dionidium

IIRC the DC-10 went on to have a stellar safety record.

You'll sometimes see this dismissed almost derisively as, "people think they're in control when they're driving, but lack agency while flying, so that's why they fear the latter more."

But that's completely true! Not every driver on the road is at equal risk of a fatal accident. A significant percentage of all fatal accident involve speeding, reckless driving, and/or alcohol consumption, to say nothing of distractions like cell phone usage.

So you do have quite a bit of control on the road and exactly none in the air.

> Do I need 20 restaurants and coffee shops?

That should be up to individuals, not central planners.

> Most of the time staying at a hotel is much more comfortable than staying at an airbnb.

It's trivially easy to see that this isn't true: you probably don't live in a hotel (or a structure resembling one), for example. Why not? The answers to that question generalize to travel.

Not only that, it's not even an attempt to reflect the market value in most jurisdictions.

They get cause and effect backwards.

What they think is happening: investors are buying lots of houses, which is driving up prices, so getting them out of that business would lower prices.

What's really happening: supply shortages are driving up prices, which is making housing more attractive to investors.

What you’re sensing is that we’re very far apart on this issue, even down to some core assumptions. For example, an organization is not obligated to pay any particular individual an amount that you deem to be satisfactory to obviate the need for state welfare benefits, the mention of which in this context is a non sequitur.

You’re describing the labor theory of value, which you present as undeniable fact, but which of course is the subject of one of the most salient and contentious debates of the last century.

Obviously I reject the framing. I have never felt exploited by my employers, nor do I feel entitled to a share of the profits beyond what I negotiated when I took the job.

Of course anybody can start a co-op and nobody will object. It won't be controversial. It won't generate fierce online debates. Everyone will wish them well and that will be that.

What's contentious about unionization is that the unionizers want to take over an existing organization that's already survived and become profitable. That's a lot easier to do than it is to build a company with that (or any other) structure. (And it's going to be contentious no matter how it's organized.)

Human beings have to live somewhere and gathering them together in a small urban footprint is better for the climate, not worse.

What you're noticing is that I'm being charitable, a downside of which is that it's sometimes interpreted as weakness.

> On the whole people commit crime because they are desperate (for money, for drugs, etc.), occasionally because they have an anti-social personality disorder.

Most violent crime is the result of interpersonal disputes. People get angry. They feel disrespected. And some of them even just think violence is flat-out fun. The "desperate people" model doesn't really hold water with respect to the most serious crimes we care the most about.

Second, I am aware that this sounds like some kind of right-wing talking point, but you should consider that it's true: a job at Dunkin Donuts is more remunerative than stealing catalytic converters. It's not even close, really. We have a worker shortage! Fast food wages are higher than ever. Young men steal catalytic converters because it's more fun and because they don't want to work at stupid Dunkin Dounuts and wear a uniform like a nerd.

If they were genuinely just desperate, they'd take the job at Dunkin.

We'll never effectively police crime if we can't even acknowledge its true nature.

They say that:

> In 2021, The Markup published an investigation in partnership with Gizmodo showing that Geolitica’s software tended to disproportionately target low-income, Black, and Latino neighborhoods in 38 cities across the country.

But you should understand what is meant by "disproportionately" in this context. It does not appear to mean "disproportionate to the amount of crime in those areas." It seems, as with most accusations of disparate impact, to mean just quite literally that more crimes are predicted in those neighborhoods without reference to disparities in crime rates.

They then imply (without direct reference to the enormous offending disparities) that this is explained by race and class differences in crime reporting: [0]

> The agency has found repeatedly that White crime victims are less likely to report violent crime to police than Black or Latino victims.

> In a special report looking at five years of data, BJS found an income pattern as well. People earning $50,000 or more a year reported crimes to the police 12 percent less often than those earning $25,000 a year or less.

> This disparity in crime reporting would naturally be reflected in predictions.

It's possible this is having some effect, but, again, because there is no reference to the (often very large) baseline differences in crime rates, we can't see what's true, which is that this probably accounts for only a small amount of that difference.

[0] https://themarkup.org/prediction-bias/2021/12/02/crime-predi...

