tm-infringement

The plainly explained point is that democratic backsliding is gradual. The road to 20 million dead isn't someone suddenly declaring "we are the baddies", then a week later they start digging the mass graves.

If someone appears with invalid paperwork to a border crossing you simply turn them away, or in the case of international flights you keep them in a room for a couple of hours and send them back next flight home. You ban her for X years.

She was in some kind of kafkaesque simulacrum of a legal system with "constitutional free zones" and for-profit "detention" centers. Nobody knew anything inside or outside, only with a considerable amount of resources and luck they we are able to find her in the system. This is closer to the stories of my family during a dictatorship, moving earth and heaven to find close ones in jail when initially the police "didn't know anything about that". They were lucky, a lot of people never found their loved ones.

Sure, the US is not there (yet), but even then she could've been there 10 months or more there if she wasn't Canadian or wealthy.

So no, it's not a "snarky ideological barb" it's a good point that doesn't meet your aesthetic standards, at most the "skeptics like you" part makes it a bit too personal. Your strawman about his point seems worse imo.

This is just tone policing, the comment doesn't contradict those guidelines. I should know them, I do break them all the time!

As someone from a country that's been the target of things like the VoA and much much worse. Ukraine isn't Iraq, this wasn't some dubious justification to preemptively attack. The gringo spooks were sure it wasn't gonna happen and were caught off guard, they didn't even give them advanced weaponry for a good while because they expected them to actually in fall in 3 days. Supporting Ukraine and being against interventionism isn't hypocritical. One only would see it like this if you flatten all context, opposing the Iraq wasn't flower-on-rifle pacisfism. The reasons for invasion were absurd, even if they weren't false.

But to your greater point, there's two things happening here. First, the American liberal was never inherently anti-war, just not as enthusiastic for it when presented with flimsy justification (see post-WW2 history). To the amorphous gas of person who deeply identifies with the Democrat establishment, (i.e dreamed to be Hillary Clinton intern) the "tasteful" use of the intelligence apparatus is Good and Justified, simply stuff you Gotta Do, you know? Advancing freedom and all. The average D voter doesn't actually give a shit about foreign policy, they just are obligated to care when inevitably the weight of reality demonstrates that something impossibly stupid is happening.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan*. Anyone with two neurons will reactively want to stop it. Avoiding it is another matter, you have stop producing more Kissingers and change the environment and the people that give them power. A competent and independent leftist movement could do this, but any semblance of this was suppressed 'cuz dirty commies. So yeah, some liberals will genuinely shed a tear for the VoA for "freedom".

Second, even if you hate the spooks and state propaganda like me, they are still useful. Not at good things, but it's nonetheless baffling to see someone put themselves at a disadvantage for no reason. The critiques are about strategy, not the morality of the outcome. Don't be fooled, this isn't an anti-intervention move or limiting spending by conservatives (how are those tax cuts going?). It's a rejection of the subtle and move to mafia style negotiation. Panama is not a joke, it's a promise.

The leftists stayed small. The liberals are still apathetic. The conservatives metaphorically got rabies.

[] One of the only times I've been impressed by Trump, he managed stuff the hot potato of the withdrawal in the mouth Biden, winning the good press while avoiding the blowback.

> Because what argument do they have against being tortured if they don't believe in human rights?

Obviously, it's against the most basic principles that the humanist worldview of human rights is based on. I mean, you clearly don't believe in them sincerely, maybe you lie to yourself but you don't. You are the type of self-righteous goon that would happily disappear people in the Stasi or Pinochet's DINA.

> Afghanistan is prime pickings.

That's delusional. You cannot forcibly "reform" a culture in the short term (i.e., decades) that is not simply just near-total genocide. The Taliban cannot be weakened by overwhelming force. When invaders with absurd justifications (first Soviet, later American) commit "collateral damage," they create a sprawling network of causality that strengthens them. Kill the mother, justify the Taliban in the eyes of the son, and so on until the 7th generation.

The US never understood Afghanistan; they didn't want to either. You cannot outplan something that you don't inherently wish to understand, and Bin Laden knew that. Unlike the US, he comprehended both Afghanistan and America. It would have been so simple to send some spooks to snatch him after a couple of months, but that was never going to happen. Osama Bin Laden baited the United States of America, and it fell for it line, hook, and sinker. You lost trillions, thousands of lives, and more importantly, the last sliver of soul your country had.

