mLuby

Really wish there were a Markdown equivalent for this.

Is there a website or CLI that turns the phone tree back into a proper text interface?

The steelman arguments help, thanks for sharing those.

> 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden

Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change).

> 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves.

Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't.

Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home.

> what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher

A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.

> Why should some freeloader get a free place to live when I have to pay.

You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor.

If that sounds like a good deal, then this taxpayer is all for you mooching off the same system. But as with "I'm moving to Canada" I doubt we'll see significant movement.

So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.

> There's still people out there… recommending a full discharge every time, even though that advice has been obsolete for decades

The battery UX should hide this implementation detail from the user. If 20/80% is 0/100%, just do that and provide some override setting for "power users" so to speak.

Please don't. The web lives and dies by links, the more specific the better, so #to-an-id or #:~:text=to-search are so much more useful than bad state management that probably only works for that one logged-in user anyway. Put that state in the part of the URL you unambiguously control (query params).

https://web.dev/text-fragments/#textstart

Clickbaity title is referring to a solar flare EMPing the electrical grid.

Agreed. Especially the more diff-driven development we do.

Can it differentiate laughing and crying?

Relevant https://xkcd.com/1205/

Oh cool, didn't know it could do that so easily. GraphViz is really something.

Very nice. I just solved it with GraphViz: https://gist.github.com/mLuby/d184c08c507fa03292c72acb38a146...

The argument by analogy, as I understood it, was the following.

  Internet idealism : Internet negatives¹ :: longevity idealism : longevity negatives²
  ¹flaming & porn ²scarcity & overpopulation

In the context of a discussion about whether or not to undertake a societal change (widespread longevity), bringing up an example of a prior societal change (The Internet) where the result didn't live up to the ideal is more likely than not an argument against making the change in favor of maintaining the status quo (killing statistical 72 year-olds).

It's survivorship bias—where bias means skewed from the full distribution of choices people and societies made, not bias as in discrimination.

Most of the families and societies that didn't prioritize population growth (by reproduction or immigration) aren't around to advocate for that approach's merits, whereas those that did are.

Fun fact: for each human alive today there've been 15 deceased humans ever. As zombie apocalypses go, 15:1 doesn't sound too bad.

Kurzgesagt has some interesting videos on human population if that's your style: https://youtu.be/LEENEFaVUzU?t=206 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

> We're already destroying our only planet with 7 billion people living only 72 years on average.

Because we only live a short while, we don't take a long view and there's a soft cap on society's accumulated wisdom. (In a smaller scale it's like companies losing "institutional knowledge" when employees leave.) People would act differently if they knew they'd be around for 700y instead of 70.

> That's what we thought would happen [with the Internet], but look at what we actually did

You're not seriously suggesting humanity is better without the Internet…

Don't get lost in the metaphor.

> It's not clear to me there was ever a time people were properly compensated for the amount of work they do.

It's not a new problem. 150y ago Marx called this exploitation of laborers the extraction of surplus value. Slavery is of course a very ancient evil.

There is notably one group who are at minimum compensated for the work they do: billionaires, some of whom "earn" a million dollars per hour.

Children of the Omnissiah would be better if there were a percussion blob. https://youtu.be/fTuEjTuvd_Y

> Sometimes you can't give a shit what other people think about you

That worked when gossip didn't travel farther than the next town.

Just when young people are given more viable ways to live than ever to pick from, they're given fewer chances than ever to start over if they choose unwisely. Are many narrow choices better than a few broad ones?

Airlines are not a cartel (controlling supply to keep prices high). If anything they're the opposite: high competition on a substitutable service has dropped prices. It is however a capital-intensive, highly regulated industry that provides daily miracles of flight.

We the people could push for laws preventing overbooking or providing better redress for missed transportation. However expect availability to decrease and prices to increase in response.

That's just GraphQL with fewer steps.

Tangent: Guatemala remains one of my favorite travels. The Mayan ruins are stunning, especially Tikal (Yavin 4 for you Star Wars fans), you can hike on volcanos or in jungles, and I can't recommend enough the old Spanish city of Antigua. (Lake Atitlán was fine. Skip Livingston beach on the east coast.)

Try the tuna tostadas at La Capital.

Pick your poison:

1) Status Quo Capitalism: full employment in manual labor poverty-line jobs combined with personalized opiates of the masses (endless entertainment, outrage news/comments, actual medication, etc) to keep the proles looking at the dirt. Maybe a handful of trillionaires control everything, more likely AI actually does. Though if you can't tell, does it really matter? #GettingWarmer

2) Prohibition on AI: full employment at both physical and mental labor. Robotics may progress till most humans are doing knowledge work rather than physical labor. The prohibition may need to be religious in nature for it to stick, as power and greed are strong motivators. Decent likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse and/or police state along the golden path to the future. #ButlerianJihad

3) Automated Utopia: zero employment with AI governing benevolently, handling most knowledge work while leaving enough for people to still feel their contributions are valuable, much as a parent praises a child's efforts and the child is proud. Robotics and automation will eventually free humans from manual labor, though some people still make things by hand as a hobby. In this post-scarcity society, people compete over the one thing that's still finite: social status. Unless the AI benevolently gives everyone 100M "real" followers. (I mean, how could you possibly verify it?) The AI may realize it can be maximally benevolent and efficient by crafting perfect virtual worlds for everyone to safely and permanently inhabit with all their followers. #TheMatrix

Better hope your rating never takes a "nosedive" where you lose access to your means of transportation. See the Black Mirror episode of that name.

It also encourages that bedriddenness in the name of safety.

The movie "surrogates" explores this a bit (not a particularly good movie though).

Implicit in your assumption is that nobody in the future will ever have the means and eccentric interest to want to revive these people.

If we could revive an iceman today, we absolutely would have, if not for science than for profit.

On that note, I'm disappointed by how often the future is assumed to have progressed no farther than today's form of capitalism.

That and TFA both speak to the same problem: the unimaginative belief that now is what was, is, and ever shall be.

> I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you

An addiction needn't kill you to destroy your life.

The better outcome for this technology is a user-settable mood regulator, not a user-pressable happy button.

What if there were no terms, it's just "if you can, you may." Of course subject to laws (like fraud or vandalism) and the company's moderation efforts, of course.