Proziam

I think the point the commenter above was making was this:

"If women cannot work while simultaneously having/raising children there will always be at least a slight difference in the amount of men vs women in the workforce."

> Isn’t it generally accepted that increased diversity in a decision group leads to better decisions?

Perhaps evidence to the contrary, it seems widely believed that the governance of most Nordic countries and other nations like Switzerland result in (much?) better outcomes than the US. There seems to be something of a fascination with those nations in terms of their social support systems and the like. Interestingly, those nations are substantially more homogeneous the United States.

> Splitting the state up would draw territory lines where there are only cultural lines currently.

I don't think it's a given that this is a bad thing. The principle behind states and counties is that the populations can govern themselves in a way that fits their values. An extreme case, an Amish population that has gathered in a particular region, would probably not feel great about being forcibly assimilated into another group's social or governmental structures. Their beliefs are so disparate that it's difficult to imagine they would be able to find common ground.

> What else can we do, is there something less radical that can chip away to close this gap?

Acceptance of other people's values without demonization is key. The US has devolved into a state where the opposing political belief is now seen as a flaw of their character or morality. You see that Even on a site like this where the average commenter is better educated than the average citizen. (The comments about Trump supporters all supporting segregation as example).

To fix this, we need to break the echo chambers that perpetuate these beliefs. Unfortunately, because of the current polarization, it's difficult even for an elected official to agree with the opposition about any issue without reprisal from their own party or the voters.

Points 1 & 4 could be solved either via elimination of the party system (unlikely) or if one of the several initiatives to break up California succeed (also unlikely). Simply put, the problem is that when you have one party in control there's very little incentive for them to work cooperatively with the people.

Points 2&3 are could also be solved by dividing the state up so that each region could self-govern. Given that this is unlikely, I have a hard time imagining a solution. It's extremely hard to make "city folk" understand what's going on in rural areas, and vice versa. Worse, our current political climate is such that demonizing the other group is seen as a morally acceptable thing to do, almost always without really understanding them in the first place.

The first step to solving these problems in California is to close the political divide and get the people to work together to establish better representation.

This topic gets complicated fast but it boils down most simply to:

1. Options in representation. California is essentially a single-party state. Switzerland has substantially more options in this regard.

2. California is freaking huge, Switzerland is not. Because of this, you have dramatically different interests between different regions in California contrasted with more homogeneous needs in Switzerland.

3. The population of Switzerland is not nearly as diverse as California. They speak several languages there, but overall you have a group of people with very similar cultural and historical values.

4. This point would require a small novel, but in essence California abuses the system to go around the process rather than go through it. You could describe this as the contrast between cooperative governance (Switzerland) and adversarial governance (California).

In short, if we stuck with George Washington's suggestion to lower the maximum size of congressional districts to one representative per 30,000 people, California might be in better shape. It probably would have also been beneficial to listen to Alexander Hamilton when he called parties “the most fatal disease.”

California has among the least efficient and effective governance models on the planet, overall. Switzerland also has a direct democracy, but they make it work quite well for them. Notably, they've seemed to enjoy just not doing what the EU wants. They've kept their own money, maintained military neutrality, and also maintained an extremely well-armed population.

Implementation probably matters more than the model. That said, I still prefer certain models because it aligns better with my personal principles.

Trump has changed his party affiliation five times since 1987. He was a registered democrat for many years, even going on CNN and discussing that he identifies as a Democrat. While campaigning as a Republican he said repeatedly that he didn't align with the party's platform. Then, after all that, he recently was talking about starting an entirely new party.

> Trump thinks he’s a Republican.

His own statements, both during and prior to his time as president, strongly suggest otherwise.

> When your mental model is persistently at odds with the way things work out in reality, you need to reexamine your mental model.

You're absolutely right.

I don't disagree. I believe both parties have deeply rooted issues with corruption.

On the levels that I am most knowledgeable about, the trend is roughly true. For example, Dems are the party of gun control while simultaneously militarizing police (a bipartisan effort). The moves to licensing and excessive taxation for what should be fundamental rights (e.g licenses to operate businesses, high taxes on your primary residence) is another trend that concerns me, but quickly goes out of the scope of what can be readily discussed on a forum.

