Templexious
Stuck in time
User ID: 2308
Templexious
1yr ago
we live in a far from ideal world and budgets aren't infinite, so I have no qualms about letting die those who are an onerous burden.
If the cost is being borne largely by private actors, what cost is it to the government? Surely, if a private individual or charity group is able and willing to direct their funds to keeping those children alive, they should be allowed to, no?
Regardless of earnest hand-wringing about the sanctity of life and how it's beyond such loathsome things as cost-benefit analysis, you don't see the global GDP diverted to help an orphan that fell down a well
You do see people expend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to save kids trapped in a cave or save an individual diver who went into a cave, however. Much of that is almost always from the national coffers. To say nothing of charities who's entire goals are to save such people, regardless of said cost.
If society can forward cash from its coffers toward elderly patients at nursing homes, it can spend some money keeping some kids alive. Especially if a society-- hell, an individual- chooses to shoulder that burden, keeping most of the cost of the existence of that child out of a country's own economic burdens. It's one thing to say "the state will not fund this any more" - it's another too deny access and use of private resources.
Templexious
1yr ago
An early example of cancel culture in action
About 10 years ago
I have news for you.. cancel culture has been around for as long as the media and people getting offended have been around.
Templexious
1yr ago
Nursing homes are in aggregate a symptom of a social disease- end of life care for the elderly and the infirm is atrocious.
Society has kicked families out of their homes, and left the elderly out to dry, while simultaneously sucking up adult children's time that would be spent caring for the elderly in their last years.
The problem is that historically, we simply didn't have the technology to keep them all alive, usually, when elderly would spiral, they would spiral relatively fast- infection, diabetes, cancers, all things that had no cure in the ancestral home. In the current era, we just wait for them to decline, and while we have cures for the most major diseases, we have nothing to help the elderly live more fulfilling and yes, even economically-productive lives. They are shoved into a heartless building where they play bingo on Tuesday at nine am and wait for god to come knocking, with the very occasional visit from what remains of the local evangelical churches activities.
Yes, there are problems in nursing homes, but no, there's no incentive to solve it, one way or the other. The country seems locked in indecision on this particular issue. The AARP is the largest focus group in the US, and as a bloc, holds a stranglehold on the younger generation's ability to help them solve their problems. Young and middle-aged voters are similarly out-of-sighting and out-of-minding the entire problem- shove the elderly into a nursing home and visit once a month until they die-if you're nearby. Maybe do a task that the nurses haven't gotten to. Then move away when offered a raise or a new job in a new state.
Ol' granny's got 5 years still left in her, nevermind that she can't make her way to the toilet any more, but her son Kyle is 50 years old and still in his career and living in tennessee, five hundred miles away.
You can't tell a mass of people who have watched their prices skyrocket and housing prices and rental prices skyrocket and also that many are having a harder time finding jobs for the equivalent pay that "things are fine".
It's been constantly debated whether or not economic indicators are direct abstractions over reality, and to tell people who are feeling down that "things are fine, actually" is akin to mass gaslighting. When talking to a group of people who are used to constantly being lied to and therefore eternally skeptical of establishment that their beliefs and understanding of reality are wrong or incorrect, this is especially egregioius.
Now, you mention that there's no way of bringing about an equivalent to election-loss shock to show the flaws in polls, and then argue about the use of other economic data to make a point. While a useful metric, the establishment groups will use whatever metrics they want to say things are "fine, actually" so long as they have enough donations and electoral support that they don't get voted out each election. I've never, for example, seen major party leaders ever cede a point and change their policies or messaging until after it lost them an election.
As such, economic data debates are only as useful if the establishment is willing to listen and hear out and change their views accordingly.
Templexious
1yr ago
Have you documented the cause for your swap anywhere?
Templexious
1yr ago
Yes, but at the end of the day, they cannot simply tell the SS administration they do not need the money to be paid out to them.
Ideally the taxes would outweigh the costs, and it's only a small footnote, however it is indicative, I think, of the structural inefficiency.
Templexious
1yr ago
One minor tweak to social security which would only be a tiny footnote for the system, is that already-wealthy individuals can't opt-out of social security as it stands. As such, even if you wanted to give away your income to other elderly in less fortunate positions, you would have to personally find them and give that cash away.
In this case, distributed coordination by way of opting out from those who have enough cash to pay for their own expenses isn't even possible.
Templexious
1yr ago
I have. Of the cardio sports I come closest to enjoying, I enjoy swimming the most, but don't have a pool I can use that's within a reasonable range. I'm not a very competitive person, and much prefer personal challenges.
If I had a really nice bike I would consider it, but I don't live in a terribly bike-friendly area.
Templexious
1yr ago
That kind of advice is simply intractable for me. I know what I will or won't do, and have tried going full hiit in the past, it just sucks and there's no mental reward for doing it. I don't get runner's highs or other forms of mental reward for working out. The best that will happen is people notice and compliment me.
Obviously the intent is to build up to full hiit intervals but I'm not going to do the insanity videos at their full schedule. I'm not going to pick up a pace or schedule that's more punishing than rewarding.
At any rate, thanks for the practical suggestions, I'll keep those in mind and see if they will fit my routine.
Templexious
1yr ago
I've leveled out the weight loss at roughly 26 bmi, 28.5% body fat, and 30 lbs of fat loss since starting the semaglutide shots.
The goal was to slide off the shots and maintain the diet, but to hit my goal (another 20 lbs of still remain) I've added in some more exercise than just the dumbbells and short walks. I've always hated cardio, but the immediate social gains of having lost this much weight are so noticeable that i'd be a moron not to start doing more.
