111 karma · joined January 16, 2019
I think there's a coordination issue here. Tech can be intolerant of views that don't align with progressive orthodoxy (doubly so in tech hubs), the DOD needs tech workers who are more aligned with their mission than the progressive techie detractors. Why don't some badthinkers band together and get a DOD contract? I imagine it's because the DOD isn't going to give a new shop it's first chance but has anyone looked into this?
But understandable, companies that use H1Bs tell us that the H1B holders are highly compensated and doing work that no available Americans can do.
I live in the bay area and I hear (rightfully and often) about the ways that xenophobes make life harder for immigrants (H1b / illegal / otherwise), but I never hear people commit to making the changes they can make here or prioritize the election of officials who will do things like approve enough housing to make it possible to get a 1 bedroom apartment for less than two thousand dollars in SF / Palo Alto / San Jose.
I blast between LA and SF on a regular basis with my motorcycle. The bike and tires are good for cruising at 160 mph, but with all the trucks in an elephant race, I'm lucky to average 80 mph.
I'd pay a small ransom in tolls to drive on a road with no trucks and no speed limit.
I'd wager that US Female Scientists probably make less than their partners. I'd wager that it's more likely for a US Female Scientist to stay in her position when she makes more money than her partner.
Do US Female Scientists have a preference for starting families with those who out-earn them?
Don’t want a hard question? Don’t try to regulate these things.
No dispute there, but if people are engaging in counterproductive wealth transfers, there's a case for intervention and we don't need to amend the tax code for that.
>If you couldn't trade money for interesting machines, then you'd likely do something else with it.
Not really, I'm not super interested in luxury / the simple pleasures in life are often enough for me. I would work to make sure I could afford hamburgers, but I'm not the sort of person who would put in additional effort to eat steak. If I couldn't play with machines, I would play with my mind and recreational drugs.
Taxation isn't the only thing that discourages work - regulations on what we can buy and how we can use it discourage as much. If supersonic flight were more legal, I can promise you that I'd buy a jet, but since that's not an option, I'm saving the money for early retirement.
If we're trying to design a policy that encourages people to do productive things, we can have a rock talk. However, if we're simply trying to eliminate wealth gradients in a way that makes materially poor people better off, understand that's a one time event. And there's usually a reason poor people are poor, if they squander their one-time redistribution money, you're really going to wish people were out there working and producing surplus value for you to redistribute to those who can't take care of themselves.
3. Again, I don't dispute the ROI of this investment. My point is that we have more investment opportunities than we have money. Malaria nets, childhood nutrition, primary schooling for girls, etc - there are great places for us to park money. How would you prioritize?
4. Why stop at precious metal toilet seats and houses? Why not redistribute everything owned by above-median wealth holders to below-median wealth holders and erase any gradient of material well-being?
Again, my concern is redistributionists tend to offer no limits on what they want to distribute. This is the same line of attack that incels use to advocate for redistribution of sexual access.
If I couldn't trade money for interesting machines, I would take an easier job and contribute less to the world. I'm not alone in this, but the status quo that lets me keep the majority of my earnings is what encouraged me to better myself and become valuable.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to replace the pipes in Flint, I'm just saying that we have more good ideas than we have other people's money. Sure, replace the pipes in Flint but don't do it in a way that means replaced pipes are the last pound of flesh we're ever going to get out the wealthy.
Beyond that, it's important to build limits into policy - remember the adage that 8 out of 9 people enjoy gang bangs. Just because something makes more people better off doesn't mean we can discount the costs to those who are made worse off.
Unless they're an exec, then they might negotiate an exit package or it wouldn't get to that point.
Didn't the Google Exec who was most recently in the news for sexual misconduct misuse data?
Also, immediate suspension for kids who bully academically-inclined students for 'acting white'. Not only is it a racially charged statement that probably has no place in school (or so progs would tell us), but it seems levied exclusively against the kids who need education the most.
IIRC, the voters approved a train that did LA-SF in 2h40m and met some affordability criteria. The project cost and projected time from LA to SF exceeded what the voters approved, it seems like there was a court case about whether the vote 'counted' for a train system that didn't meet its obligations.
wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#Leg...
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healt...
Article: "We're not forecasting with precision. That's not the intention of the tool"
Forget about learning how to code, this journalist should read Eliezer and learn how to use language to describe and articulate uncertainty.
'But there are drugs at burning man' - if it were truly a land onto its own, they'd be synthesizing the drugs at burning man.
And I'd do the same. My objection is that my tax obligation is roughly the GDP per capita - that's well above and beyond calling an ambulance. What are the limits of what you'd do for me? Could I come into your kitchen and eat until I'm full? Could I play your video games if I were bored? Could I ask for a sexual favor?
