cousin_it
I wonder, this seems like a superficial enough job (at least in some cases) that AI could be a good fit for it. But then again, OnlyFans seems about as superficial and hasn’t been completely captured by AI yet, so maybe there’s still some time this remains viable.
I think the Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama were proactive. Vietnam too: the Gulf of Tonkin story kinda fell apart later, so did domino theory (the future problem they were trying to prevent), and anyway US military involvement in Vietnam started decades earlier, to prop up French colonial control.
Maybe to summarize my view, I think for a powerful country there’s a spectrum from “acting as police” to “acting as a bully”, and there have been many actions of the latter kind. Not that the US is unique in this, my home country (Russia) does its share too, as do others, when power permits.
Yeah. It’s also my explanation for why the internet became crap: the early internet was very under-monetized. Creators were putting stuff online in a way that most of the surplus value went to viewers. That’s why to early viewers the internet felt amazing, magical: all this value lying around. Then platforms sprang up that redistributed some of the surplus to creators (like YouTube with its ad revenue sharing, I remember how jarring it felt when I first saw creators beg viewers to watch ads), but of course that didn’t make creators better off, because content creation is a business with free entry and exit; instead we got a lot more creators, with the median one still losing money and only being in it for the passion and hope, and the viewers getting not much surplus either.
The frustrating thing is, it’s still very possible to make a platform that will be under-monetized in the same way as the old internet was. But most creators won’t go there, because they understand that content creation is hit-driven and they want the chance of a windfall that the monetized platform offers. Meanwhile the platforms reduce money sharing with creators to just the right amount that they don’t leave en masse, and use network effects to make sure a new less hostile platform doesn’t get traction. A sticky situation, this is what the logical late stage of a market looks like.
Are you sure it makes sense to go into these details? After all, the US has waged many wars since WWII, and the Iraq war doesn’t seem unusual among them. So maybe we shouldn’t explain it by unusual events; the right explanation would have to work for the whole reference class.
I’m against IQ tests for employment. My idea was more about job-relevant tests. They do require study, but the point of banning discrimination by diploma and allowing only tests is that people will be able to study for the test in any way they like, because employers won’t be able to demand Ivy League etc.
Thank you for writing this!
I think my ideal system would differ from Singapore’s in a couple important ways:
-
Classes would be grouped by subject+level. A student would progress in different subjects at different pace and level, and there wouldn’t be an overall “level of student” or “level of school”.
-
Employers would be banned from discriminating on education. They could only discriminate based on exam results relevant to the job, and the exams would be accessible to everyone regardless of hours of study.
-
It seems to me that this setup is equivalent to “skim air from the top of Earth’s atmosphere, drop it back to Earth, extract gravitational energy”, with some more details that don’t change much. This fails for density reasons, unless I’m missing something.
In fact, I’m less likely to do it than if my friend weren’t trying to pressure me to do it.
Interesting! Why? I mean, the friend probably has your best interest in mind, “you’ll be glad you jumped”. And empirically, when I take the jump in situations like this, I feel happy with myself afterward. Isn’t it the same for you?
(Also, to me it’s not as much about what other people will think of me. It’s more about me actually having certain qualities, doing certain things, or not.)
It feels to me that “evidence of X” as colloquially used might be a stronger phrase than “evidence for X”, and almost as strong as “proof of X”. So maybe correlation is evidence for causation, but isn’t evidence of causation :-)
One example I like is Eminem’s line “I make elevating music, you make elevator music”. The meaning behind the line is unremarkable: “I’m better at music than you”. But it works so well on the level of language, it’s clear that it was born in the form of language straight away. I think all good writing (rap, poetry, prose) is full of this kind of thing.
Is boiling actually necessary for this scenario? Let’s say the planet had pockets of pressurized gas instead. We drill into them, the gas expands, does work, and cools below ambient temperature.
This suggests Kelvin’s formulation is actually ok, if we focus on the word “by”. The work has to be extracted solely from cooling: something cools below the lowest temperature of surrounding objects, some work is extracted, and no other changes happen. If something else happens—for example a rock falls down, a spring is released, a container is depressurized, two fluids get mixed and so on—that doesn’t count.
