513 karma · joined June 5, 2021
You mean the Chinese politicians that are in power right? Chinese propaganda ridicules constantly politicians from other countries.
Obviously this is just a well calculated move. It's acceptable to mock certain kind of people/groups. That's all there is to it. We don't need to go into Chinese psychology.
You would need a prove for the statement that higher car insurances are themselves a cause of poverty. Maybe higher car insurances make poor people less likely to get a car, and they end up richer because they don't waste time in useless holidays that would've made them poorer.
I'm not claiming this is what happens, just that your logic even if it makes sense in some abstract sense, may be separated from reality.
I'm surprised the NYTimes is not paying and it's not clear to me whether it's because they think it's not worth the money or because of pride.
Successful suicides are up, not actually only suicide attempts. Changes in attitudes toward mental health don't result in changes in how bodies are counted.
There are some examples [0], although admittedly they are isolated cases.
It seems more likely to me that the Senator was out of his depth.
They just want to get back at something they don't like. Unfortunately this is the basis of too many policies, regardless of whether they are a net positive or not.
The argument for creating regulation is not that it would be simple but that it would be comprenhensive.
TikTok is only superior in poisoning the minds of people using it here in US. That's why the Chinese version is different. I think zero is lost if people use the inferior local ones in this case.
> This logic is "they make themselves worse off, so we should match them". That is lose-lose scenario logic.
Sure, the optimal solution for the prisoner's dilemma is that both cooperate. But once one doesn't cooperate, the optimal solution is not to cooperate. US looks like a dummy waving the flag of morality while China laughs in its face.
That is a solution, but there's nothing simple about it. Obviously there's an even much simpler solution than coming up with what would be a very very complex set of regulations and laws, that would have impact across all the industry, and that btw tech giants would love. The really simple solution could be done tomorrow, without the need of figuring out what "proper" is in this case.
Not that what you're saying shouldn't happen, but it's a different battle that needn't be intertwined with this one.
Is immigration also capitalism showing its evil hand and do you oppose it because it negatively affects workers? (btw this was Bernie Sanders position until two minutes ago when his views "evolved" and aligned with the rest of the party)
Using that name should've never been controversial and making it controversial was creating drama where there was none. The fact that people are still hurt about Trump saying that years ago shows how unprepared we are to have a discussion about anything.
Sure there's a small delta between what you say and what others claim you say. Unless they verbatim repeat what you say there will always be a delta.
Don't pretend to don't understand the point they are making and address it.
When did this happen? Taxes are near at the highest they've ever been. Government budget as a % of GDP is at its max. Never so much money has been spent on social services.
Quite simply, this is a conspiracy theory, and rich people don't have that much influence on public policy. This is not the Gilded Age. Journalists have more influence in public policy than the Jeff Bezos of the world, and Jeff Bezos owns a newspaper.
What if he just goes underground? Russia doesn't have a single nuclear bunker? What if he's terminally ill and doesn't care? Do we know USA would retaliate with another nuke? Are you confident of that, or maybe USA would hold off?
So many uncertainties and in contrast you have a man speaking without a shadow of a doubt.
One of the most important (or the only) metric in his field should be how well you can predict things, and he has a poor track record [0]. He's nowhere close to the top 1% forecasters, so overall I think there are many many sources that understand geopolitics better than him.
[0] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/01/here-is-what-peter-zei...
* Putin would never throw an atomic bomb to the US because the US always knows where Putin is and we would just bomb him back and terminate him.
* Even if "the Chinese" took Taiwan they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the semiconductor industry. They can't operate their own.
* Russia needs to integrate a number of countries that would double its size to feel safe. If they don't achieve this they have a huge border and not enough troops to protect it.
* "We" listen to everything "the Russian" and "the Chinese" say, the Chinese room is silent. Therefore Xi Jinping is completely isolated. This is the biggest danger in a war with Taiwan.
* If Ukraine falls, Poland is next, NATO will get involved, Russia will get destroyed, thus Russia will probably use nukes.
* I'm almost quoting here: "the plan for the Chinese in the next 10 years is to beat the nationalist drum so that when the food and the energy run out everybody bands together only because they are Han Chinese"
The certainty of his statements could be translated into billons, is this guy a billionaire?
> Modulo a few technical assumptions - any system of population ethics has to embrace either the Repugnant Conclusion, the Anti-Egalitarian Conclusion or the Sadistic conclusion.
Something to keep in mind when thinking about population ethics.
If you think this is taking the theory to the extreme with no contact in the real world you may want to think why China instituted the one child policy.
[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZGSd5K5Jzn6wrKckC/embracing-...