trappist

I wonder who they've been learning from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

By what standard would it be just? The vast majority of the people who would be harmed by this will have been innocent.

I downloaded a transcripts of a subset (a dozen or so) of deleted and grepped. None of the ones I searched contained the word.

Most if not all legislation comes with unintended consequences, if it has any consequences at all. Usually they are entirely predictable. Then, when people adapt their behavior to stay out of trouble by doing objectionable but legal things, we don't blame the careless legislators, we blame those we knew or should have known would respond this way to the legislation as it was written.

And so it marches on - most legislation ends up making things worse instead of better, and there is no accountability because we blame the wrong people for it.

Completely agree but an expectation that the nearest colleague should know this is unrealistic.

Headline seems to be clickbait. I haven't read the full 180 page report, but having searched it and read the summary, "emotion" appears twice and not in the context of the feelings of ranchers about monopolies. It seems to mainly be about a list of proposed solutions to the problem and their unintended consequences. Author seems to like some of the proposed interventions so I guess he's mad at the authors.

Don't believe what, exactly? 0 emissions in 7 years, or else what? Even if we get to 20 years and nothing has yet happened, this could still stand. There is no proposition or prediction.

Trademark treats this as a crime against the original producer. Pretending to be that producer to fool the consumer into buying your product is a crime against the buyer known as fraud. IANAL and I don't know whether in a legal environment with trademark that form of fraud is recognized as such, but it should be and I think it would be a superior solution to the problem trademark is meant to solve.

It doesn't say Jews have an appetite for war, it says Israel does.

Maybe Linux would be better written in BASIC. We can't know until someone does it.

I understood parent's point to be that we obviously can't trust them to do better than this. In any case it seems clear that this is exactly why high tax rates hurt the middle class more than the rich. And everyone know it, and yet it persists.

1) Know which problem(s) you want to help solve. A very bad city will have many of them. Many or most may share a common cause, but enumerate and analyze them in isolation before acting on that assumption.

2) For each problem in the scope of your project, identify "better" and if possible quantify it. It's too easy to delude yourself that your efforts are "working" if you haven't decided explicitly in advance what that word means.

3) For each problem, identify a cause. For a city, this will probably be a feat of economics and/or public choice theory. Both are unfortunately riddled with ideology, and you have one of those, and it will be hard to keep them separate, but if you want to help you have to find a way.

4) Many of the problems are likely to share a common cause, a single point upon which to apply pressure to bring about large scale results. Analyze and study your way here, don't let your ideological sensibilities identify it for you. Get those as far out of your way as you are able. Hint: if you think you've found someone to harm or penalize as a solution (rich people, immigrants, drug addicts...) you probably slipped up in that effort.

5) Assess realistically whether there is anything you can do to address the cause.

It only succeeds at manipulation, for the most part, because of assumptions created by the prohibition that the apparent liquidity is genuine liquidity. I trade crypto on unregulated exchanges where spoofing is such a familiar phenomenon that traders and their algorithms assign little or no meaning to it, and it has no observable effect. The prohibition is what makes it work.

This article suffers from a misconception of efficiency. A car that gets more miles per gallon than another is more fuel-efficient, not more efficient. A system of local optimums is an inefficient system. The author asks us to make life more efficient by considering efficiency in a broader scope. Efficiency is still good.

She is British and this redditor doesn't write or spell like a Brit, not that this qualifies as analysis.

From ... "Washington" Post?

I think this often too. But my second thought is I have to accept the possibility that Bezos could know something I don't.

I'll take a stab.

First, society is a semantic shortcut, not something that actually exists as something that can experience gain or harm. Only individuals can, and many have, and do.

I had an unbanked contractor, a refugee from Russia who could not get a bank account anywhere he went, and had to hop countries a lot as visas expired, and I paid him in Bitcoin even though he was completely unfamiliar with it when I proposed it, because we could find no other solution. He and I both benefitted substantially from that. I'm aware that other solutions exist, and we had exhausted all the ones we could find, as one by one my bank started rejecting transactions as fraudulent.

For most of what we want to do in the US or the rest of the first world, we have a reasonably functional banking system. For most of what we want to do internationally, at least commercially or with trading partners able to work with approved banks, things work pretty OK. There is a substantial part of the world that doesn't live under these conditions.

Is this subject to survivorship bias? Will future generations wonder at the inexplicable durability of a few modern structures still available to wonder at, for accidental reasons?

The testing capacity exists, if you count devices that have (still) not been approved for use. That is the primary nature of of the failure here.

Imagine you succeed in persuading a large number of nonvoters to vote. Do you have some reason to suspect they would make better decisions, i.e. choose better candidates, than people who currently vote? I could never understand why voting per se was held to be a virtue. If you don't care or don't know what you're doing, why should I want you to vote?

Voting is the easy part. If I'm to vote conscientiously, obviously I want to be informed on the issues, the candidates, the likelihood of the candidates to even pursue the fulfillment of their campaign promises and so on. This takes time and careful consideration. Under conditions of near certainty that my vote won't change anything, it's almost ridiculous for me to vote.

Advertising doesn't have a sole purpose. One purpose is to make you aware of the existence of a good or service. Another is to persuade you that you would be better off with that good or service than without it. One way of doing that, for some people maybe, is to instill a sense of inadequacy that only the good or service being advertised can cure, but this seems to me to be a small and rather ineffective minority of ads.

That's medicine, where the use of much better techniques are feasible and appropriate than in nutrition. What I'm saying isn't true of all fields. I'd put nutrition and economics near the top of the list, and medicine much further down.

I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism, and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent implications of low-quality data.

For myself, until you can tell me by what means a particular food produces the claimed outcome, I dismiss your epidemiological nutrition study.

> This is basically how SpaceX seems to operate: rather than optimizing a single part of the system (like trying to get the most efficient engine), they try to optimize from a systems level.

A system of local optimums is an inefficient system. Sort of the self-identified takeaway of the book _The Goal_, and I haven't stopped thinking about this statement since I read it.

Why? It seems to me private ownership has performed at least as well as public for the preservation of the trees.

Economist Israel Kirzner insisted that monopoly analysis is only applicable when the possibility of competition is eliminated, either legally or by the producer's sole control of the total supply of a resource necessary for the production of a good or service, and that the term should therefore be defined as such. In which case Amazon is not a monopoly, and we shouldn't be surprised to see continually falling prices and increasing quality.

http://rationalargumentator.com/issue118/Kirzner3.html