I don't think an illiterate populous is the alternative unless you think most people lack intrinsic motivation and also have families that don't value education. Seems extremely unlikely. Maybe you wouldn't have gone to school if you had a choice but most people would, if nothing else for free childcare.
It costs the VA money they could use to youknow be saving veterans lives with? That is the "explain to a five year old" tier reason. There are a lot of other reasons too besides that, but the simple one for you should suffice.
So you would prefer I sue the VA?! They tried to preserve my families' privacy and reduce risk to current heirs like me. No, doxxing the dead cause "letter of the law matters" for some stupid side project like this is far from commendable. I will bet those of us with a lot of family in there, especially recently deceased, will feel very different than you or the CEO of doxx the dead.
He is making an analogy it seems to me, rather than trying to redefine socialism as bad loans subsidized by taxpayers. The point isn't that they are the same, but that they are the same in a way. The way the are they are the same was left up to readers rather than being made explicit but I think the idea is that people are much better at allocating their own money than allocating other peoples' money.
A fair point it seems. Of course the 2008 crash was about credit default swaps too as I recall. Mostly private sector failings.
The word "justice" being the keyword (now, for some people) for DEI indicates it is precisely about punishment. At least to those who frame it in terms of "justice". I see that word and I know it is a buzzword for angry people. In the 90s when I was first persuaded as to the necessities of policies that instantiate reverse racial discrimination (i.e. affirmative action) talk was more about equality and unity, and increasing efficiency of the system. Blacks were (still are) not utilized to their full potential, so aa offered a common good inthe form of a more productive, better functioning society. I don't encounter those arguments as much niw as arguments about "justice" or the impossible to define "equity" (not the same as the phrase "equality of outcome" which was a very concrete and useful construct for thinking about racism). Historical context is everything.
You make it sound unidimensional but there is probably not 1 type of wildfire in California. Coastal residentially dense fires in chaperal are not the same things as massive fires burning in remote areas of national forrests in the sierras. There is no single cause or solution because they are totally different things, with different drivers and requiring different solutions.
One problem with both of these takes on powerpoint is they assume it will be presented in person. That's less often the case now. People present more often via teams or zoom and so a lot of the ideas (don't expect people to read and listen simultaneously) are not accurate anymore (half your viewers are audio only, more people get copies of the slides than make the original presentation). Remote vs in person are totally different beasts.
Yep. A "powerpoint" can be single Edward Tufte graph presented to a room for 30 seconds. Or it could be War and Peace pasted across 10,000 slides. There is no one thing to complain about. Reading this lowered my opinion of tufte, who I have always found great, but also very overrated.
Intelligence is debateble without even bringing ai into it. Nobody agrees on whether humans have intelligence. Well, smart people agree but those people also agree we have or will soon have agi or something negligibly different from it.
It is literally impossible to satisfy infinite demand. Who is buying the houses? Figure that out and you can solve the problem. If we choose to ignore demand side, don't investigate what is driving demand, how it is distributed and so on, and continue to pretend real estate markets are perfect and we need merely deregulate to solve all problems, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (bubbles, collusion rings, fraud and wreckless speculation), it will not end well.
I think I prefer to focus on humans vs a productivity metric. Consider overfishing. Easy to imagine overfishing being driven by a desire to max short term productivity. One has to think beyond the bounds of quarterly or annual metrics, at that point it isn't clear what the abstract construct of productivity buys you. Slavery increases productivity. I don't want that. I want humans to have freedom and meaningful work and well functioning healthy societies. Are those things "productivity"?
Sure, increasing the quantity or quality of human output works. My point is that overfishing is a concept that might be applied to programming and other human endeavor if those doing the fishing could only think a bit more and coordinate, and leave a few fish in the sea for next year. We soon learn labor's lumpier than we prevuously thought.
Automation is not the point of programming. Think hard about this. It's the most important point. Code/build/hack to create more work for people to do, not less. It's thanatos. People need to unlearn "programming==automation" before it's too late. Everything we do as programmers should be done with "create more work" as a mantra.
Precisely! The real discussion is how much would it decrease supply and what impact on the homeless rate would occur per unit change in labor input cost. Discussion of good/bad/better/worse is fruitless. We need data. But you take the first step by acknowledging these are related costs and social outcomes that exist in a delicate equilibria. Many would just say to heck with unintended consequences it's a matter of principal or ideological mandate. Gotta break a few eggs types.
There are not 100% normal people. And pathology is essentially multidimensional even though we reduce it to one, and labelled people fallaciously as "sick" or "well."