerness that the media to latch onto and sensationalize stories of blacks being killed by police.

It is relevant to the discussion.

Edit: all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia.

1/6 is literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller than 1/291. Nonsensical comparison.

More importantly, how many of those hospitalizations/deaths are justified? You realize that police are typically responding to crimes and dealing with criminals who tend to be a little more violent than the average person, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bootlicker by any means, and I acknowledge there are serious policing problems in the US. But seriously questioning whether you're going to survive a traffic stop if you act reasonably is irrational paranoia.

That's plainly hysteria and you're only encouraging unnecessary distrust.

The overwhelming majority of interactions with police for any race are benign. You've been manipulated by a race baiting media.

One man's trash...

they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting

I haven't seen a single publication to this effect and there's no way to no for sure until enough time has elapsed to verify. Viral immunity varies widely and though it is in the coronavirus family it is still a novel pathogen.

You overestimate how much we know about COVID.

Also herd immunity is neither guaranteed nor is it necessarily preferable to lockdown. We don't know how long immunity lasts on average post infection.

Sure, clearly we should just be printing even more money...why stop at 80% wage? Why not 100%?

What works in England doesn't necessarily work in the US, and presuming that Republicans are just being greedy is naive and counterproductive.

Society, I imagine

Call me old school but after watching numerous people try and fail to learn online with courses and especially YouTube videos, I'm pretty convinced that to learn ideally people need to read textbooks.

This isn't a question of learning styles - and I do believe that online courses and videos are valuable supplementary materials. But none of them compare in richness and direction to a well written and organized book.

Has Russia recovered?

Was there anything to recover? Sure they beat everyone to space but the economy wasn't exactly roaring. My family tells me you didn't really have any kind of choice when you lined up to "shop" for groceries, and you had to know someone from the store to get anything good (better meat, rare sweets like jam) before stocks ran out.

That's arguably something else to consider in this comparison. Yes we may have a further distance to go to recover to the US historic norm, but even under a collapse we may be closer to ensuring basic survival and even comfort than immediately post collapse Russia.

You realize that alcohol related deaths top 80,000 per year in the US?

Alcohol consumption is a voluntary, pleasurable activity for the vast majority of drinkers, and the complication rate is many orders of magnitude lower than it is for COVID.

Alcohol and COVID aren't anywhere close to the same league. This comparison doesn't make sense.

problem with your utopia is that in order to provide the vagaries of a "dignified life" you are compelling people to labor for others. We have not yet achieved post scarcity and there is never a guarantee that enough people in your society will participate in good faith to sustain those who are, for whatever reason, less productive.

That's not an argument against a safety net, just the opposing force that makes the correct (and possible) solution somewhere in between [UBI, euthanization), and different for each grouping of people.

I think that's the nature of public corporations. Once the board starts to gain influence, the company is gradually steered by people who are not interested in image or philanthropy any further than necessary for growth.

You miss the applicability of the saying because you drastically overestimate the capability of the average American.

Hell, ignoring the deplorable level to which standards have been lowered by perverse incentives to pass students, the US only has an average of 80 HS graduation rate.

These are your voters. People who struggled to make it through high school have just as much of a day over your governments, your legislation, as you do. Do you expect uneducated and/or ignorant voters to make good decisions?

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/average-graduation-rate-s...

software engineers didn't want to acknowledge the privilege they've been living with

Maybe people would be less hostile to the idea if you didn't dismiss the fruits of their labor with accusations of "privilege." It's kind of insulting to be told that you effectively didn't earn part or all of your success because of your race and/or gender.

I feel like the only people who are surprised by the difference are those who have only ever held white collar jobs.

They're totally different cultures. Weren't talking about two different classes of people. And unfortunately you can't expect the same standards and rules to be appropriate for both groups.

why would the workers organize and risk their careers without just cause

Warehouse stocking is not a career. Most of these people are hourly workers with little to lose. You can't apply the same standards to white, blue, and no collar workers because the nature of both the work, the people, and the culture are totally different.

If that statement shocks or offends you, I encourage you to take a temporary job at a place like Walmart or visit an oil rig and experience the differences yourself.

There's an old saying that people deserve their rulers.

You make the mistake of presuming that these human beings are all cockroaches. That's pure arrogance. It's not all 5G Holocaust deniers you're turning away.

You think this is better or worse for a country that is sharply and almost exactly evenly polarized across party lines?

What? I'm identifying a need and a possible solution. Now we have a civil discussion with the goal of exchanging information.

In the absense of capital punishment for corporations

That's an interesting analogy that I've never considered, given we treat corporations as personlike entities. Why don't we have a capital punishment equivalent?

Perhaps our rules regarding social harm are too loose. But I'm not sure that I would trust a government, especially our government, to make and enforce the right rules.

In any case our legislation desperately needs to catch up to the tech. Communication has changed exponentially for the last few hundred years - printing, radio, telephone, television, cell phone, dialup, cable, smartphone, gigabit...many of our laws are simply not written for an era where decentralized communication of this bandwidth and latency is possible. Article is case in point.