Klinky

Did you mean ponzi scheme? That would make more sense, while not being entirely accurate.

That's what people are indoctrinated with, causing a lot of people to start a family too soon. However, I assure you many who have kids are not happy, especially while raising them in poverty or on unlivable wages.

I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young.

The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.

Are there truly no private security services in NZ? Is the issue really that there are no options, or is the issue that you just can't afford it? I think the economics of private security makes it basically impossible to be a mass market consumer commodity, especially if you start considering liability of lethal force.

Either it's a public service, service to the rich or adhoc/DIY(gang, militia, self-armed).

Obviously Musk should go on Twitter and lie that he's taking Tesla private again to juice the stock. Maybe he'll get two slaps on the wrist this time.

I think their point is exactly that, they're human. The whole Twitter acquisition seems impulsive, petty, and obviously was poorly thought out.

Only in very severe disease would that be the case. Many can become maimed & debilitated instead of just dying(e.g. Polio), and even those who come through "unscathed", the damage may just be hidden. You can see this with a lot of diseases like HPV, herpes(chickenpox/shingles) or hepatitis, where severe disease manifests well into adulthood. Many diseases have adapted to not kill the host and evade the immune system.

You also may just have chronic re-exposure or a failure to clear pathogens, which can be detrimental to an entire population. An example would be worms that don't get cleared by the immune system and for which the person is constantly being re-exposed to. You end up with cognitive and physical issues that don't kill, but reduce a person's quality of life.

Some of the hygiene hypothesis is around the immune system amping up its response due to parasites, and without the parasites present to attack it turns against the body itself. This is kind of what I am talking about. The people with amped up immune systems possibly handled parasite infections better when they were a common problem, but in a society where most people no longer live with chronic parasite infections, it manifests as allergies/immune disease. Living with chronic parasite infection is certainly not on the top of anyone's list to do, though helminthic therapy is something some people have tried to fix their allergy issues.

It is also incredibly hard to determine who has truly lived a "pure" lifestyle free from interference of modern conveniences, so that evolution can truly be the driving factor in their life. Civilization has disrupted evolution for millennia by now, we can't just look back a few generations and claim they were a "tougher breed" who were better because of their purer natural lifestyle.

One of the failings of the simple concept of "survival of the fittest" is that survival just means you pass on genes, your quality of life might be poor up til then or you die shortly after, and fitness is towards the environment you grew up in, you may fail completely at adapting to an environmental shift later on.

The concept only goes so far, and people need to be wary of it being used to potentially justify that harsh living conditions are okay or "better". It can come off as an appeal to nature.

In this case the vaccine & the ICU stays were paid for by taxpayers. If anything they got special treatment that was way above & beyond what others complain about when it comes to the lack of equal access to medical resources.

You should go to a dealer and try to actually get one for $22,195. Dealers have been gouging with huge fees above sticker / MSRP.

Obviously you can speak to your family's experience, but your argument seemed to suggest they would have no room to complain compared their predecessors from 170 years ago. I don't know your exact family's story, but 30 years ago was not that long ago, and the problems faced then, many still face today. Homelessness and hunger are still major issues. Medical debt is still the largest contributor to bankruptcies. On top of this you have a major pandemic, re-stoking of cold war tensions and women's rights being rewound to the 70s.

When I look back at history I am more disgusted with the rampant exploitation that occurred, which made lives harder, an issue yet to be solved in the modern era. Sure people survived, but living a hard life is nothing anyone should aspire to, nor a reason society should be telling someone to "suck it up and stop whining".

Yeah, if demand drastically dropped price would likely drop. The main point was that ICEs also have significant maintenance & energy costs. Sticking it out with gas doesn't mean you won't be facing thousands of dollars of additional costs over the life of the car.

Wait until gas is $10. How much is invested in oil changes over an ICEs life? Thousands of dollars.

Was your family being threatened by bears? Why do you mention 200 years ago initially, but your anecdote is from the 90s? Do you think they were crying wolf or overreacting and not appreciating the 170 years of progress that preceded them? Perhaps progress isn't as swift or tangible as you think it is?

I think appealing to the past generations being "a tougher breed" to undermine the current concerns of now is a weak argument. A lot of people were just told to shut up and know their place or literally die.

200 years ago the western world reacted with magnitude 9 to the thought of an independent woman or African American, or a homosexual. Shockingly some westerners still do. While we've moved further towards a post-scarcity world, forced artificial scarcity to prop up 200-year-old economic models has become problematic. Perhaps you now have this potential access to more "luxury"(education, healthcare, housing, transport, communication), but no way to actually afford it without massive debt. You end up with a lot of people feeling insecurity about their future & the end goal of society as a whole.

It is not offense, it is a logical analysis of the statement. This is the perfect forum for such analysis. If it's not the correct forum for my analysis, then it is not the correct forum to be posting such statements in the first place.

I am not following. Are you talking about pigeonholing adults who you think lesser of, or actual children?

It is an abuse of the statement when it's immediately contradicted by explicitly setting a specific task as "most important". I read how it was written as "don't be too ambitious, don't be worldly, have a lot of kids", a regressive viewpoint.

> "We can thus take the time to live in history as God’s people who have nothing more important to do than to *have* and care for children."