The terrorists won on October 7, 2001.

Please don't make strawmen.

Read.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15...

The monetary cost stings, but the calculus they are talking about really is about quality of life / expectancy. You are a relatively healthy 85 year old but you are still an octogenarian, you get a gnarly stroke.

Do you want to?

A: Get resuscitated and get "lucky". You are completely dependent on 24/7 care draining little Timmy's college fund or worse putting your adult kids in to debt. If a family member takes cares of you personally you will mentally break them. Also you cannot do anything fulfilling ever again.

B: Get resuscitated, die after 3 weeks with broken ribs. Yay morphine.

C: Get resuscitated and "just" get a little brain damage, maybe you become asshole or forget someone. Also, broken ribs and will probably happen again.

D: Quit while you are ahead.

So yeah, I'll get a DNR when a broken hip becomes inevitable.

I've always felt that the moral panic about food perks in Tech was weird. That's not free, it's part of your salary. Sure, you can't buy index funds with Pineapples but at the end of the day it's still remuneration.

The market TC is crazy high, do you add a minor bump in $$$ to attract some candidates that will go to Sweetgreen? Or you add flashy food while taking advantage of economies of scale? Bonus, the very expensive people stay more in the office.

The BRI is just the Temu version of the IMF with Chinese industry upsell.

Honestly I'm more worried about the US backsliding to full authoritarianism with the usually "spicier" foreign policy. The more politically insular China from the current regime seems stable enough. Xi could have even 15 years left in the tank before succession shenanigans start. Obviously this from a LATAM perspective, I'm not in Taiwan or South Korea, I would be considerably more spooked then.

"HN discovers the concept of taxes, gets mad about it."

With that kind of argument sewers are also clearly unconscionable, after all they cost money you didn't donate. In that hyperbolic case where the EU throws 60% of it's productivity for the war effort, Ukraine would win in 6 months. That's an absurd amount of equipment, and more importantly with that kind of money you can set up a foreign legion that would vacuum every half-decent soldier without better prospects from Ethiopia to Perú. This will not happen of course, a wartime economy is not necessary to retake the invaded territories. The "WW3 totally gonna happen guys!!!11" is also exasperating, no, nothing is gonna be nuked unless someone attacks Moscow, which also will not happen.

The totally real leaked email from a dastardly fraud-physicist that 100% confirms Hossenfelders's worldview? From a guy who supposedly wishes to be discreet, but also sends an email to a Youtuber with 1.6M subscribers with an axe to grind about this exact topic, using his full name? Which then Sabine courageously exposes anyway, despite the wishes of this evildoer. He basically admits he's a welfare queen to her because... reasons?

Sureeee, I can't wait for the next Musk tweet where a absolutely not fake EPA employee sends a nice email explaining how they are sipping Piña Coladas and playing mini golf with office furniture everyday. It might not be the best uses of resources, sure, but it feeds his family and is pretty sweet, so please stop doing the DOGE thing.

This is simply your gut feeling, smaller (and cheap) supermarkets are common basically everywhere outside North America. Chile which is in no way rich or some urbanist paradise is a specific counterexample, prices only go up with specialist stores (e.g Whole Foods equivalents) or small business of the size of a parking spot in someones home, think like NYC bodegas.

Cars are expensive, the total domination of personal cars is only possible if you are a rich country. Much like gout.

Oh! Of course, but the I think the word that OP used then should've been influential. Preeminent is more an adjective of quality I believe, but it might be my ESL showing.

This attitude is exactly the problem. The US can barely build civilian ships and BYD makes better cars than most of Detroid. China seems awfully big on the rearview mirror and people are putting their heads on the sand.

This is bait, but someone with a pattern of behavior or on various people's shitlist being fired for this as the excuse doesn't seem impossible.

Yes, but AI safety in this context is the worry of the saw going full Christine on you, not bad boring safety design. LLM aided spam, spear-phising and automated bot farms are the actual risk. Beyond that are the consequences to the educational system and the effect of model bias on people.

Yes, but step 2 is being able to overcome that slight problem with mind kung-fu. So the result is the same.