My view is that both parties seek power on whatever levels they can get it. That's why I am for the abolition of political parties altogether, and a move towards a more direct democracy (public veto).

> His rhetoric against TPP did more harm to US China dependence than any good he did.

I strongly agree. His rhetoric was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with Trump as president overall. On that point, he failed miserably.

I personally have very mixed feelings about Trump as a whole. On the one hand, I didn't vote for him. I see him as divisive and as an obstacle for progress on real issues that I personally care about.

However, he has done a few things that I have sincere appreciation for. Primarily, we made significant gains towards peace in the middle east by negotiating treaties in the region. Another point in the win column (leading up the covid) was the economy. And the last major thing I cared about was reducing the US dependence on Chinese goods and labor (which are made so affordable due to inhumane practices).

Regarding authoritarianism, he has a mixed track record. He had a thing for executive orders, but he also let the states largely handle the civil unrest and covid in the manner they saw fit.

With that having been said, Trump was a Democrat for a long time, and was certainly not a typical political establishment individual. I find it difficult to attribute him to either party.

From my point of view as an American who has lived in Europe (Sweden, later Germany, and the UK) my framing of the US political situation is as follows:

Democrats tend to be authoritarian and pro-centralization of power.

Republicans tend to be anti-authoritarian and pro-decentralization.

Both major parties have a long history of deep corruption. They've essentially colluded to rob the American people blind. Unfortunately, until these two corrupt institutions get together and decide to eliminate parties from our political process, the American people will have to use the threat of supporting the opposite party to get them to stay even mildly in their lane.

EDIT - The voting swings on this comment are interesting.

> this comment is entitled

One who set an expectation ought not be shocked when one's users have that expectation.

I don't think they are evil, but I do think they handled this transition poorly and with messaging that clearly didn't win their users over to their side.

Also, tracking is bad. I wouldn't do business with them on that basis.

I wish this resource existed (or that I knew it existed if it did) years ago.

I always seem to learn about the things that would have made my life easier after I've already done things the hard way.

I'm someone who used crypto to buy my current residence. Until you and your staff can pay their rent and taxes in BTC, fiat money is the only real money.

That said, I have my doubts about the 'purity' of any crypto company.

The comments are telling, but I wanted to point out something from a different perspective.

I have friends from school who never really made it anywhere. One makes $12 an hour moving boxes around in Pennsylvania, another is stuck living at home and hasn't held down a job for more than a few months at any point in his life.

I have heard from this friend group, on many occasions, statements that prove they have no concept of relative value or of how money works at all. The guy making $12 an hour would be frustrated to hear you say that you make 40k and can barely afford minimum living. The cost of living differences between you would go completely unconsidered.

This is a roundabout way of saying that most people have a very narrow view of the world. Unfortunately, in my experience, it doesn't matter how educated, intelligent, or wealthy an individual is; they still resist expanding their world-view.

> People without both debt and assets aren't paying anything.

Poor people without debt still pay because their buying power continually diminishes. Their $100 saved today isn't worth as much the next year.

Poor people without assets still pay. They are forced to pay rent to those who have assets. The rent will be priced to cover the debt of the asset owner.

> People with savings, and who own debt are the people who suffer from inflation.

People with savings most typically invest it. The higher the inflation, the riskier the investments they will take to ensure their savings don't dwindle away.

I see the tradition of SAP, Oracle, and the big consulting firms from the days of yore is still going strong.

I am not fond of the way people refer to science.

It's common to see people say 'believe the science' as if science is a person making one specific claim. The scientific method is a process practiced by humans. Humans are prone to error and dishonesty depending on the circumstances. They are also able, on occasion, to make brilliant discoveries.

I find the framing of conversations about science to be dishonest and intended to make one party in the discussion look like a fool.

They also don't stop people from going to a neighboring mall. Unfortunately, the app stores' owners certainly do that.

https://www.wired.com/story/install-apps-outside-app-store-s...

Different anecdata here. Trial periods suck.