I think this statement is very problematic, especially if you want to be inclusive to the childless or celibate. In the end, it's not an applicable answer for everyone. It's only an answer for those who have already subscribed at some level to that belief, thus I find it unsatisfactory.

I wrote about pigeonholing adults into the role of child caregiver, constraining their opportunities to do something else with their life. What they quoted applied to adults, not children.

I guess to each their own. I read what's written as constraint and limitation, a freedom only to those who struggle to think for themselves.

What if caring for new life is of no interest to someone? This advice just sounds like pigeonholing people into roles, making sure people know their place, and don't ask too many questions.

I think seeing a PPP/COL breakdown between major metropolitan areas would be more useful than country-wide averages/medians, the US has huge variations with regards to compensation & cost of living. Most people in the US are not making $100K. Even in tech, many are not making $100K. A lot of people fail at getting those FANG salaries(partly due to the exhaustive hoops you need to jump through to get them), and even if you're getting those high salaries a lot of those benefits can be negated by very high localized costs.

That said, absolutely there is an arbitraged disparities going on where some contractor in India is making $10K/yr while someone in the US is making $250K/yr. Are statically priced global goods fair? Perhaps not, or perhaps the issue is our inability to agree on the worth of a human's labor, and the people who exploit that deficiency. Many US companies are now looking outside the US towards Europe for lower cost engineers, so who knows how long the levels.fyi salaries are going to last in the US.

You really do need to look at the whole picture of cost of living & quality of life. Sure someone in the Bay Area could make 5x that, but that doesn't mean they're living 5x better or things aren't 5x more expensive.

Perhaps not everyone can research cures for cancer, but that's not a good reason to then become the "cancer". Just because it's how it is now, doesn't mean that's how it has to be. Ideally Amazon, Walmart, Google, etc.. should manage their marketplaces better to provide a optimal consumer experience, but it seems so long as they get their cut, they couldn't care less. The continued consolidation of competition leaves fewer options for consumers to even "vote with their wallets".

I agree that Jira is not the best project management tool, but it wasn't really designed to be one. It's not terrible a work tracking, but it seems to lacking in the roadmap/pre-planning departments that project/product should be using to feed developers work.

That said, spreadsheets are also not great project management tools either, quickly becoming messy and out of date. Nor do I think relying on senior devs to roll their own project management tools is a good idea.

I'd like to see more WBS(work breakdown structure) tools used to identify needs in advance and ways to monitor their implementation, testing & deployment. The industry's love affair with agile seems to lead to pre-planning & consistent structure being seen as "too waterfall". Basically it feels like no one does agile "correctly", and those that it's worked well for, likely have a workflow and product cycle that aligns with it well, but that may not be true for all products, tech, stacks, etc.

Ultimately we're trying to answer these basic questions: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? How are we doing it? When will it be done? Is it actually done? If those questions cannot be answered easily there are probably gaps in your workflow.

It's fine if you think markets are intended to be hostile to consumers instead of bettering people's lives. I don't think incentivizing deceptive middlemen is really a net benefit to society.

DRAM markets have been notoriously price fixed in the past[1], and it would not be surprising if there's still a lot of winking, nudging, and backdoor handshakes going on. The chip shortage makes it even more excusable now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal

>Sure, but would you feel okay about ruining someone else's home as long as it's not in your neighbourhood?

Personally, no. Can we extrapolate that while also reviewing history and come to the determination that no one would ever build or do something to the detriment of others? Absolutely not.

>When a war crime is committed, it is private first class John Baluzki holding the rifle who will be dragged to the Hague

That's not really how it works. There's a ton of bureaucracy when it comes to actually bringing someone in front of ICC/The Hague, and plenty of countries shield perpetrators from ever seeing justice. War Crimes seems non-sequitar to this conversation, and it seems you have a naive understanding of them.

>Individuals perform actions, corporations or dictators are powerless without individuals willing to go along with their crap. Those individuals are responsible for what they did.

Corporations and dictators often hold sway by threat, either of livelihood or life. I think you underestimate how much power this gives them. Whistleblowers often find themselves ostracized/blackballed/murdered. There's often a lot of downside to speaking up. Also really how culpable is someone pouring concrete or running electrical at a plant that eventually starts polluting the neighborhood? Even if neighbors tell this worker "this place will pollute our neighborhood" and they ask their boss or someone higher up "is this place going to pollute the neighborhood?" they'd probably get a non-answer or a denial.

It's not inflation alone that is the problem with housing. It's housing being seen as an investment. People discourage new builds or high-density due to trying to preserve their existing asset value. Quick flip schemes juice the price up, for an often shoddy asset. Then hedge funds swoop in with cash, paying above market, to then flip, rent out, AirBnB or just let houses sit idle. There's a lot of bubble-like behavior still occurring in the housing market, and easy money has likely contributed, but I don't think that it all falls in line with classical inflation. It feels more like artificially constricted/restricted supply with high demand.

Housing as an investment is problematic, because it disincentivizes new builds, people want to keep seeing their asset value go up, never down, and constraining supply is an easy way to do that. Renting out can also be more lucrative than selling if you have the capital. Also the ability for markets to offer housing at commodity prices seems like it would require a drastic oversupply of a very resource intensive asset. How sustainable is that really in the long run?