jjj1232

I mostly agree with you but I think it’s interesting that you make an additional assumption that I think is incorrect: You say "You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.” Which misses another possibility: that the overton window can shift when one side moves further to the center.

The democrats’ economic stances are a good example of this: they've moved towards neoliberal economic policy since the 80s, to the point where the democrats and republicans have a materially indistinguishable stance on unions, workers rights, public benefits, Wall Street, etc.

This may seem like nit-picking but I think it’s important to clarify that some policies that lie outside the overton window are “extreme” because those in power want them to seem extreme, not because they are actually unpopular or unrealistic.

This may be wrong, but when I think of centrists I think of people who decide where they stand on each policy on a spectrum that extends from what the Dems deem acceptable to what the Republicans deem acceptable. If you’re someone who decides where they stand on an issue regardless of these arbitrary endpoints I think “independent” or “non-partisan” fits better.

Are you referencing something specific? I watched that whole clip you linked, and there’s nothing in it that would “pervert” a child’s mind.

It’s a clip explaining what protesting is, and what racism is. Both seem like valid things to explain on a kids show. Is your issue that it’s lightly in support of the BLM protests?

I’m going to conflate packaging with advertising here but I think it’s the same idea and a little easier to visualize:

Our cogniitive biases act as shortcuts to save energy when making decisions, and advertisers exploit those shortcuts. If you’re on high alert while shopping, catching and recalibrating for your biases at every step of the way then yeah you can probably escape most marketing but for most people that doesn’t come naturally.

If you’re not careful I bet you too slip up sometimes. I know I’ve caught myself at the grocery store reaching for one product over another just because it’s in unbleached cardboard packaging (signaling to me that it’s somehow more local or organic or whatever).

These tricks become obvious when you consciously work through them (ex: obviously some megacorp can package their items in cardboard the same way mom and pop small businesses can) but most of the time we aren’t processing consciously, and that’s how marketing works.

My Instagram ads seem to be laser-focused on my insecurities. I don’t buy the shit they’re selling by they definitely make me feel bad about myself, so mission half accomplished!

The stalking is the problem, but the ads are too. Ads have been a problem well before tracking was a thing.

Since at least the 1920s (I’m thinking of Edward Bernays but there are probably earlier examples) the goal of advertising is to manipulate consumers into making irrational decisions. The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something, like the only the thing that will make us whole is a new instant pot or whatever.

Procrastination/lack of executive function is a symptom of ADHD.

Both of your examples are individualistic, what about thousands or millions of poor people collectively fighting for something?

The total impact of collective action is much greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Long commutes are something most bike-enthusiasts want to fix too! That means more affordable housing, usually.

But I agree, weather and disability issues definitely require some kind of supplemental modes of transportation. Even then I’d rather we invested in public transportation instead of cars.

Market forces do make for optimal software over the long-term, but it’s only optimal as an engine for generating capital. If what you want out of software isn’t aligned with what generates capital you’re not going to be happy.

I’m guessing most our our personal metrics for what makes software “good” are only somewhat aligned with capital.

Can we stop using verbiage like “better” men? Attractiveness isn’t a linear scale from 1-10, and it’s harmful to perpetuate that myth. It’s multi dimensional and unique to each person.

I mostly agree, but that’s not always been the case, and it’s something we can change! The US has become more atomized in the last 40 or so years (by design). We need more public spaces, community organizations, and general in-person connection (post-pandemic obv) to solve it.

Far right is 100% in bed with corporations as well. Free speech arguments by those in power on the right are mostly symbolic, and will never get close to _actually_ threatening capital in any way.

In what way would a long prison sentence make someone less violent or more able to integrate into society?

Honestly, 10% is less than I would have thought, and is something I’d trade in a heartbeat for greater benefits.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “At the same time” but the point still stands: your other comment was talking past the OP, not addressing their point.

You’re talking about it as a macro optimization problem while the OP was explaining a rational decision at the level of the individual.

Edited for clarity

This person is saying that on an individual level, they are not willing to cede control to an “average” AI when they know (or believe) themselves to be above average.

You’re talking about it at a societal level, as if everyone switched over to robot cars at the same time.

Genuine question: Does that work if you use the different browsers for different purposes? Like chrome for work, firefox for personal stuff, safari when on mobile, firefox private mode for… other personal stuff.

Seems like the browsing patterns would be very different depending on browser.

Not really seeing sexism, I’m more annoyed that it ignores everyone besides heterosexual men.

"Humans can become aroused looking at flat images of other humans in black and white” is probably a better way to put it.

Have you read manufacturing dissent? It’s a useful lens to read any mainstream news through.

Individualistic thinking is a hallmark of american culture, so I don’t blame you!

You’re right that society is made up of individuals, but it’s also made up of rules, incentives, and resource distribution that influence the behavior of those individuals. That’s what I (and most SJWs or whatever you want to call them) want to change.

We want to change the systems over the individual for two reasons: 1. generally, changing the systems is more impactful 2. changing individuals’ behavior en masse without touching the systems that influence their behavior is next to impossible.

For an example of trying and failing to do #2, look at how unsuccessful we’ve been at trying to save the planet by altering consumer choices. It’s been 20+ years and what do we have to show for it? Compostable straws and reusable bags? Compare that to something like a carbon tax which attacks the problem at the systemic level and would start making change immediately.

As for your point about the systemic and individual levels colliding and causing unfair effects at the individual level, I’d guess that we have different perspectives on what is fair at the individual level.

Tangent, but characterizing privilege as “that modern sin in the church of social justice” is a strawman.