We switched to glass recently and it's great. They're more durable. They don't stain. They're easier to clean. And, this is subjective, but they just feel more substantial; it's nice in a way that's hard to describe.

These glass containers will likely last forever.

They are more expensive than the cheapest plastics, but it's buy-once, so not a significant long-term factor.

Not sure I see how it's relevant here, since we're granting that the spy agency in this case has every right to gather evidence. The point is that they don't get to unilaterally decide if that evidence constitutes a crime, which is what the original comment suggested.

The easiest response to this is that I can be OK with a limited audience seeing private information about me in service of higher goals without assenting to unnecessary widespread distribution of the same material.

For example, my doctor can look at my genitals any time he needs to, even if I don't want you to see them.

There's no contradiction here.

There is a kind of sleight of hand at work in this counterargument, which is that nobody is advocating for a secret, extrajudicial, arbitrary set of rules about what is allowed and what isn't. Even if I say I'm OK with the government reading my email, all the work is ahead of them to prove specific charges in a court of law, should I catch their interest. The spy agency does not, in fact, get to decide what's right and wrong. The existence of a surveillance state does not imply the existence of a secret police with extrajudicial powers.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Markets solve these problems and that remains true even when you disagree with the results. If people don't want to visit places with tall buildings and sprawl, then it won't get built and where it does it will fail.

What actually bothers you is that this is what people want and it will get built and it will be patronized.

> AirBnB flippers have wreaked small havoc in my city

Cities have put themselves in this position both because they don't allow enough new housing and because they don't allow enough new hotels and VRBO-like options in the places people want them.

I think, in fact, "not being around other people makes lots of healthy, ordinary people feel depressed and anxious" is just about as robust a finding in human psychology as you're likely to find.

Nobody can make you work in an office if you don't want to. Organizations should obviously be free to demand it and you should be free to work somewhere else if you don't want to.

> That sounds unhealthy.

This is kind of risible. No, it does not sound "unhealthy" to express a desire to spend time around colleagues as part of the work day. I can hardly imagine a more natural or healthy desire.

Yeah, what seems to actually happen is that 1) most small cities lose people; 2) otherwise attractive small towns with weak job markets get way more expensive; 3) lots of people gather in the largest cities, anyway, because it turns out that when people can live wherever they want they choose the biggest, best cities.

> This way, we could actually improve the housing situation across the country, because otherwise, it all concentrates in the biggest cities.

When people are allowed to live wherever they want they choose the biggest, best, most expensive cities.

> Unless you're one of those morons who can't tell apart psychological symptoms from physiological ones.

You're about 30 years out of date with the addiction literature. Basically every modern addiction organization defines addiction as a brain disorder characterized by, "continued use in spite of harmful consequences."

Here's the American Society of Addiction Medicine:

> What is the definition of addiction? Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences.

Here is the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

> Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use despite adverse consequences.† It is considered a brain disorder, because it involves functional changes to brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control.

> I'm not sure how that flies with this: "An article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association found there was no increase in cannabis use among the general population or among previous users after their states legalized marijuana."

Simple: there is no possible way that's true. It fails every imaginable sniff test. Anecdotally, I never purchased marijuana when it was illegal and I do now. I know many people for whom the same is true. If marijuana were made illegal again tomorrow I would stop using it. I'm a normie middle-aged dad. The only way I'm buying and consuming marijuana is if I can walk into a shop and buy it legally. There must be millions of people like me.

This doesn't require any deep insight. It would be very surprising if ease of access had no effect on consumption.

> prohibition does more harm than good.

According to our shared oral mythology about bootlegging gangsters, yes. According to all available crime and health data from the time it was an incredible success.

Crime fell. People got healthier. There was less domestic abuse (people forget that temperance was first and foremost a women's movement). None of this was outweighed by the increase in organized crime.

Prohibition was a "failure" in the sense that people like alcohol and do not wish it to be illegal. It was not a failure by any other definition (boogeyman stories about "organized crime" notwithstanding).

This is easier to see if your baseline is, "excessive alcohol consumption is a societal disaster" (which is the correct baseline). Prohibition would have to generate a staggering level of harm to match the existing harms of consumption.

I accept the responsibility and all that it entails.