sputr

View your comment from the POV of the majority of the population, who aren't rich IT sector workers.

There's energy poverty in Germany. A lot of it. You don't even have to go to any “3rd world” areas of the world to see it.

Cheap energy is CRITICAL for the elimination of poverty and suffering. I know that single-mindedly obsessing about the single goal of climate change is currently popular, but please, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Load of my shoulders. As much as I hate to be beholden to Google, both my parents (in their 70s) use our gsuit account with custom domain and migrating them to a different service was … well, you know how it goes. The cost was a bit much.

So thanks Google.

This comment is not just intellectually dishonest, it's also a basic example of the core problem of our society: demonization of "others".

You can have a problem with cancel culture and not be anti CRT. Who would have thought, right?

Legislative systems are massive and employ a small army of people, and such proposals take years to develop. Their current focus will become apparent in a few years.

The text does not mention, in my opinion, the most toxic status game: moral superiority.

If choosing money leads to working all the time, and beauty to mental problems, choosing moral superiority leads to what you started out fighting against - an immoral person.

This, in my opinion, happens through radicalization, which is a result of the fight to be "more ideologically pure" than others.

The worst thing is, this game seems to be the dominant status game of the western society right now. And we thought the "who has more money" was bad. We should have counted our blessings.

Nothing is worse than a fervent believer in the pureness of their own moral standing, who decides that yours is lacking. I used to, wrongly, believe that this level of fervent belief in ones own moral superiority only happens among the religious (with the well documented atrocities that follow). But, unfortunately, political ideology is not much different.

Find a NGO that is collecting signatures. Join up. Push yourself to collect as many signatures as possible. Emulate others. No one will remember you so do all the things they tell you to do but you find super emberasing. Keep doing it until you don't care what people think.

Works every time.

Firstly, they (aka medical leadership in most countries) did say that.

Secondly the whole "horse drug" came about because people actually started taking a literal horse drug when they could not get their hands on a prescription for the human version. So people made fun of them.

And yes, taking a drug dosed/mixed for horses based on Facebook posts makes you a wackjob.

Not gonna defend the media and political spindoctors. But we all know what they are about. All people had to do was listen to the medical authorities.

But no, everyone applies the "politicians/media lies" selectevly so that they can keep listening to the ones that make them feel good.

"Security of property rights is a pretty compelling public interes."

Is it really? You seem to be saying that public property is sacred. If that is true its the only thing ever. Everything else has "within reason" attached to it, why not property rights.

My argument is, that to archive your goals (which I in a way share), the strategy of securing drop-in replacements is a much, much more realistic one than the existing strategy of convincing people to give up luxury.

All ecological and anti-climate change movements have the same problem. Convincing people to give up the luxury of a car, airplane, vacation, phone, (overly) warm home etc. is a great way of putting people on the defensive and triggering pushback.

That's why I'm saying you will NEVER convince anything near a majority of people to give up meat. It's a rare luxury. They will never give that up, especially as long as they watch rich people have fun on their private islands.

This is the difference: - "You can't ever eat burgers again, or you're a bad person" - "Want to eat Wagyu beef burgers, but can't afford it? No problem! Now you can, plus, you're a good person for not killing a cow in the process!"

You must realize that "belief that animals ought not to be exploited for anything" is a belief enabled by privilege. A lot of privilege. That's not bad, as privilege (a really shitty word to use for the concept) is not a bad thing. But it's a privilege that many people lack. So you need to find ways to convince people to do what you want without relying on the privilage.

> But… I have… numerous times.

Sure, I don't doubt that. The current proportion, from a quick google search, is between 1%-10% in the western world. That's after A LOT of effort and before any serious pushback.

Now try doing it for 99% of the population. The world population. How long will that take? 100 years? 500? Don't forget that historically impoverished areas are on the rise economically, and they want, justifiably, what they didn't have an abundance of - meat (among other things).

Now imagine we get real artificial meat, that people can't tell apart, but is cheaper, better tasting and nicer to look at. How long till we get the percentage of people who don't eat "real" meat up to 90%? 20 years? Maybe less?

So it's up to you how many animals will have to be killed before we stop eating them.

> Your argument is based on thinking it’s futile to resume suffering as much as possible.

My argument is, that there are multiple strategies and that you are using a suboptimal, possibly at this point a counter-productive one.

You will NEVER convince everyone (or even close to a majority) to stop eating meat. At least not in anything close to a lifetime and without highly authoritarian methods. So working toward that end is pointless. You should be, instead, working on providing an alternative and making sure people adopt it.

> This is how any rights movement works.

Yeah, and they all make the same mistake. Most of them have managed to change the values of the population but then lose steam, slow down and get stuck or even slide back when trying to change societal systems. Almost like changing values and changing systems isn't the same thing.

> Also, there are already made viable replacements for meat. I’d start with lentils, but you don’t like them there are hundreds of other options.

I've tried most of the ones that are available here. And no, they have not. They are getting better, and some are very interesting as a standalone thing, but they are not a replacement.