My experience is that I rarely have enough time to determine if I really like the service or if it's still just a shiny new tool to play with. I need more than 14-30 days to actually put in the work to understand a reasonably complex tool (say a CRM system) well enough to make a commercial recommendation.

Obviously this issue doesn't apply to all SaaS companies but it's probably common enough to be worthy of consideration.

For those reading this I would like to offer my own experience.

I was 24 when I got a vasectomy and it was probably the single best decision I ever made. Total cost was $800 (I paid cash) and the total time commitment was approximately 90 minutes. I spent less than 30 minutes on an initial consultation, half of which was scheduling the procedure. Another half hour was spent getting the procedure itself. And finally, you'll want to get a test done to ensure the procedure worked as advertised.

I was never asked 'are you really sure?' or 'what about your spouse?' or 'what if you change your mind?'

Edit - Also, it hurts less than my jaw after a trip to the dentist. More of a mild ache than serious 'pain'

I see that you're being downvoted, presumably by people who aren't aware of the history of that subject.

A huge percentage of content on Gab is based around religion. If that's where your religious community is (and most people can't see others in person for worship at the moment) then yes, it absolutely is a religious activity.

The better question is what percentage of Parler users fit the stereotype?

Based on what I've seen and people I know who were active on Gab and Parler I would venture to say it's not nearly as high as people think. The amount of people with truly fringe beliefs is pretty small, even when concentrated.

Related to this, one of my major concerns for 2021 and beyond is how much money we're [0]printing and the effect that will have on people's purchasing power. Couple that with the fact that a huge portion of small businesses in the US are [1]closed forever, many with severe financial repercussions for the owners (who are totally average people, not the upper class many think of when 'business owner' gets used as a term).

In short, I think we're going to be in for massive long-term unemployment (and underemployment) coupled with inflation beyond what anyone living today in the US has experienced. I'm not too confident about the state of this nation's finances

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/yelp-data-shows-60percent-of...

I understand your point of view and I see similar sentiments everywhere. Let me just deposit one thought:

Basically all people hate being lied to, or to feel manipulated or controlled.

A lot of people on the anti-mask train were totally on board for the '2 week lockdown' to flatten the curve. Those same people then saw their government officials repeatedly lie to them ("masks don't work!" ~ "Herd Immunity @ X%", etc), the media painted the picture of airborne ebola, and then those same politicians went out and violated their own lockdown orders.

Meanwhile, their local economy is destroyed and they or people they care about are suffering/struggling. And for those that take a more global view of things, there is some [0,1]evidence that supply chain disruption is killing more people than Covid itself.

It's easy to feel like those people are complete idiots and ruining it for everyone else. It's much harder, but much more valuable, to focus on solutions to the underlying problem. Ultimately, we need to restore trust in our institutions before we can begin to repair the divide.

[0]https://time.com/5864803/oxfam-hunger-covid-19/ [1]https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12294.doc.htm

I have seen no convincing evidence that Facebook and Twitter make good faith efforts to remove comments that incite violence, according to the letter of the law.

To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.

If Parler violates the ToS then Twitter surely does as well. But, since [0]Twitter pays Amazon an obscene amount of money they are immune. Facebook is in a similar position where they've been [1]enjoying the rewards of 'selective non-enforcement' for a very long time now.

I probably disagree with just about everything ever said on Parler but it's difficult not to point out this absolutely reeks.

[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/twitter-w...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-a-rocket-ship-f...

EDIT - I can't tell if the downvotes are people mistakenly believing I'm defending Parler or because they believe that $Big_Tech is free of blame.

Unfortunately, even if you go to extremes, all (ISPs, Browsers, etc) have to do is choose not to connect to you.

I excluded the omnibus spending from that number. Most folks, including myself, are appalled at how irresponsible the spending is. However, it would be intellectually dishonest to combine them to make that argument.

The stimulus component was roughly 900B, of which each American (there's roughly 330M of us) will only receive $600. Of course, this is all accomplished by [0]printing obscene amounts of USD and saddling Americans with a debt that will likely never be repayable. [1]At present, the debt to GDP ratio exceeds 130%.

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/money/2020/05/12/coronavir...

[1] https://www.usdebtclock.org/