zeke5123a
13hr ago
What is more annoying is that the media will say “government official debunks Musk’s wild claim.”
The evidence they will point to is the government official. The same government official Musk is criticizing.
It would be like if our judicial system asked the defendant “did you do it” and if they said “no” accepted their word as final. Just crazy.
zeke5123a
15hr ago
What’s annoying is the concept that FEMA saying “we are doing great” is also taken is settling the matter. They are a motivated party. Similarly you wouldn’t expect state officials to criticize the people whose help they need.
What we really need is an honest independent media but we don’t have that.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Yes that’s the benefit. But the question is of cost. The argument is that on net the costs outweigh the benefits.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Well, she is a temp. She could say just say “thank you but no.” The stakes of retaliation are low because she well is a temp.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Depends. Birthright citizenship is not as straightforward as it appears.
zeke5123a
5d ago
My debit card is in my wallet besides my license— is your’s in a separate container?
zeke5123a
6d ago
But honestly who cares? If you are moving to the US, you will be forced to develop a new social group. So why care about the old?
zeke5123a
6d ago
Can someone steelman why a wife would care enough about abortion that said wife would tank a doubling of income and a better life? That just seems insane.
The other two are a misunderstanding and innumeracy
zeke5123a
6d ago
And that’s why I’m so terrified about the current election in the states. It seems like if the Dems win, then permanent demographic change (with one party state).
In principle the natives could vote out the politicians and pursue a deportation strategy. But the natives while firmly being anti migration are slightly more divided compared to the unified group of new voters.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Let’s say the resident school controversy was true. As best I can make out the logic, it is:
-
Europeans came here and took land from the native population.
-
Natives suffered as a result.
-
As a descendent of those Europeans, I am morally responsible.
-
Therefore it is a good thing if a new population comes here and harms the current natives (ie me).
It seems quite odd to me. First, it assumes generational guilt. And if that is true, then maybe the original natives “deserved” it. It also implies the new population while enacting justice is committing a wrong. Very confusing.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Gravity theory of trade actually explains our trading flows a bit more than strict comparative advantage. That is, you do trade with Californians more than ever one else, and then Americans more than everyone else, and so on and so forth.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Thanks for the kind words.
Yes, that is one possibility (ie the tech advances enough that it kills some but not all jobs so those at the top become Uber rich and those at the bottom UBI). Of course that ignores the possibility that the situation you describe is a mid point; not the end.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Surely there could be a point where technology advances enough that computers do everything better, no?
zeke5123a
8d ago
That seems less compelling if more re assuring. If Christ can have doubt or a desire to not face the hard roads then so can I.
The difference is in LOTR you have people who are by and large sure that what they do won’t accomplish their goal (ie evil will prevail) and instead of trying to flee and eek out an okay life take a stand. And it is that hope against all odds (or estel) that overcomes evil.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Did you read Toilken as a kid? I’ve long taken inspiration from the book which was “do your duty and that which is right even if it seems unlikely to win over evil.”
zeke5123a
8d ago
But what’s annoying is that these rules shield the guilty; not the innocent who have their rights trampled.
zeke5123a
8d ago
To me, it is the finality and chance of a mistake. I’d concede the point where someone livestreams it. But I worry in other cases.
zeke5123a
9d ago
I guess the question is do you need the work to be economically viable? Maybe if prisoners were forced to do non pecuniary very hard work for 12 hours a day prison would be a much worse place to be and prison might be easier to manage (since the inmates would be exhausted).
zeke5123a
9d ago
The cost of prison v the pecuniary benefits from hard labor is probably a net negative. Maybe though if prisoners had to do really truly hard labor (at pains of extreme punishment) prisons would be easier to manage (since no one would have the energy) AND there would be a larger disincentive to commit crime.
This is why for lower level crimes I support public flogging. I think you get probably more disincentive without the deleterious impact of jail.
I’m reminded of Gay — a NYT editor. I can’t remember if she tweeted that when Bloomberg spent 500m on his political he instead could’ve given the 327m Americans over a million dollars each or merely saw the tweet and ran with it as a story for Brian Williams.
In either case, she had more than enough time to think “that sounds crazy — is the math right.” And either she can’t do basic basic math or she doesn’t care.
More options
Context Copy link