fdsaaf

I don't think it's so much the forgetting of history as much as overreach on the part of those who would try to deny that human nature exists.

When people can see all around them that gender, nationality, race, and religion convey useful information about the people they meet, and they live under the rule of an elite which claims that these things are irrelevant, then when some demagogue or other comes along who acknowledges the truth about these things but who lies everything else, people are going to go running into the arms of that demagogue.

Had these people advocated a fair and humane acknowledgement of these obvious, day-to-day truths instead of adopted a posture of absolute denial of the obvious, we wouldn't have Trump in the US and Brexit across the Atlantic.

Bradley effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

(Also known as social desirability bias)

Lots of people say in public that they're in favor of immigration, unity, and tolerance, because lots of people will call you a bigot if you don't, but in private, harbor old-fashioned ideas about nationalism, and well, polling involves a human and voting happens in private.

And there's nothing wrong with that, since if you view A and B as actors, they're both (because they're inhuman corporations) psychopathic monsters who will fuck you over in an instant

Good. You know what? In a world where overzealous HR departments can fire valuable contributors out of the blue for infractions only HR is responsible enough to know, fuck a two week notice. If HR is going to make employment adversarial, let them reap what they fucking sow.

http://www.ironbridgellc.net/PDF/hidden_risks_of_passive_inv... is an interesting countervailing read

But when everyone invests in everything equally, we all end up investing in nothing!

The risk worries me too. Look at it this way: the whole purpose of a market is to allocate capital to productive ends. If everyone invests in index funds, market capitalization (and thus capital allocation) becomes a function of inertia and ceases to have anything to do with actual performance (because nobody is interested in looking at actual performance). As a result, I'd expect productivity growth to slow.

Guess what? Productivity growth has been slowing.

The article says that a 100-mile 765kV transmission line loses 1.5% to 0.5%. Let's be optimistic and assume we can get closer to the latter and deliver 99.5% of original power over 100 miles. NYC-LON is 3,466 miles on the shortest possible path. Let's call it 3,500 miles. Over that distance, we'd deliver 99.5% ^ (3,500 / 100) = 83% of our original power.

The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901 miles. Halfway around the world, we'd deliver 29% of original power.