152 karma · joined February 17, 2020
If you were an alien on another planet, would you blindly trust the local populace about things you did not understand? If not, why does that suddenly change when you are your own planet among your own people?
If you can't understand the logic of a solution posed to you, then logically you must not accept it as absolute fact.
There is no justification to force someone to make available what someone else uploaded on their servers.
From a practical level, the internet is a new medium, and were constantly transitioning from one state to another, and are far from settling down yet. Therefore, any rule you make will be out of date a few years down the road.
And I say this as someone who doesn't believe “hatespeech” should be censored or punished in any way.
I wouldn't look at them as an shining beacon. They only cancel if you haven't watched it for a year, and none of your money is refunded, so it's not that great of safety net.
Who is this "we" you think you speak for? You may be right about what people are supposed to do, but people, even professional therapists aren't perfect. It all depends on the individual therapist, how they interpret what they've been taught, what you say to them, and how worried they are that if they don't do something you may commit suicide, and how that will look on them.
Some are very self centered just as everyone else, simply wanting more and more patients to earn a paycheck, so they will drudge up whatever they can to make you feel miserable, and get you hooked on psych drugs, all to try and get you to keep seeing them.
> Please reach out to a professional & get help. You'll be shocked how much better you can feel in just a few months.
I'd say don't do this. I've tried several therapists, one for over a year, and each session inevitably became a bout of very depressing intense navel staring.
I felt a lot better after getting away from all the self-help crap and developed interest in things outside of myself.
It also keeps track of the directory a command was run from, so I can limit my search. That way if I ever want to get back into a project I was working on long ago, I can just grep for commands run from that directory.
Not only that, but I can use it to cd to directories quickly. So if I was working under a huge p 10 level deep directory path, I have a alias that will match a string and cd into the last matching path in the permanent history file.
Not only that, but I can also search and then choose and rerun a command in the history, and also edit before rerunning it.
I'll go with the pharmaceutic industry approved, patented, $1000+ per pill treatments instead, which are the result of science. Definitely the billions of dollars of potential profit have nothing to do with it.. you can't prove that it does, so it must not be.
> People concerned about that ought to support implementing it with the relatively trivial-to-implement negative feedback controls which prevent that.
I just don't see how that's trivial to implement at at all. What "negative feedback controls" are you referring to?
Are you trying to say I'm some sort of clown who unintentionally make people laugh when I speak my beliefs? Can you at least acknowledge that we may both be intelligent people who disagree? This sort of statement really shows your inability to consider opposing viewpoints in an objective way, IMO.
> Do you really think people will be satisfied making barely enough money to survive? Just enough to live at the poverty line?
> Of course not. We live in a capitalistic society where people want to get ahead and make a better life for themselves. Raising the economic floor from $0 to $12k/yr (~poverty line) is juuust enough for people falling through the cracks to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again.
> Will some tiny fraction of people be satisfied living in a shithole apartment, eating garbage and trolling on the internet all day? Sure. I'm willing to accept that negligible cost in exchange for the massive social benefits.
This is a straw man, since we've already seen that realistically, this is not how UBI would be implemented. The proposed "Heroes" act already had a (now removed) clause to give people $2000 per month, on top of all the other benefits they are already receiving, which goes to show that politicians who favor this aren't thinking in terms of the bare minimum to meet the poverty line, nor seem to care about how much it costs.
> I think you do have a valid point regarding people voting for more money over time. I don't see this as big of a problem as you do but I acknowledge it's something that needs to be considered.
What do think happens if you're wrong and doing this would cause a feedback loop of more and more benefits, spending, and money printing? You're going all in with the country at stake, with a vague hand wavy dismissal of the consequences.
The other big problem here is that when people do get money for free, the incentive is to vote more money for yourself. When most of the population is working, this isn't a problem, but once you get over 50% of the population who is expecting the government to pay their way, the country will just be a big free for all, everyone trying to grab as much as they can.
I could be wrong, but IMO the risk of it playing out this way and destroying the entire country is not insignificant.
So, I don't agree that you can conclude lack of jobs isn't the issue.
Why not have the government plan everything? We won't even need money anymore! Everyone works to the extent of their ability, for the common good, comrade!
Just less people willing to do the work.
Once you get people on the dole, they will continually ask for more while still doing nothing. And because we live in a democracy, they'll vote in whoever will give them more and more money for free.
How's that for a bombshell that will totally destroy our GDP, happiness, sense of self worth and ultimately our society?
Without him mentioning it, there isn't much incentive to study it.
YouTube can hold potentially inappropriate comments for review in the following languages: Arabic English French German Japanese Korean Portuguese Russian Spanish Turkish Vietnamese Thai Indonesian
Chinese is not one of them.
The comment only needs to contain it, not solely consist of the phrase. I tried, “welcome mr. joe rogan to the land of 共匪” on a Joe Rogan podcast, and it was deleted in within 20 seconds.
I tried this myself on a Joe Rogan podcast, who doesn't speak Chinese and is based in L.A. and my comment was removed with 20 seconds. I very much doubt that he was the cause of the censorship.
You need to turn off tool tips immediately. It makes you look like a newbie.
You should setup a hot key to open excel at any time. This allows you a "panic button" to hit whenever you are playing games or planning vacations and hear someone about to enter your cubicle.
> And for your extreme example to be true, it would have to be the case that the disease doesn't discriminate healthy from weak. But still somehow only kills old people. Because if the disease does discriminate healthy from weak, all of the deaths would be those that would die soon anyway.
You do realize these are contrived examples to show errors in your math? They aren't suppositions about the actual true death rate of the coronavirus.
> Then you must divide whatever estimate you get from that by one hundred. Assuming the highest estimates that it kills around 1% of the victims, which I think are bit high.
> I don't see any possible way you could run the numbers and get more than 2 weeks lowered life expectancy. There just are so few young deaths, and the total death rate is very low.
I don't think you can "run the numbers", because the data you're using isn't enough to come to any conclusion. Unless you have data that breaks down deaths by age group, and data that breaks down deaths by age normally, you can't answer this question, as far as I know. If you think there is only 2 weeks lowered life expectancy or less, you haven't shown that.
For example, let's say the mean age was exactly 75 y.o., and that the coronavirus killed 100% of people 75 y.o. or older and 0% less than 75. By your logic, it would have no effect at all.
Another example, again with a 75 y.o. life expectancy, suppose it killed 100% of people 80 y.o. or over and none under. By your logic, being infected by coronavirus would add 5 years to your life expectancy.
People put other people at risk by driving. Heck, a big tree in a public place is a risk due to the potential for falling limbs. Are you against those things, too?
This whole argument seems to be about the people who feel vulnerable to the disease having to go to grocery stores to get food.
If the government would supply clean food to those people, it would seem that we'd no longer have to metaphorically lock everyone in chains in order to save the few.