I've picked up a copy of p90 and the insanity workout video series and will be half-assing them. The goal isn't to be bulky, it's to lose the chub. We'll see if, through winter, I'll be able to maintain everything I've lost so far.
Templexious
1yr ago
It was a pretty long drawl of text that really meandered and had the trappings of an effortpost, but had immense padding and tonelessness.
Forgot what was supposedly being said within moments of reading it, unfortunately. You'll need to take my word for it that what RandomRanger wrote was immensely more interesting to read than what dmz posted.
Templexious
1yr ago
I am saying that what you're complaining about is difficult, if not impossible to expect from the judicial branch. Different judges and assistants etc will all produce write-ups of extreme variance of quality and kind of language, and we're not about to unseat a judge simply because they used excoriating and casual if overly harsh language as opposed to the court room sarcasm we're used to.
That is, "we are way beyond the point" is not a phrase which would cause me to bat an eye, especially in cases where the judges felt one party or other was not playing nice or was turning the court processes into a circus.
Templexious
1yr ago
To your first question: you can generally tell when a judge is pretty sick of one party or another when you read their rulings. If they feel like the other parties aren't taking the process seriously or taking advantage of the system, their tone will reflect that.
It is not uncommon for judges to joke or use incredible amounts of sarcasm in the court room. The supreme court can get fairly notorious about roasting and escalationary language in their rulings. Whether or not it's justified in the Trump cases, I'm not sure, and haven't been paying much attention, however considering the incentives at play it wouldn't be a surprise.
Templexious
1yr ago
This was an exceptional read and summary, and would love to see more posts like this on the site.
I have long since memory-holed how much of a shitshow the ongoing war against the second amendment in the US has become.
Templexious
1yr ago
his stupid war.
Just double-checking here, but you do know that Putin did, in fact, invade Ukraine, correct?
Templexious
1yr ago
Right. It still leads into conflict with the bit of text from the book of mormon against it and whether or not his existing wife would consent to the polygamy, but I'll concede the point. It is certainly clear the only reason the church walked back the act of sealing men to multiple wives was because of pressure from the country. If the leaders felt the country and rest of the world became more amenable to it, a new revelation would come out reinstituting the policy.
Templexious
1yr ago
A quick google suggests that is not the case any more:
Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is outlawed in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.
The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.
Templexious
1yr ago
Keep in mind also that Tim Ballard was married. I'm sure his wife didn't exactly consent to him trying to sexually proposition the women who went with him on these trips.
Unfortunately, as Quantumfreakonomics notes, she has not spoken on the issue, and she is most certainly a victim.
Templexious
1yr ago
That's exactly the line of reasoning and theories I'm rejecting until evidence comes forward.
For the record, I'm not denying that zionism, even jewish supremacist ideologies exist and are propagated without half the measure of scrutiny or being allowed to talk about it.
Templexious
1yr ago
It has been interesting to see the inversion of blame posts like this attempt.
Like the theory that the ADL is funding neo-nazis. Why would they do anything like that? It's an insane proposition if they were actually being paid by the ADL. And it has zero upsides. If the ADL had a whistleblower moment it would entirely dismantle their whole organization.
I do have my own conspiracies regarding jewry, but "the ADL is actively stoking anti-semitism" is an incoherent proposition. Toss eggs at me later if there's leaks that show they were wiring money or writing checks funding neo nazi demonstrators, but you'll need to forgive me for being a bit skeptical at this overexplanatory theory that's cropped up the last few months.
Templexious
1yr ago
I suspect I'm missing something here.
Allow me to break down my argument further for you, hopefully it will elucidate the meaning.
Assumption: A business existing is better than a business not existing. They provide some good to the market that satisfies some vague demand. Assumption: Per the OP's framing it is better to fire all 25 workers in order to get rid of the excess, because you evaluate the group as a whole, not individuals in the group.
Under these assumptions, and within the OP's thought experiment, would it be better to put the factory out of business to get rid of the 20 parasites, or would it be better to keep the business still running, when the only option is to fire the entire group in order to be rid of the union workers?
My response:
If you fire an entire group based on this heuristic, then congratulations, your factory no longer runs. If you can extract profit from the factory and people still buy the product for cheap, then you aren't losing anything by having some excess.
Some vague morality points, perhaps.
If profit is still being extracted, and the factory is able to continue to run, it is better to keep the factory running, even with the excess. Is it better for a factory to run with an optimal crew-number? Sure, that is not under dispute. In a less contrived thought experiment, you fight the union and reduce the number of workers until you hit a "true"/safe/optimal minimum for your goals, or if demand is high, expand the factory so you can utilize those 20 excess workers and ensure they're producing value.
The thought experiment has a lot of assumptions baked into it. The other issue perhaps, is that I don't use profit or money as an equivalent to calculating utility.
Templexious
1yr ago
If you fire an entire group based on this heuristic, then congratulations, your factory no longer runs. If you can extract profit from the factory and people still buy the product for cheap, then you aren't losing anything by having some excess.
Some vague morality points, perhaps.
I saw it a while ago after beating axiom verge, but didn't play it. Perhaps I'll give it a shot once once I've put celeste through its paces.
Templexious
1yr ago
it's a good game, and worth a play. The level design is uneven sometimes, but that seems intentional.
50k potential federal employees turning over every time a president changes would be a pretty massive change in how the government runs. It would make for excellent fireworks.
More options
Context Copy link