Idk, I feel all this new therapy-speak like “setting boundaries” leads people into wrong directions. Like, therapy assumes that you’re the customer. For example if your friend tells you come on, jump in the cold water, you can respond by setting a boundary: I don’t want to jump! And I’m right, because the customer is always right! But the real issue maybe is that you’re a coward. It’s not a pleasant thing to think about, the customer in you recoils from the thought that there’s some fault with it—that you’re being cowardly, greedy, gossipy, etc. And the right move is to stop being a customer and be a human. Don’t distract yourself with therapy speak. When your friend in good nature says jump into cold water, just take the damn jump.
Amazing post. But I want to maybe push it a bit further.
From the perspective of creativity, any given domain (like music, writing, drawing, mathematics and so on) can be seen in two ways:
-
A target of translation. You come up with things that are “good” in other domains, then translate to this one.
-
A creative medium of its own. You first learn it by imitation, then try to synthesize little bits, and gradually learn what’s “good” or not.
You approach jazz saxophone as (2), and say poetry is more (1). But from what I understand about poetry, and writing in general, it’s also much more (2) than (1). Good writers use language the way you use the saxophone. Annie Dillard mentions a young writer who is asked “do you like sentences?” and becomes confused by the question—but liking sentences is precisely the right way to good writing! It’s not so much about having cool thoughts and translating them into sentences, but more about directly creating cool sentences, and even cool individual words. The poet Mayakovsky said a rhyme is a barrel of dynamite, and the line leading up to the rhyme is the fuse.
So the question “is music a language?” is a bit of trick question. When treated as a target of translation, music is poorer than language: things like mathematics can be somewhat translated into language, but not into music. But as a creative medium, language feels similar to music and other creative media.
-
Sure, but the point of YIMBY is to solve the housing problem. That’s why people are spending their time and effort on it. So saying “at worst it won’t solve the problem” doesn’t seem encouraging. How should we spend our time and effort to actually solve the problem?
So let me get this straight. You build a house for every man, woman, and child, far more houses than people want to live in. Then mysterious ‘private equity’ buys them all, and then they charge what, exactly? They all form a conspiracy to set prices at a monopoly level and no one notices?
How then to explain many foreigners buying London apartments as investment and leaving them vacant? It’s a thing that happens in reality. We should seriously grapple with the possibility that if a “hot” city builds many cheap apartments, rich people from elsewhere will buy them up and somehow the poor locals won’t be better off at all. There are after all very many rich people from elsewhere.
I think there’s been a lot of well-poisoning. For example, people say “universal free healthcare paid by taxes is equivalent to stealing”.
It’s tempting to say that’s a small thing, but maybe not. Arguments from liberalism often seem to favor the rich and screw the poor. It’s not even a problem with the arguments, but with liberalism itself: those who have more than they need will enjoy compounding growth, get more influence on laws and the press, use that influence to tilt the playing field in their favor, and life will increasingly look like a game of Monopoly.
The only remedy for that is inherently illiberal: lots of progressive taxation and redistribution. So maybe it’s worth rethinking what the “bedrock” should be. Principles of individual freedom, and principles of helping the weak at the expense of the strong, should at the very least be on equal footing. FDR had the right idea calling it the New Deal.
I fly a lot. To me I think it’d be enough if the airline offered water, wi-fi, headphones, and pillows+blankets on long flights—all for free, without selling anything at all. Everything else (food, entertainment devices and accessories, diapers and other hygiene, etc) we can bring ourselves, and it would probably feel better than being nickel-and-dimed for these things during the flight.
None of the things you saw as being in that comment (“I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses” or “privilege of the top 1%”) are actually in the comment.
They are, though.
-
“No force in the world can take from me my five hundred pounds. Food, house, and clothing are mine for ever. Therefore not merely do effort and labour cease...”
-
“by some luck and hard work made it to the top, but they had to hustle for it, and it did not come naturally to them; it was not their birthright”—which I described as “being at the top is my birthright”.
-
I read it differently. That comment was talking about a level of financial security as high as “I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses”, and a level of confidence as high as “being at the top is my birthright”. Let’s be real, these things are the privilege of the top 1%, both now and historically. I’m all for giving more people these things, but that’s different from being only attracted to the top 1% - that’s just assholish, no matter the gender. People should give the 99% a goddamn chance.
’Cause it’s gonna be the future soon,
And I won’t always be this way,
When the things that make me weak and strange get engineered away