kelseyfrog

There was a demonstration of this asking people to divide a pie representing wealth among various low, middle, and upper classes in a way they felt was fair. The result was uneven, upper classes getting more, lower classes getting less. But when compared, the actual division of wealth as demonstrated using a pie resulted in the richest 10% getting 70% no one thought that a system that resulted in such inequality was fair.

Still morally more acceptable than forced circumcision.

In human men too[1][2]!

Would you chop them for extra years though?

1. https://ami.group.uq.edu.au/castrated-men-live-longer

2. What a great reversal of the usual 'in mice' trope.

Class consciousness doesn't exist as a product of living standards. It exists because people observe that effort and wealth don't correlate outside of class.

Peoples' instinctive ideal of a just world are in tension with the very idea that effort leads to success. Living standards don't factor in to this observation, because the issue isn't physical comfort, it's the psychological tension that me and all my peers work damn hard and it's not physically or mentally possible to work 14,000 times harder[1].

It's the psychological tension that the people creating wealth from income and people creating wealth from capital are playing different games, that no matter how hard we work, we won't be playing that game. This runs up against our instinctive beliefs about how the world should work. No amount of comfort hides that.

1. 1B wealth divided by 68,998, the median adult wealth in the US.

Even simpler is just asking people and noting their responses.

> Income and wealth distribution is extremely important to 44% of voters, the highest reading across the three midterm elections in which Gallup has measured it and well above the 32% in 2018 and 31% in 2014.[1]

I don't have to think that income and wealth distribution is important. I can just look at the fact that it is.

I'm curious though, if this doesn't, what would you convince you?

1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/716333/issues-voters-say-matter...

> People don't care about others if they are living well.

This is not a reality that myself or anyone I know has ever experienced for as long as we can remember. Is it something you've lived through? When and where did this time exist?

The best way to avoid it is to address it. Simplfying laws is orthogonal to public outrage.

There will always be a tension between the accumulation of wealth and the popular demand to tax it. That doesn't mean that swinging to one extreme is an answer, nor is treating them as exactly equal. You can lower the bar for completion as much as you want, but if it results in disproportionate accumulation of wealth, the masses will revolt and blaming them for their dissatisfaction will never resolve the tension. Instead it will inflamed it. Police state, address wealth inequality, revolt. Choose one.

Laws allowing for wealth accumulation but not extraction will eventually result in either police states or popular revolt in response to inequality. Wealth extraction's value as a pressure valve should not be ignored.

The idea of a 'graph in itself' is nonsense. Graphs are viewed by people and the functional relationship of a graph and its viewers is conditioned on choices the graph's author makes.

Assigning neutrality or bias without viewer of interaction is a category error. It is not an intrinsic property of the graph despite our wanting to simplify the world this way. It's like saying chocolate is intrinsically the best candy when what's being said is 'my relationship to chocolate is that it's my favorite.'

Depending on the color choices, it may be more difficult for colorblind folks. Choosing to print or display it is a choice that affects the blind.

People can marry those who they're predjudiced against. Against all odds, tons of misogynists manage to get married after all.

> Given they want no restrictions on them, why should there be any restriction on anyone else?

Because corporations are not moral agents; they're economic agents. This arrangement would be great for shareholder, nothing more.

While unpleasant, confronting the feeling of overwhelming terror, complete paralysis, and audio, visual, and somatosensory hallucinations, ultimately helped me become more comfortable with my fear of dying. Sometimes unpleasant situations can serve as fertile environments for personal growth.

In this one particular instance being a reductionist is ok. I know it's weird, but that's just how it is.

For it to work it has to be unpleasant. In fact, the more unpleasant it is, the more it works. It has to be more unpleasant than making the decision to remove the billboards altogether.

Showing a nice animal or a 'you're welcome' message achieves the goal of removing the ad, but falls short of fixing the root of the problem: the billboard existing. As long as it exists, the temptation and incentive to put ads on it also exists.

PW;DR, but I'm never going to let that stop me from still leaving comments >:-)

I only watch the last 30 seconds of every movie because that's where you find out what happened.

Welcome to Sorties paradox[1]!

Likewise, at what threshold do neurons become a brain capable of supporting a conscious mind? There is no threshold, thus there is no difference between the two; therefore we are not conscious.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

> The next question is: does it matter?

Obviously not, because the label follows the relationship and nearly all labeling of AI justifies an existing relationship rather than determining it.

What these folks want to do is apply a label, convince themselves their relation to the object is a product of that label and not the other way around. The normative commitments come first and the taxonomy follows. Somehow they've smuggled in this weird behavior and tried to bring other people into this delusion without ever getting called out on it.

That's entirely fair

You don't have to wonder. You can just ask. Why leave motivations to speculation when a conversation is possible?

1. The public will view it that way.

2. It will create an incentive structure that will reflect the goals of political parties.

Transparency brings the office into the political sphere. Nothing in the political sphere escapes partisanship. It's pretty clear that no one knew this office existed before I brought it up and folks thought that lawmakers drafted their own bills. The fact that we're even now talking about it in terms of politics is evidence that it will devolve into partisan politics.

I get your instinct - transparency is in general a net good. But the more public an office is, the more it is drawn into partisanship.

Politics is especially prone to engineers disease and this is a great example of it. It assumes a technical solution in the spirit of transparency applies to complex human, social, and political domains where those frameworks do not neatly fit. When someone points out engineers disease, have some introspection before questioning their motives.

Such a requirement would not do what you think it would. There would not be names legislator or even aids as commit authors. The commit authors would be members of the House Office of the Legislative Counsel[1].

The House Office of the Legislative Counsel is non-partisan, impartial, and confidential. Whether transparency has merit or not, tracking provenance would make the office partisan. Is more partisanship in government not a concern?

The second issue with transparency is that communication between legislators and legislative counsel member is subject to the attorney-client relationship. Breaking attorney-client privilege is a serious decision. Knowing how such a change would affect the organization and its members is not something to be taken lightly.

A more convincing argument for transparency would address impartiality and confidentiality. This is pretty clearly a Chesterton's fence type situation where advocating to change a system should anticipate criticisms. Addressing opposition preemptively is an implicit demonstration of knowing why the system exists which is table stakes for changing it.

1. https://legcounsel.house.gov/

Until the over-RL'd models cook up a bioweapon to game BioBench, yes.

People are playing a wage strategy in a capitalist system and losing? What else did we expect?

There's a lot of folks who can only feel that justice is served when someone is punished. I guess in their minds a debt exists that can only be paid in pain/suffering. I'm not exactly why suffering would make someone feel whole. Correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

How is that not enjoying the movie itself? By what objective measure are some aspects of a work to be valued higher than others? Who can claim to be an authority of how to value a work?

Felons are afforded due process. If you've ever tried to get support from an AI company you are keenly aware that the experience is the opposite of due process.

> afaik Siemens Energy never pushed the argument that electricity would be able to do everything humans can within a year or so...

If they had pushed that argument, would it have changed how useful electricity is?

Laws and their enforcement exist to maintain the ideological state apparatus. Was there confusion that they had another purpose?