Privilege at the individual level isn’t inherently bad or good, it just is.

For example, say you had a privileged upbringing: you were never hungry, didn’t have to work in highschool, and had money to participate in after school activities. That made it easier for you to get into a top school compared to someone without those advantages. That is not a sin or a flaw, and it doesn’t make you a bad person.

Now you can (and I would) say that this kind of privilege should be counteracted at the systemic level, by better funding public schools for example.

I don’t think those two ideas are in conflict.

I disagree that gaining support for and enacting a carbon tax would take decades. It won’t be easy, and maybe isn’t probable, but a mass movement could make it happen.

To your other point about private solutions being good because they move the needle a little:

In my personal life I shop sustainably (but I’m not perfect or obsessive about it). I do think it’s a little better as a consumer to make ethical choices than not to.

But: the rhetoric around climate change as something individual choices will fix is extremely dangerous. If you ask your average person about what we can do to fix climate change, I’d guess most would go straight to market solutions. Why is that? Could it be because that’s what the entire marketing and media establishment wants us to focus on, because a collective solution will cost them a shit-ton of money?

Yes in a different world it’s not either or and we’d have individual and collective solutions working together to save the planet. In this world, however, the powerful have a vested interest in market-based solutions being the only options on the table.

Basically, yes I agree that ethical companies are better than unethical companies. But on a macro level, propaganda around ethical consumption is so dangerous imo that I’m not interested in contributing to it just to move the needle an imperceptible amount.

That might be true! But there are many people working to unbalance that power dynamic as well.

It’s definitely not a guarantee, but mass movements can force change. Look at Bernie, he came pretty damn close to the nomination even with the entire upper class and media throwing their weight behind his opponents.

Winner’s Take All by Anand Giridharadas has a few chapters dedicated to B-corps. The issue isn’t that the b-corps themselves are bad, but that relying on a few good companies to fix the problems in the world isn’t going to work, because the bad actors will always more than make up for it.

Taking climate change as an example: 100 b-corps going carbon-neutral aren't going to offset the damage Exxon causes to the environment.

You can say we just need to wait until consumers change their behavior and let the market sort it out, but isn’t that exactly what we’ve been trying and failing to do? At this rate it’s all but certain that climate change won’t be solved via market solutions.

What’s better is forcing the bad actors to stop doing bad. Fighting to pass a carbon tax regulation or a green new deal is what we need, and bandaids like b-corps are often a distraction that tricks people into thinking we can consume our way out of the problem.

I’m probably on a very similar drug to OP. I take it monday-friday.

Common side effects of ADHD drugs are loss of appetite, difficulty sleeping, and increased heart rate. It basically puts you into fight or flight mode for 6 hours a day. More blood to your brain + muscles, less to everything else (digestion, immune system for example).

One weird thing about it is the first few times you take it you’ll get a feeling of euphoria, like you’re on cocaine. This is _not_ the way the drug is supposed to feel, it goes away if you stick with the same dose for a while. Some people keep going up because they think the euphoria is part of it, and that’s really dangerous.

It really does work incredibly well for me. Especially for programming, where you’re most productive when you’re not pulled out of a flow state. I went from a B average to straight A’s when I started taking it in college. It made it so easy to oranize my schedule, I just worked/studied from 8-6 every day. No late nights, no procrastination.

Personally, I have no feeling of withdrawal when I go off of it for weeks at a time. Though I have developed a bit of a psychological dependency around work, where I kind of tell myself I won’t work well without it, which becomes self-fulfilling.

It’s not all good, not all bad. Hopefully this helps!

I think if you left it up to the market we would have even more misleading food labels than we do now. It’s already hard enough to determine what is and isn’t healthy at the supermarket, regulation ensures that we at least have the most basic calorie, nutrient and ingridient information.

I wouldn’t even disagree that regulation slows down advancement. That is probably the case! But I also know that in the early 1900s you didn’t have the kinds of child labor laws and workplace safety protections in place that we have now. I’d rather a society without child labor even if it runs a little slower and less efficiently.

I’d ask every white person who says they don’t like these changes because they're shallow/pandering/not as good as real antiracist action to take a step back and ask yourself if that’s the real reason you dislike this change.

Is it possible you actually had a knee-jerk reaction to PC-ness and are retroactively justifying it with logic?

I think it’s common for people (maybe especially engineering types?) to have an emotional reaction to something and find a logical reason for that emotion instead of admitting that maybe they were just being reactionary in the moment.

I have been guilty of calling behavior like this “hypocrisy” in the past but actually have changed on this recently.

You don’t need to live in a way totally consistent with your ideal society if your current society is not ideal. Why? Partly because it’s impossible or at least extremely difficult.

Ayn rand couldn’t live without driving on roads paid for by the government, patronising businesses that received govt assistance, or relying on state police and firefighters to protect her property.

On top of that, her whole thing is radical selfishness, so if taking govt assistence helps you get ahead you should do it, right?

* I do want to note that I haven’t actually read any of Rand’s writings and am basing this off of what I know about her general philosophy on what the world should look like. If she’s ever said things like “you shouldn’t take any government assistance” then yeah she’s a total hypocrite.

You’re probably right! I do think our culture of praising the wealthy for handing out pennies is a huge smokescreen that avoids actual change, but you’re right that posting comments on HN is not going to do much to change public opinion.

No, I can’t think of any big company I support.

Amazon, Google, Apple, Exxon, etc. are all built on exploitation.

My point wasn’t that Amazon is more evil than other corporations, I think that’s only marginally true. Probably only because of how much more efficient they are than a lot of companies.