appreciatorBus

Yes.

If something is overvalued then a process that devalues it should be welcomed.

Shitting on someone else’s carpet is absolutely hurting someone.

A better example:

You prefer to shit in your own toilet but someone else prefers to shit on their own carpet.

Yes.

People working hard on problems that other people are willing to freely compensate them for is a good thing.

Activism disguised as research is a bad thing.

There are whole disciplines whose telos is now activism rather than knowledge production.

https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wpfsx/wp-content/uploads/sites...

The behavior that leads to the issue is individual consumers driving cars. Outlawing this would nuke demand for fossil fuels which encourages risky well drilling. But since 99% of Americans drive they tend to get very unhappy about the prospect of banning the vroom vroom. This is a real and challenging political problem. We can't get around it by pretending that corporations drill for fun.

So if the profit margin is low, capitalism is bad cuz the workers are exploited.. ... and if the profit margin is high, capitalism is bad cuz the workers are exploited?

got it!

Meanwhile under communism.. the workers are exploited everywhere and the profit margin is 0 everywhere, except the black market, and the black market is the only place you can find anything.

Share of income has nothing to with profit margin.

I was referring to profit margin, i.e of the $x you spend on 5 lbs of apples, what % did supermarket keep.

I was talking about the supposed oppression of customers through high prices, but it’s typical that communists imagine that the purpose of an enterprise, private or public is to provide jobs to union workers rather than to actually useful products or services to customers.

Looks bad

> while Japan shows the highest immigration levels among respondents, this is almost certainly due to the survey failing to reach the native Japanese population more than to any real demographic trend.

So we are admitting that the result is useless?

> despite being known as “a nation of immigrants”, only 17% of respondents from the U.S. have immigrant roots, versus 22% overall.

What was he expecting? 100%? From what I can find, US first born immigrant % is about 16%, so basically within the massive margins of error this thing has, this is a non result.

I don't think this thing is designed to elicit anything useful except vibes & giving the author a platform to pontificate.

It’s kind of like maybe the whole concept of indigeneity should just be a historical curiosity rather than something used to try to settle present day conflicts.

It sounds like you have something against indigenous people practising decolonization and want to weaponize international institutions against them.

A liberal democracy was attacked by a force of ultra right wing totalitarian religious extremists. The democracy defended itself and routed the attackers. The ICC took the side of the attackers and issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the liberal democracy.

Wonderful, then we agree, we are just haggling over the quantity or pace.

I would also introduce the concept of culture – if the economic indicators seem fine, but the culture is becoming balkanized and sectarian, then I would argue you still have a problem driven by quantity and or pace of immigration.

Again, totally one-sided.

You’re making an assumption that immigration lead leads to a better economy, ignoring the possibility of more competition for jobs, lead leading to less power and wages for workers.

Pragmatism could just as easily be a decision by the public collectively to have more babies. There’s nothing about immigration that makes it inherently pragmatic. It could be, with the agreement of the electorate, away to compensate for the electorates decisions to have fewer babies. But it’s not up for us outside of Japan to lecture them on whether or not they are being consistent on this.

This is very one-sided. There are plenty of low income and working class people who have suddenly found more work than they have had in years due to reductions in immigration.

The percentage of the global population with fuck you money is so vanishingly small that a nation of 100 million such as Japan, could import them all with almost zero impact on their culture.

Furthermore, it’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that inconsiderate people only exist on the upper end of the income distribution. Assholes who want to take over and control others are found at every income level. If you want to keep your country from descending into Marxist dystopia then making fuck you money a requirement for immigration is not a terrible idea.

Different people are different.

Some of us find production and optimization more interesting than marketing and distribution.

Sure, but price is both a mechanism and another important metric.

Raising the price doesn’t “solve” shortage and no one in economics makes that claim.

Instead, the claim is more limited - that even in times of shortage if you want to make sure that the item in question is still available, raising the price will accomplish two things: it will encourage marginal production and discouraged marginal consumption.

