Does this model match with some long standing political models that look through the lens of concentrated and diversified interests? Votes are a very diverse bunch but doners, individually and within some fairly well defined groups, tend to have so very well defined interests driving their political involvement.
jmh
Karma: 1,585
The fundamental purpose of democratic government is to handle the implementation of the policies that the population wants.
That’s probably a fairly common view, and I don’t quite disagree, but it seems somewhat naive or in the whole “governments and democratic institutions act in the public interest” camp of poli-sci.
While perhaps a bit difficult to fully separate from the suggested purpose, I do see democracy very much as a way of managing factional conflict view some more peaceful social mechanism that just brute force, winners get their way. Pure democracy might be similar but I think Constitutional type democracies do try to provide some base protection for the “loosing” side(s) while still promoting discussion and compromise over simple force.
Not sure how much that might shift the views and interpretations in this discussion but seems that if we start from a potentially partial or incorrect premise we’ll not find the conclusions that fruitful or insightful.
While more work than I would be interested in doing, I would think with existing online presence of newspapers, as well as national paper local coverage sections and online local news one could directly verify the claim of reduced coverage.
I do agree that over influence by national party line positions will push towards more polarization—and I would suggest poorer outcomes and policies locally. I’ve wondered why States don’t view out of state campaign funding in the same way the USA considered out of country (foreign) contributions given the diversity or subculture and economies within the 50 States. And while I suspect a lot of funding probably comes from the parties I would suspect a large amount also just comes from outside interests that operate more at the national level than locally and will likely support candidates on either side that will provide support for those outside interests regardless of overall Party position.
It does seem that we’re standing the old claim of all politics being local on its head in the 21st Century with the dominance of national party and its ability to control the local agenda and candidates. (This is more hypothesis than something I’ve establish for myself but certainly seems to fit the narrative about the current Republican party and some older grumbling from both parties in the past)
While I’m not surprised with the findings. From a quick search:
The Pentagon features over 30 distinct food service locations, including more than 20-24 various restaurants, fast-food chains, and cafes catering to its 23,000+ employees. The facility includes three main food courts—most notably the 875-seat Concourse Food Court—along with numerous individual kiosks, branded vendors (e.g., Starbucks, Subway, Taco Bell, Popeyes), and the Center Court Café.
When asking specifically about delivery:
Food orders can be delivered to the Pentagon, but not directly to offices; they must be screened at a remote facility or picked up by personnel at designated secure areas like the Pentagon Metro. Perishable items are generally prohibited from being delivered directly to the building, but staff frequently order from local spots during long shifts.
Key details regarding food deliveries to the Pentagon:
Delivery Procedures: All items must go through the Pentagon Remote Delivery Facility, where they are screened and inspected.
Pickup Location: Employees often meet delivery drivers at secure, accessible points outside the main building, such as the Metro.
Internal Options: The Pentagon contains its own food court with options like McDonald’s, Five Guys, Starbucks, and Subway, which are accessible to employees.
“Pentagon Pizza Theory”: Sudden surges in local, late-night pizza orders to the Pentagon have historically been noted as a potential, unofficial indicator of increased, high-stakes military activity.
But you do have the mention of the theory you’re debunking.
Seems like outside delivery is really complicated and time consuming (though I don’t know if the internal food halls can deliver to office door but seem like it might still be much quicker than leaving the building to meet the delivery person). Plus, a lot more than pizza can be delivered these days (but perhaps the “Pizza” in the name should not be taken literally).
As a side note, years pass when I working in the Intelligence field, when I first started reading some of the CIA’s classified documents and studies I was surprised by just how much of the source information was from general, publicly available and unclassified information.
I heard similar story to that of the Alchian story many years back. Ph.D. candidates dissertation was about the risks to the power grid (for get if it was just electric or if other distribution networks were considered) which pointed out a number of ways an adversary could disrupt and disable the gird. If got published as is usual and then got noticed, classified and perhaps is no longer even searchable in the dissertation archives (if so it’s highly redacted I suspect).
