The difference is that - in theory anyway - all of the balls are the same.
535 karma · joined August 15, 2017
At the same time, some Russian activities seem to have risen to the level of espionage. According to the article, Russian agents traveled around the US, posing as Americans, gathering information. The article also says that Russian agents organized and funded political rallies.
Making a big deal over that stuff is hypocritical given US actions abroad over the past hundred years, but that's a separate issue. Maybe the US shouldn't be interfering in the elections of other countries, but every country probably has rules like these: https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/ and every country seeks to minimize foreign influence on internal politics.
Many different areas of research, such as cancer research, could fit under the umbrella of "life extension."
I'm saying that, in the context of the world as it exists today, if I am the mayor of Boston, it will benefit my city to offer Amazon tax breaks to entice them to build there.
I think perspective is key here. From a broad economic perspective, Amazon is going to build this thing somewhere, and so these kinds of trade-offs seem pointless. Economists likely object because the whole thing is economically inefficient from a broad (national) perspective.
But from the perspective of a local government, that may not be the case. A local government is concerned about the local economy more than the national economy, and so offering these perks makes sense.
Again, I agree that the whole thing is regrettable, and that it probably hurts the economy as a whole. I wish Amazon didn't play these games. But I also think it's worth pushing back against the idea that these local governments are clueless idiots. They may very well be making a good decision from their narrow perspective, and the city that Amazon chooses may very well see a net increase in tax revenue.
My feeling is that this is a valid choice for artists to make, and if you disagree then avoid shows where this is the policy.
However, I know a couple people who do not fall into that bucket. Both of these people suffer bouts of totally debilitating depression. They are both respected within their communities, smart, successful, and have full lives. Both of them get a lot of exercise, both are extremely fit and have been their whole lives.
In my opinion, the way to look at this kind of depression is as a chemical imbalance. Theorizing that there's some missing piece in their lives seems ridiculous to me. And yes, antidepressants work.
This is vintage Mencken. My favorite is his obituary for William Jennings Bryan: http://history.msu.edu/hst203/files/2011/02/Mencken-In-Memor...
In my opinion, Hunter S. Thompson's obituary for Nixon is a direct descendant of that work: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...
I suppose, with Mencken, you should make reference to his racism (not to mention his strange views on Mathematics). I see him as a memorable writer. You can be a good writer and hold ignorant, offensive views.
In general, I'm not comfortable speculating about various groups' motivation for mass killing and subjugation and then ranking those instances of mass murder based on the purity of their supposed motivation. That entire exercise seems incredibly silly to me.
I think it's easier to talk about motivation when we're discussing crimes committed by individuals, but even then, I think it's something courts should do less of.
Atrocities committed in Soviet Russia/Soviet satellites are different from atrocities committed by the Nazis because one set of atrocities was motivated by racism and the other was motivated by various other stuff?
I suppose you can argue that they're different. But I'm not sure how important the differences are. As long as people are being subjugated and murdered to "make the world better," it's all pretty much the same to me.
I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male...
Both of these things are problems. The former because it suggests that equal opportunity is a myth, and the latter because criminals are getting away with sexual harassment/assault and even rape. But I don't think they're the same issue.
In my opinion, if we solved the equal opportunity problem, we'd still have to face these three problems:
1. Sexual harassment and assault are considered acceptable behavior by many males.
2. Rich people face a different justice system than poor people.
3. Women face skepticism, hostility, and sometimes reprisals when they come forward with allegations of sexual harassment/assault or rape.
I do wish people would talk about 2 more. All in all, I think it's extremely good thing for our society that women are coming forward and males who have committed sex crimes are paying for it. I just wish they were being prosecuted and not "forced to step down."
The article describes how her openness almost cost her the job offer. In the author's opinion, she made a mistake by being open about her insecurities in a job interview.
I've worked with people who are probably too open about their insecurities. I think you can be open about what you don't know without saying things like "I don't know if I can do this job." Frankly, I don't really know how to respond to that kind of statement in a professional setting beyond resorting to platitudes.
I think there are better ways to talk about your insecurities, like saying "I have experience with X, but I haven't worked with Y, and I know I'll need to figure Y out for this role." That seems okay to me. Knowing what you don't know is really important.
