sorcerer-mar

In my experience, the single most important factor is realizing that the sensation of hunger is your primary enemy and that you can attack it head-on.

Satiety is not dictated by how many calories you've eaten but (mostly) by the physical weight of your stomach. If your goal is to eliminate the sensation of hunger while consuming the least number of calories, the nutrition label tells you everything you need to know: eat a lot of low caloric density foods.

What you'll find over time is that foods widely regarded as unhealthy are simply ultra-dense (e.g. peanut butter is an engineering miracle) while healthier foods tend to be extremely low-density (e.g. non-fat Greek yogurt and fresh vegetables).

The biggest error I see in people dieting is thinking they just need to muscle through the feeling of hunger. It doesn't work in the long run. Accept that it's an important sensation but it's distinct from actual starvation, and address it directly!

If you add technology to your workplace your wages should go up (not to eat all the gains of the technology, but a decent portion via wage competition), but then once your wages go up, the local rent goes up anyway.

This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.

It seemed like you were suggesting that a property tax (which does not function how you just described) was a good idea, based on your initial comment which called it a good idea.

Right, I'm aware there's a spectrum from bullshit patent owners to non-bullshit patent owners. Why would you write a tax code to punish the latter while doing effectively nothing to the former?

You're fixating on the existence of bullshit patents which no one disputes. The question is whether this policy is a sensible way to address that, and you continue not to substantiate (or even articulate) any of your disposition toward that.

> But all too often it's a malign fantasy.

All too often to severely destroy the incentive to invent new drugs? Yeah, gonna need a better source than your intuition as a patent lawyer to substantiate that.

What are you referring to here? The premium that a patent holder (one who created or purchased novel, valuable IP) is able to extract?

This is a reward for taking risk in R&D and for sharing the result with the public via patent disclosures, not a tax.

The most compliant, least critical, and laziest thinkers in my acquaintance are all squarely "anti-institutional" now.

> Alt-media arose in maybe the last 10 years. Most of these anti-vaxxers were fully baked (intellectually) by then

This isn't true. There was definitely a crunchy left-wing anti-institutional anti-vax cohort that's very old, but the modern energy behind the movement is not from this group. And alt-media is much older than you give it credit for. Rush Limbaugh premiered in 1988. Alex Jones' InfoWars was founded in 1999.

Institutions made mistakes, sure, as they always have. None of these mistakes, individually or in aggregate, justify anything close to the discredit they've received.

Had there been similarly ignorant, ideologically motivated, and orchestrated media to report on all these institutions' past failures, they would've "failed" long ago. But because there wasn't, the institutions carried on despite their "failures" and delivered huge amounts of value to society.

For every modern transgression I can point to analogous historical ones. You can say "see, they've always been rotten!" and my response is "yet despite that they've delivered value." Almost as if real life is full of tradeoffs, complexity, tensions, and imperfections everywhere.

The actual truth and institutional trust are both far harder to establish than they are to destroy. I'm not sure how institutions survive in the presence of this asymmetry, alt-media's conscious effort to exploit it, and freedom of speech.

That’s it! That’s the strategy!

https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convict...

The effective tariff rate on American consumers is above 20%…

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-july-23...

Just because there can be MORE deportations and MORE tariffs doesn’t mean he’s not doing them lol. You’ve done a fine job of revealing your motivated reasoning anyhow. Clearly one shouldn’t take your predictions on NWS seriously.

Sure some type latent structure was there all along (thus why I put them down), but it wasn't necessarily visible to me, nor optimal, nor did it include/exclude all the right points. The need for iteration itself proves that the act of writing is actually doing the synthesis.

There’s a fast-growing cottage industry of companies using AI to figure out how to bill insurers “better”

And there’s a fast-growing cottage industry of companies using AI to figure out how to deny claims “better”

I see no reason to expect improvements to the patient or provider experience from this. A lot more money spent though!

Then blame regulation and that pesky Other Side

Ta-da! Fixed!

No, we obviously shouldn’t be so extreme that we trigger famines. This isn’t even remotely necessary anyway given that the people you mention aren’t major polluters.

We have already made massive strides against this problem. Yes it will require some sacrifices (like wealthier nations helping developing nations to leapfrog into lower-emission technologies), but what is the alternative? We just sit here and die? It's a bit premature to have come to this conclusion.

So are you proposing that we prevent the developing world from developing?

We have both natural and artificial incentives in the opposite directions. Get rid of them then let's see what else needs to be done after that.

I've given my proposal. What's yours?

By the way, the top emitters per capita are the developed countries and those who produce energy for the developed countries. Not sure how this angelic developed country meme came to emerge among people who vaguely gesture at developing nations "exporting people" to developed countries to do bad things, but it's not correct.

Sounds good

I didn't say it was possible. I said it's worth striving for, and then you stated the same thing with different words. We agree.

Ah so you think societies that did public hangings tended to have a strong and reasonable sense of justice.

You are wrong.

Justice in the sense of "punishing people who are legitimately antisocial" tends to yield less indulgent punishments because they recognize that true justice must be dealt cold and with solemnity.

Or do you think it's only a coincidence that the most abhorrent justice systems on the planet do public executions and "civilized" justice systems do not?

But for the claim you're responding to, this appears to mostly just be some cringey self-aggrandizement?