Just sent this to my colleague who organizes training/certification for our clients and constantly operates with screenshots of the app. We're a tiny company, no budget for designers, and moving too fast for them anyway. No idea if he'll find it useful, but it looks great!

As a "carnist" (first time I have seen that, it's a good choice) who would, in an ideal world, prefer not to be one:

Stop focusing on things you can't change (even tho they make you look good/moral) and start focusing on results.

If all the energy used to try and convince people to not eat meat (something that can't even theoretically happen) had instead been focused on lobbing for systemic support for development of artificial meat ... we would have already had it. Then no one would have to give up meat. Most people have no connection to the animal as is - if the messaging is done right, most will not care, especially if it's seen as "better, cheaper and healthier".

But for that, someone would have to start a massive pan-EU campaign to start devoting billions into research and commercialization of artificial meat. I would support such a (vegan) candidate.

I eat meat, but I would much prefer if there was no suffering attached to it.

Are (pragmatic) views really a problem? I'm not so sure. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.

If you're trying to change people's values (i.e. from "who care about the environment" to "we need to protect the environment") than pragmatism isn't the way to go.

But if you want to convert values (i.e. "we need to protect the environment") into actual real world results, well in that case pragmatism is the only way to go.

Look at the whole green energy discussion. If the green movement contained its activism to fossil fuels and turned pragmatic on the topic of alternatives ... we would be living in a much cleaner world today.

But they didn't and as a result, they radically reduced their net positive effect on the world.

Ah, the Balkans :).

Slovenia has a "sole proprietorship" system that's fantastic for IT professionals since it has standardized costs, which means in the end you pay 4% tax on any income up to 150k€.

But you also pay FIXED "social contributions" (aka. tax) for pension and healthcare since you, as an "s.p." are considered to have a minimal pay... no matter how much money you make. This is a little under 500€/month. This is due the first month you register your business.

This leads to a reducing effective tax rate - the more you make, the less you pay.

We also have no way of doing business if you can't afford the ~500€/month tax. As far as the government is concerned, everyone starting a small business just "magically" starts making enough money from month 1.

Watching ex-communists (who are still in power) trying to work this whole capitalism thing is hilarious sometimes.

> It seems like many journalists are failing in their primary responsibilities to keep the public informed.

I would argue that that is not their primary responsibility. That is, in fact, to put food on the table.

Journalists are not well paid and, more importantly, are easily replaceable. "Real journalism" is hard, but makes no money, while pop-journalism is very easy and profitable. So media companies demand and pay for pop-journalism. And that can be done by far too many people.

So blaming them for doing what they need to do to get paid when doing "real journalism" will get them fired is... pointless.

Zim, the worst software I use daily. This was a weird realization.

Why worst? Anything you try, except for writing text, does not work the way you would expect and usually works in exactly the worst possible way. Good luck copy/pasting anything.

I really need to find a better note-taking that does not try to do a fancy "mind map".

> Writing it down is a way to structure thoughts and get it out of your system.

Why do you feel the need to "structure thoughts" and "get it out of your system"?

Asking as a way to point out that feeling the need to do it is not a forgone conclusion.

The "was supposed" is the point of my comment.

It wasn't. Yeah, there are a lot of systems like these who do some part of this, but it's far, FAR from a solved issue.

>that GPs in particular would be replaced by a lower-cost Watson descendant

Everybody is trying to replace GPs (and even specialists) with AI.

But I've experienced a massive issue in healthcare that does not need an AI, just a good database. I was prescribed intensive imunorepresive therapy... and they forgot to put me on preventative antibiotics.

If there was a very simple IF on my prescription (if Medrol > 16mg && TimeOnMedrol > 3 months { checkIfOnAntibiotics() } ) I would not have almost died with a PCP pneumonia.

Engineers always focus on the interesting technical innovation. But we have so much low-hanging fruit still to do, that just needs to use our existing technical abilities in really, really boring ways.

We call this "systemic financing" and Slovenia has had it since it's independence from Yugoslavia in the 90s.

It's a stupendously bad idea. There are already hints of this:

> Currently at issue are eligibility and the process by which recipients will be selected.

If you allow politics to finance the arts, then soon the only art you have is the one preferred by the ruling politicians.

If your political option is ruling at the moment, this may not seem that bad - as happened in Slovenia, where the "left-ish" options rule for the most part.

The problem is when "the others" take over the government, as has happened in Slovenia. Then, suddenly, everyone looses their funding while it's being redirected to the groups preferred by the new government. And the longer since the last change, the more dependent everyone is on the "government handout" and the bigger the effect.

> The ministry has said there will be no means test and that the process will be noncompetitive. If the number of applicants exceeds the number of income awards available, selection will be randomized.

You may say, "but the system that they propose solves this problem". Yeah, sure. For now. Soon after implementation, the policitcal debate about "real artist" and "fake artists stealing money" will start, just like the one we have here. Rules will be amended to "stop people from stealing money with fake art" and BAM, you have politically set standards for what constitutes "art".