> Most successful CEOs are very open about everything, and don't keep secrets. Secrets and opacity are what destroy companies and relationships, not the reverse.
Everyone has a private interior life. Everyone feels things and thinks things that they don't voice publicly.
Further, these kinds of rulings don't apply to non-Muslims, so nothing is violated by inviting people from around the world (non-Muslims) to play chess in Saudi Arabia (as long as they don't visit the Hejaz).
Another thing to note is that Saudis play video games and watch foreign (read: American) movies. It would be pretty outlandish if that was tolerated but chess was banned. So I highly, highly doubt that chess is banned.
Straying off topic a bit: the dynamic with Israel is interesting. The Saudi government is pretty much aligned with Israel (anti-Iran, close American ally, anti-Islamist uprisings, wish to maintain the status quo), but they have to keep up a facade of zero diplomatic contact because being anti-Israeli/pro-Palestine is part of the Arab-Muslim identity at this point. You can bet Israel and Saudi Arabia have contact, it's just not out in the open.
Finally, something interesting to note is that Israeli-Arabs can visit Saudi Arabia and often do (for the Hajj). They just have to do get a Cypress or Jordanian visa and cross through Jordan.
But that doesn't have anything to do with this article though, which I rather liked.
> You wanna argue with Tolstoy?
Tolstoy famously described Shakespeare as "insignificant" and didn't understand what all the fuss was about:
It says:
"Trouble breathing? Nausea and fever? Stomach pain? Our ER can help."
"What's your body telling you? Any one of these symptoms could be a warning sign of something serious. Our emergency room offers fast, expert care 24/7 to keep you healthy."
I had never really thought of hospitals, especially ERs, as a business before I saw that. I guess that was naive.
If we really want to take this argument to an extreme, the government can kill you, torture you, throw you in a jail cell, or otherwise apply force until you give up your bitcoins.
If I thought the world economy was on the brink (I don't) I would buy non-perishable food, water, firewood, a generator, fossil fuels, solar power, etc. Of course the government could kill me and seize all of that too, so I'd probably want to buy a bunker in some remote part of the world.
It doesn't say anything about the situation in Yemen, it's just a solid investigative piece about whether the missile was actually intercepted.
Also, I think the chances of Apple deciding to pay its taxes due to this kind of pressure are at least as high as politicians in X country closing loopholes.
Additionally, I think there's a really important difference between following the law and being a moral person (or a moral university, or a moral corporation). The law might approximate our conception of morality, but it doesn't cover it completely. There is an enormous grey area of activity that is legal, immoral, and newsworthy.
As an aside, perhaps one reason why there are so many "young people disenchanted with democracy" is your attitude: that a never-ending war between lawyers (looking for loopholes) and lawmakers (who should, in theory, be closing loopholes) is a feature. If that's a feature of democracy then maybe we should take another look at our options.
(I don't really feel that way. Well, sometimes I do, but on average I think democracy is the best we're going to get).
Invoking Lenin doesn't really serve any purpose in this debate, it's just one rung above pointing your finger and shrieking about "communism" and "preserving judeo-christian civilization."
You could (accurately, in my opinion) describe the things Kurzweil is selling as "snake oil" but I wouldn't describe him as a "snake oil salesman."
A whole lot of medicine practiced throughout human history has been based on ignorance, but I wouldn't describe medieval doctors (or whichever era) as "snake oil salesmen" because they believed in what they were selling.
This is a pretty important distinction, in my mind.
I don't know the guy, or follow him closely, but I don't think he's dishonest, I just think he's wrong.
There's a distinction between a snake oil salesman and someone who actually believes in what they're selling.
Is this true?
In terms of closing tax loopholes: tax loopholes are like vulnerabilities in software. They will always exist despite the best effort of lawmakers (programmers, in this analogy). The difference is that lawyers (hackers) don't go to jail for finding and exploiting loopholes.
In my opinion the root of this problem is the legal profession. The practice of law seems almost irreparably broken to me. Money should not have relevance in a courtroom, but it obviously does, it always has, and it will continue to. I have no clue how to fix this, but I think it's a huge problem in liberal western democracies whether it's patent trolling, Apple/X megacorp employing an army of layers to avoid paying taxes, or Harvey Weinstein/Bill Cosby committing sexual assault/rape over and over again without ever visiting a jail cell.