I would lump such cases into the bucket of info hazards.
Source: I made it up!
LOL—HSI hallucinations?
No worries, we all make some mistakes with our assumptions at times and forget to double check every fact. I think it was a minor, and largely trivial error to the larger point. i just wasn’t sure and did a quick google check (so had Gemini answering, but I’ve seen it hallucinate enough to not take it as certian) but that can easily miss some finer points.
I think it is very easy to read into a post like this and essentially fall into the very behavior you’re ascribing to the author. Regardless of the OP’s view, the post is not naming names but is very topical. It’s worth considering.
But I do agree that whoever is getting told their actions are unconstitutional will typically see that as an attack if they truly believe they are doing something within their powers. But I also suspect any that refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling never cared about the Constitution or the checks and balances that were implemented in the Constitution. It’s simply a case of someone refusing to accept they are not a good judge of their own case which is pretty much at the heart of any rule of law society.
Generally I do agree but given the current Secretary and some of the appointees I would question how strong that “magic” might be. Do you think some Generals or Armies/Divisions would rise up to oppose some core units that are aligned with such a President/Administration? At what point might they do that—the first case of S.C ruling something unconstitutional but the President continues? Or is it more likely they stay in their place and we just keep sliding down the slippery slope?
Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall’s Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.
Separately, I do wonder if we’re speculating about cases that might be labeled in the gray area of the incomplete contract (Constitution), I wonder what might happen if States claim their right to call out their National Guard and perhaps even the more general malitia (interesting if that could be State draft or purely voluntary—i.e., giving military arms to able bodied men), President calls out military, and then Congress tell all the military their pay is frozen—meaning not only DoD and it’s branches but the service men and any contractors—what might happen.
If Treasury just says go ef’ yourself Congress and cuts the checks not much hope. But what if the banking system refused to honor them given the S.C and Congress’s rulings?
Seems like at this point we’re talking about some serious brinkmanship, and to be honest I would really prefer not to live in such times (like many actually get a choice here) given the potential for escalation to all out civil war. But I do wonder if perhaps the bigger checks here might not be the informal checks and balances. It seems that perhaps in the scenario envisions (as I understand it—a serious breakdown in government processes and checks-balance among the branches) even applying any presumably defined law or division of power is very problematic—which is a bit different from saying the other branches should not try.
But I would also think (as seems true today) you simply don’t get to the situation suggested without the government processes and functions related to checks and balances already having deteriorated to the point of disfunction—which I would suggest is the case and has been developing for many years -- 50? 100? We’ve seen a lot of political structure innovation that is not quite consistent with the Constitution (Congressional delegation of powers, partnership among the branches for efficiency reasons, party domination that serves to eliminate the assumed checks and balances...).
I don’t quite like the framing “Don’t Exist”. I suspect a lot will depend on the specific context you need to use the term and the point one wants to make. Should I make a blanket statement “Murder Does Not Exists” simply because across cultures and national laws there is not 100% agreement on what defines a killing as murder or not murder? What about many of the technical standards that end up producing incompatible implementations that break interoperability? Are there really no standards?
I am probably more sympathetic to the last claim that to the one about murder or treaties.
I’m not sure there is the trap you claim. I do agree that enforcement, which does mean applying some level of force or power in some cases, is needed. Property rights, or any rights generally, don’t just get respect and adherence from all. It’s complicated but I do think one might suggest property rights emerging as preferred to just relying brute force and power as the determinant. Both Demsetz and Olson have some good work that suggests property rights and respect of property rights arises as much (more?) from desire and incentives to escape from the conflict and application of force/projection of power.
How well human history and social/cultural evolution might apply to any ASI futures is a big unknown, but for that very reason I tend to think projecting ASI behavior from human history and experience might itself be a bit problematic.