Don't get me wrong - I'm in the very small minority in Slovenia who does not support the system we have. But this may, or may not, have something to do with the fact that the only financing for arts (and NGOs!) are government grants, so those who do not agree with the system (and the people enforcing it) never even have a chance to get started. The fact that we've not known a different system for generations (since Yugoslavia, being a communist dictatorship, also had "systemic financing") does not help.

Just to add regarding the NGOs I mentioned: officially, 0.6% of the population is employed in the NGO sector. European average is ~6%. But our number includes ALL government established and funded art and science institutions (like museums and the like). We have no NGO sector. Which, by extension, also means we do not have non-establishment politics.

In short: don't do government guided systemic financing. Does not mean it's not a good idea in any form, but please do in a way that the population (via tax credits, tokens etc.) decides who to award the majority of the money to, not the politicians.

Current level of NO2 in our city, as measured by the official sources is 48 um/m3, with the official safe level of 200.

Why is my gas stove a problem?

> The conclusion is that obtaining films legally via streaming services remains the most convenient option

Try living outside the US :).

> What is your model for how films should get funded?

I don't see the movie industry suffering all that much. So maybe ... they can figure it out themselves since it's obviously working well enough, and it's not a life&death situation, but one of optimization. https://www.statista.com/statistics/260198/filmed-entertainm...

At those prices, selling your apartment and buying one for 20k USD extra, with the extra few square meters of space, would make more sense.

I've been a big fan of this flag: https://www.planetaryflags.com/

It's an (open source) system of flags for the entire solar system.

As non-scandinavian ... may it have something to do with the strong left/progressive lean of the population?

I say this because one of the biggest problems of every single group or organization that I've seen built around progressive/left/liberal ideas is the tendency to believe in the "everyone has a right to be heard/speak" which leads to everything being dominated by the loudest individuals who are almost always full of BS.

Honestly, I've identified this tendency as the #1 reason why such groups do so poorly in politics, except in situations where the values are just a PR front for a more traditional power structure.

Yeah, chaos would have been a better word to use.

All freedoms are limited by the freedoms of others. You may speak what you wish, but when and how you speak it is limited.

You can not scream about it in the middle of the night, since doing so bothers your neighbors.

Letting anyone and everyone do what ever they want would lead to anarchy. So no society, USA included, does this.

But some actors in societies have convinced the western population, especially Americans, into the fantasy of "freedom without limitation", which, just so happens to only apply to the rich and powerful, while everyone else has to contend with limitations on their freedoms.

(1) Ads on busses

This is the obvious spin, that anyone trying to undermine such ideas would do. So I just checked the yearly (pre-pandemic) financial report for our bus service - the buses are COVERED in adverts. From what I can tell, those ads bring in less than 2% of all income.

The ads on bus stop were given in exchange for running the bike rental service, but that service isn't free to use, so the income can't be that great.

(2) Ignoring ads I have a feeling that "I can just ignore it" is the critical fallacy that will undermine ideas such as mine.

To know just how much they are affecting you, you have to go to a place with no ads.

Honestly, if you're using ad blocking on your computer - turn it off completely. The difference in physical ads is not as big (since action blocking popups are not a thing), but even discounting those, just the saturation of "things going on" is tiring. Ignoring things is an active action that requires energy and focus... why you are giving that away freely to someone trying to manipulate you ... I do not understand.

The fact that you use "waiting to click a skip button" as a comparison shows how normalized ads have become. The alternative to "fewer ads" isn't "ads being forced down your throat" but "no ads, at all".

I wonder why society decided that advertising was so important, it was willing to let it completely dominate (and in my opinion destroy) our public spaces. People who need something will find it just fine without billboards. And people buying things they don't need is not exactly in the interest of society. So why should society pay for it?

I've been working on a policy paper idea for my home country - Slovenia. Complete ban of all outdoor advertising except shopfronts and limit those.

Now, since you can't just ban it outright, there's still need for advertising, a different solution should be offered:

Every community needs to have a public billboard, setup and maintained by the local government, one per 500 residents, where 25% of the area is auctioned to commercial ads, 25% is awarded with a lottery system (to prevent money dominating too much), 25% for cultural events and 25% for nonprofits and charity. The advertising space should be place in a crowded area (like a square). It needs some extra rules for high density area, so that space can be grouped, but not too much.

All other outdoor advertising is banned. Since a lot of companies would be effectively banned by this move, some sort of (small) compensation should be paid to them and time given, so they can pivot. Costs of removing the advertising should be subsidized for the same reason. Any advertising facades or roofs (i.e. different colored tiles used to make the roof) can stay, but the ad has to be removed when the roof/facade is replaced. Money coming in from the ad actions should more than cover this expense.

Possibly add an exception to "shopping center", where such advertising is permitted, but with strict rules to what such a center is (i.e. has no residents).

I know most Americans will balk at such "government overreach" but I think it could pass here if someone actually put some effort in.