They are probably pointing out similarities in the grammatical structure of the title and that of Onion articles, lol.
On a completely unrelated note, how often are you invited to parties?
4 karma · joined January 30, 2025
On a completely unrelated note, how often are you invited to parties?
Society is not entitled to value. If you have the skills to create value for others, then you will inevitably have to use capital to actually scale it. In the process, through voluntary transactions, that enterprise might profit and grow - creating more value for others in the process. The question is really: who profits? I think your perspective is exceedingly misplaced in that, by necessity, it intrinsically hands control of each new innovation to said MBA-types. If a society drafts policies that make it extremely difficult to take control of your own innovation and scale it according to your own wishes, then you are implicitly leaving that work to others who (more often than not) will not share your philosophies. If a society wants to enact policies that make it difficult for a person to take ownership over their own innovations, then they should not be shocked when it becomes extremely difficult to appeal to innovators in the first place. Instead of realizing that the commentor wants to take command of the destiny of their innovations, you go down this peculiar moralizing argument that's orthogonal to their entire point. How do you know they haven't created more value for society than you have, and why are you so comfortable demanding the nature of that value creation happen on your terms?
Also, this forum is managed by a VC firm. They explicitly support people taking charge of their own creations and scaling that to society. People are allowed to ask if a society has created legitimate bottlenecks to accomplishing that.
Implying first responders are thugs irks me too, I'm unsure if you've considered the true proportion of cases they respond to that are time sensitive (during which, information parity is low). You could, of course, assert that this means they ought to not respond in the first place - but I think you would find there are a wide range of scenarios that strictly require a rapid and forceful response due to the potential for many victims to be involved (bolstered by gun ownership) with little time to actually validate the circumstances without incurring casualties.
Accidents are unacceptable but our world is complicated and sometimes requires we meet lack of information with immediate action. That is not to say accidents are permissible, but the men putting their lives in harms way to respond to these incidents don't actually know what's occurring either.
You seem to be fairly opinionated about what the system should or should not do, what have you personally done to help improve the conversion ratio between false calls and accidents? I understand this is theoretically ad hominem but I'm personally using it as a heuristic as to the likelihood that your perspective is a luxury belief. We agree that close calls should not be that close, but it's not very different from shaking your fist at the sky unless you actually happen to work in this space (in which case I'm actually very interested in hearing your thoughts). I don't mean to be rude, I'm just being blunt because I believe you're washing over some extremely difficult problems and have little to bring to the table - which is by definition unproductive.
Out of curiosity, what is your perspective on gnotobiotic systems? I distinctly recall an example of a gnotobiotic mouse that, upon being provided a microbial sample from an obese mouse, started to have substantial increases in body fat despite a simultaneous reduction in feed. Would that type of experimental approach still run into the statistical difficulties you mentioned?