I had a bit of the same reaction (logic being many loose their jobs, income craters, good demand craters, corp earning crater stock price higher????). But I kind of see it from a I don’t have a good handle on AI and equity market levels in the future so maybe stick to a strategy that historically makes sense.
I would only add some slight shifts to the suggestion. While it is also an open question for the average investor as to buy-hold versus timing the market works well, I do think most here can think though well enough to consider timing for the option allocation. Simple mean-reversion type entry points might increase the odd tempered by where one things the overall market is in the cycle.
I wonder if situations like the Cuban missile crisis are good examples for your position. But then I also wonder if that (I think apparently worried but calm about the world ending in a nuclear conflict) isn’t contrasted by the claims about the mass hysteria after the radio broadcast of Well’s War of the Worlds.
You really get asked that? Wow.
I also have always found the “the world might end tonight/tomorrow/next week” stories with people running around madly doing all the things they never would have otherwise a bit stretched. But then mob mentalities are not rational so I don’t really try to make too much sense of them
I suppose that would be my first approach to coping with the world ending—just keep my eye open to external madness and perhaps put some space between me and large population or something.
Since I generally don’t believe anyone has ever promised me tomorrow, the end of the world case does seem to fit into the “what has that got to do with me” view. I’d much rather live my life on my own terms than concede I have been living according to other people terms for some reason and feel the end of the world somehow free me from some constraints or something.
jmh’s Shortform
I suspect some have seen this argument already but thought it was an interesting point of view on an aspect of AI that was new to me.
I wonder if it’s less about rate of change (but don’t really take any exception to that claim) and more about divergence of change from expectations. 1950′s or 60′s expectations (at least in pop culture) was flying cars and smart robot house servants—think Jetson’s here.
People of the early 20th Century had the direct experience of living though some very significant events which they probably had not really expected. The future became much more uncertain so receptivity to more possible outcomes probably increases. The situation is a bit different up to now, so I wonder if that doesn’t place greater weight on a view of the future as some trend path with variation but mean-reversion.
The quick post is short, the effortpost is long
Years ago when I was in school one of my professors told me (well probably the whole class but...) you should be able to write the thesis of your entire paper on two or three index cards.
My initial thought was, then all the other writing is really a waste of effort I could put elsewhere. Not quite true. But that does seem to map over to the doodle—finished art point made. A lot of writing in the paper is the details and often can prove more distracting/noise to the main insight.
But I do have another thought on that. If you can put an interesting idea down in a very short set of statements or bullets the core to the thought is clear. The rest of what you write is about the author’s view. Just offing the index card view opens up the field for every reader to take that idea/thought where they want to explore. That is often much more interesting for a reader.
I do think that is good advise, and true regardless of trollish or good/bad faith. I read your comment and immediately thought of the shooting messengers rather than messages. In other words, don’t let the messenger distract you from the actual message.
Reading the comments, though, it almost seems like many still focus on the “messenger” rather than the message carried—and here I’m not specifically pointing at Elizabeth’s post but the whole annoying/sneering/troll/just plain difficult person aspect, in other words the characteristics of the delivery rather than the value of the message/information/things the other person might contribute.
I think there may be a fairly critical confusion here, but perhaps have missed the key bit (or perhaps by seeing this particular tree have missed the forest the post is aiming at) that would address that. It seems that in “human values” here are defined very much in terms of a specific human. However, “goodness” seems to be more about something larger—society, the culture, humanity as a class or even living things.
I suspect a lot of the potential error in treating the terms as near to one another disappears if you think of goodness for a specific person or thinking of human values in terms of human as a group that holds common values. (Granted, in this latter case get to specific values will be problematic but in terms of pure logic or abstract reasoning I don’t think the issues are nearly as bad as implied in the OP.)
Kind of an old idea. Authur C. Clark’s old scifi book “Childhood’s End” has that as a premise (though in his case the aliens were our visual model for devils—wings, tails, horns, redish complexion...)