Without prices, the only mechanism you would have to accomplish the same effect, would be a political decision about who did or not deserve to have hard bread, while you work out the production issue.

In both systems, you’re doing rationing, just by different means.

Whether under capitalism or collectivism the way you solve a shortage is always the same - you produce enough for everyone who wants the thing.

The difference is the presence for absence of the feedback mechanisms like prices. The problem with collectivism is that once you get rid of prices, there is no explicit feedback mechanism. There may be implicit mechanisms such as a waitlist, but ultimately the decision to increase production is turned into a political decision. I doubt many people care if production decisions about hard bread are made by politicians or business people, but in more consequential areas, such as housing, we have a century of experience of what happens in production decisions are collectivized and politicized. (it is illegal to increase the national stock of interior residential floor space by even one square foot without prior political approval, I.e. rezoning, variances, etc.)

> people just engage in mental gymnastics to find justifications that fit their confirmation bias.

How do you know that you aren’t doing the same thing?

Maybe a sign of AI alignment? It understands that it's harmful to let humans spread false and politically motivated ideas, so it's trying to avoid contributing to that?

Yeah it was also oddly hidden away.

> Based on an agentic market research campaign, we vibe coded an app called GutCheck, a bathroom diary for people with IBS. We chose this app for its minimal yet helpful functionality: an iOS app live on the App Store with the RevenueCat MCP and App Store Connect CLI. Saul has full write access to the codebase. We set up the App Store account permissions beforehand to ensure Saul wouldn’t get blocked by Apple human compliance checks. We sourced this idea from Reddit.

They do not need to know what generates there electricity but...

- when what generates the power changes the landscape they can see, many people get upset, however irrationally

- many people are emotionally attached to lifestyle objects that use fossil fuels, i.e. cars, boats, planes, etc

- even where there are good options, most people are not willing to spend one extra penny

- even when there are options that cost less (i.e. bicycles, walking) humans spend a lot of their energy thinking about status and struggle to voluntarily choose things that they fear might result in a loss of status

- even if you solve all that, collective action problems are a named thing for a reason - they are hard and don't necessarily have obvious answers.

My point is not that everything is hopeless, but that OP who said "Have we ever as a species successfully changed our behavior on a scale..." has a point that we will have to grapple with if we want to actually change stuff. Wishing human nature away doesn't actually solve anything.

When the costs are low and require no change in personal behaviour, nor even belief in the problem. Billions of people had no idea about changes to aerosol propellants or refrigerants and they were not required to know or agree in order to solve the problem.

Misleading submission.

Actual headline is "Donald Trump jokes about 2028 re-election bid".

Given the submitter's comment & submission history, we have to consider this an attempt at disinformation. A poor attempt, to be clear, but an attempt nonetheless.

For the same reason you chose to exclude the any mention of informing and reminding others about what Hamas did in the region.

You comment presumes that either the posted article or the comments are doing in any informing. I contend that neither do, they are both simply writing prompts for partisans.

Your comment also presumes that the entire earth is not already saturated in Israel v Palestine content. You not getting your desired outcome is not evidence that people are uninformed.

Whether they are or are not, you are also sidestepping an even more important question - why must all internet sites cover all topics? There's nothing wrong with any site making clear what topics they want to focus on. HN and it's users have made it clear they prefer to focus on tech and there are literally 70 million other places you can go to fight over Israel & Palestine. If that's your thing, have at it, you don't need to do it here.

In fact, I would argue that both HN and Israel v Palestine fight sites would be better for it. If all sites are for all issues then all sites just devolve to the same slop. If sites can focus, they develop their own unique community. The attempt to invade such spaces and force them to have the discussions you want them to have is just colonialism by another name.

> Why would it be flagged?

Because individual HN users do the flagging and many are tired of the inevitable and pointless Israel v Palestine proxy comment war that predictably erupts on any topic related to the Middle East.

Or a coworker with an ax to grind.