>We have enough collective resources to treat the life-threatening illness of everyone within our borders
Why stop at the borders? Is the inside the border / outside the border distinction more ethical than the illegal vs non-illegal distinction?
My humanity is more important to me than others. I have to take care of myself because I know others would resent me if they had to take care of me. I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled to provide for me if I came to your house with my hat in hand.
And you feel the same way - we're just arguing over where to draw the line. If you save any money that could be donated to those in need, you've also put money above humanity. Have you ever bought a Mcflurry? Did you really need that sweet treat more badly than someone needed a malaria net?
So where's the line of sociopathy? What's the permissible amount of money to put above humanity?
Please keep reading my mind - why do I think this way? What status do I think illegals have if I want to treat them better than animals but worse than fellow citizens?
>Advocating to let people die, instead of treat them, because they aren't here illegal is putting their immigration status above them as a person and to me absolutely lessening their humanity.
Then why don't you advocate for a voluntary system to take care of illegals rather than tell me I'm a sociopath for exercising challenging but important fiscal discipline?
For the record I'd be fine treating illegals if someone else paid for it voluntarily - billionaire philanthropists, DSA chapters, the countries that these people remit their earnings to, etc. I'm not saying they don't deserve health care, I'm saying that I don't want to pay for it and I'd rather they suffer than I do.
Please address: My borders my choice. If I can't advocate for my hard work and sacrifices to be invested as I see fit, what autonomy do I have? Do you tell women they have to spread their legs for the less fortunate or else they're sociopaths?
I think this kind of proves my point, people with cushy childhoods seem to turn out not great. I'd imagine he'd be a more effective leader if he spent more time overcoming adversity.
If I saw illegals as non-human, I'd advocate for the local DNR to hand out hunting permits for illegals.
Don't you see my humanity? I bust my ass to earn my keep, I don't demand access to things others have, if that attitude were reciprocated and people took care of themselves, their livelihood wouldn't depend on my opinion of them.
As long as you coerce others to provide for those who are unwilling to do so for themselves, you're going to have this tension.
My borders my choice. If I can't advocate for my hard work and sacrifices to be invested as I see fit, what autonomy do I have? Do you tell women they have to spread their legs for the less fortunate or else they're sociopaths?
A lot of used leafs are down to 60-80 miles of usable range, IIRC the average American commutes something like 15 miles each way, missing a charge or adding errands can put someone in a tight spot. And the weather in most American cities is 'extreme' - either winter is very cold (bad for battery range) or hot (bad for battery longevity in the leaf). My old city of minneapolis would have winter lows near -40 degrees C and would hit 38-40 degrees C every summer. That's very demanding for batteries.
America doesn't have a lot of charging infrastructure and unless you're a homeowner or live in a luxury apartment or work at a tech company or a company with an i.t competency, it's probably going to be hard to charge regularly.
Our cheap gas erodes the cost advantages of electric, you can find priuses (a Toyota hybrid) for $3k in any major city and that's going to give an electric car a serious run for its money in energy costs.
and the concept of the political: https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo54...
I used to think of laws and society as just arbitrary things. However, I now see that they reflect thousands of years of wisdom / improvement and are critical to creating the conditions for people to flourish. The right to earn a living helped me understand the common law system and why we should care about unenumerated rights and how to create a more just society.
The concept of the political helped me see how nihilistic egalitarianism and feckless bureaucracy isn't a bug but a feature of liberal democracy and how it doesn't have to be that way.
The democrats have moved further left than republicans have moved right since 1994/2000: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarizat...
What's interesting is that most democrats want a more moderate party and most republicans want a more right/conservative party: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2019/01/gallup-poll-...
Interestingly, the GOP probably contains the conservative and right wing impulses of the base. And it certainly feels that way, among my friends, we hate that illegal aliens are entitled to health care at ERs. I want to see their countries billed for the care / or I want to see the illegals dumped at the embassy rather than hooked up to medicine. I'm certainly not going to get my wish granted by the GOP. However, should the party fail, there's a chance I could get the representation I want.
I was born American, I saw my chance for greatness, and I'm working on it. I'm currently a few years into my career - I've made a few hundred thousand for myself and at least a few million for my employers/society-writ-large, and I know that if I were European, I'd still be in school.
For me, the American system did a much better job of aligning my interests with society's interest.
You need adversity to be great. Not all adversity is abuse. The American dream is about overcoming and flourishing to the limits of your will power, taxing people who have succeeded to provide succor to people who don't care about themselves is corrosive to the national spirit. Come visit some time, I'll show you around.
The worst case predictions of muslim immigration into Europe are pretty bad, should the E.U seal the turkish border and Med ports with the gusto they hereunto reserved for greenhouse gas reductions?