'Once upon a time in San Francisco', perhaps?

> how the preeminent ethics movement of our times seems to spawn the most detestable behavior

Excuse me if my sarcasm detector is faulty, but I wouldn't describe the rationality sphere like that. It's a niche group with a fetishism for 'intelligence', with a profound distaste for the liberal arts, which translates into a closed ecosystem of blog posts, themes and jargon, and a lack of reading actual books where they would see that they're retreading old stuff, but worse. It's a culture of people believing themselves immune to bias, where calling out obviously malicious behavior is 'not charitable' and all thought outside the group is suspect. Is it then strange that it produces people who just rationalize (forgive me) their bad impulses?

Most techies stopped learning about stuff not related to computers in high school, so yeah no wonder LessWrong, being more accessible, seems like a better option than reading actual philosophy.

You say that government intervention is not always a win. Sure, totally true, also it isn't always Sunday. I'm was asking for concrete arguments or reasons, vaguely gesturing at regulation having drawbacks isn't one. And calling it out isn't a strawman.

The parent articulated pros, you responded with a truism instead of cons or refuting his points, which certainly makes arguments easier.

I imagine that their point is not that they are the same, but that the attitudes correlate. The absolutist view about vigilantism, where they see no possible place for violence in any situation, could translate to the idea that one should protest quietly, preferably indoors and change will come soon enough™. Which seems to be the case [0]. He groups up completely different social movements ranging from the highly organized, reactions to an active conflict, to decentralized mobs, naming them "neotoddlerism". Saying that:

> The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was guided by leaders who had clear, specific, and realistic goals, and were able to negotiate to achieve them.

Implying that Just Stop Oil doesn't fulfill these characteristics sans the prominent leaders. Their original objective seems to have happened [1] (JSO influence is debatable of course) and have defined new clear goals [2]. Lumping this with Israel-Palestine outrage on Twitter and the UK riots seems to make the criteria for not being effective social movements a.k.a "neotoddlerism" is "I don't like it / They annoy me".

Would this attitude result in "denouncing / joking about Seneca Falls" with era appropriate socialization? Doesn't seem that far farfetched.

0. https://substack.com/@gurwinder/p-147486907 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65945... 2. https://fossilfueltreaty.org/

The writers of the beigeness might deny it, but assassination can work. Shinto Abe is just the most recent example. The "win condition" of the immediate destruction of the rentseeking healthcare-insurance complex in the US is a strawman. The killer achieved his goal and his success was greater than he probably imagined.

The truth is that the average person is indifferent to the murder, or right-down approving. HN is a bubble about this for obvious reasons. This a stronger signal for the power-brokers to take it easy and fix some of the perverse incentives than a long career in activism.

We live, and always have lived in a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re a bad person, and kill you. Knowing this reality isn't condoning it, or believing that common political violence is a good state of affairs.

>going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit

>the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.

I'm skeptical, why would interoperability mean this? Concretely? You are free to buy Apple only, to maintain the first party "luxury" experience. Apple adding dev time to make their APIs interoperable means making them more robust and stops them from cheating in their privacy promises. i.e "No sharing personal data with Big Tech, except Apple."

Also, Apple will add headcount if necessary to deal with EU compliance, they aren't a small startup.

Just like the horrible government banning leaded fuel. I'm not joking, a stronger argument is needed about regulation than "any gubernatorial directive is bad". Apple isn't a person with natural rights. What are the actual drawbacks of this? Are we stifling innovation by forcing interop of the disruptive technology of "wireless filesharing"? It's infrared media transfer, but with 2.4GHz.

You mean "Automatic Wi-Fi connection" section? Maybe I'm not reading it right, but it seems that it's actually about something already fully paired (e.g Smartwatch) having access to the WiFi like the Apple Watch.

Doesn't seem to be needed, there's a web and iOS SDK right there. Google is no angel with interoperability, but the Apple lock-in is another level. Filesharing should be an open protocol imo, making it proprietary is behavior straight out of a scummy telecom company in the 2000's.

https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/overview

Spearfishing the organizers to get access to the shiny fresh dataset, or using some variation on wrench-based social engineering [0].

0. https://xkcd.com/538/

What does a overseas intern entail?

lol. lmao, even. put me in the court transcript.