> losing body fat means that you must continuously make choices that decrease your comfort in some way - eating fewer highly rewarding foods, maintaining a state of hunger, increasing activity level
It is interesting to see "increasing activity level" as being a decrease in comfort. But I suppose that's because "comfort" here isn't defined absolutely. I also am not sure that "comfort" is an attribute that should be optimized for in disregard for all others.
If this statement is read as "anything that does not have 100% positive feedback is undesirable" then I think it would be very challenging to make any improvements in a person's life.
But then I also don't think that "comfort" is necessarily an ideal target to optimize. I think a more holistic measure such as "satisfaction" is a more productive target. We can find "satisfaction" in things that are not 100% pleasant but which in turn result in greater happiness or feelings of contentment than doing only those things that have positive feedback.
This measure of "comfortable" also does not seem to account for the secondary effects of "comfortable" choices. E.g., if we eat only "highly rewarding foods" and become obese we see discomfort in other parts of life (loss of mobility, health issues, difficulty performing mundane physical tasks, etc)
> Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...
But from the article
> The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
> Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets.
I'd say it's just as valid of an argument to make in this case that I'm not sure I won't see more than $60,000 of value out of efforts to prevent the economic infrastructure of the U.S. from crumbling, especially amortized over 50 years ($1,200/yr in preserved income or purchasing power).
I don't disagree that it's a decent frame of reference to use when looking at government programs...but it's important to apply the same level of rigor to measuring output value.
Observing physical differences is not imposing an ideology.
The physical differences exist today and are exhibited based on biological genders. That does not preclude that these differences are unduly influenced by environmental issues (including socialization). However denying that they exist (which is what Cahill is objecting to here) on the basis that the cause might be environmental and not "innate" just means that the ability to understand and treat neurological disorders in females decreases.
The reality is that there are differences. The cause of that reality can be complicated and nuanced and not inescapable. but as the change in societal standards is quite slow all that's happening is a disservice to an entire half of the population.
The irony of your closing statement ("any result that just so happens....to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised....and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled") is that such "settled" facts in the scientific community are exactly the things that Cahill has been challenging in the neuroscience field.
Specifically to his point that:
> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.
In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.
So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.
Even with a concise and simple tax code the problem is that those with large amounts of wealth are better off spending a portion of that wealth on intentionally obscuring their assets and incomes than by simply paying their fair tax.
From the article:
> They often have trusts, foundations, limited liability companies, complex partnerships and overseas operations, all woven together to lower their tax bills.
Which is to say that...even if you set out a flat tax rate of X% it is possible to arrange situations where multiple trusts, companies, partnerships, etc, are arranged in such a way that even though they are operated for the benefit of an individual that individual has little to no real obligation via their engagement, and the interactions of those independent entities behave in such a way as to - on paper - present a reduced income then it becomes exceptionally hard to determine who owes what without devoting massive amounts of effort collecting all of these loosely related entities and analyzing flows of money.
I absolutely agree that there are questionable aspects to how the U.S. enforced drug prohibition laws and how non-violent offenders are treated.
But again, the fact is that we can openly have, and pursue aggressively, discussion about and attempts at reform around how this is handled.
In fact we see this by the spread of various drug legalization efforts in the U.S. and efforts at prison reform.
Though there is also a huge difference between a governments authority to regulate the distribution and consumption of psychoactive compounds (and/or the sale of such compounds) and the ability to even discuss how the government is handling the issue.
Free speech and criticism of the government are a bare minimum baseline. So you can actively organize your fellow citizens in an effort to legalize various compounds in the US and you can lobby and protest the government without any fear of being arrested because of what you are saying. That is a completely different world than what goes on in China. If you are a dissident you are a criminal.
And with respect to whether or not the UN could openly address internal affairs of the U.S. - well it does: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1
Yes the U.S. ambassador to the UN had some choice words about that specific report but it was all out in the open and wasn't suppressed
Only inasmuch as they were born in Europe who in turn had to flee their home country to pretty much make it a reality.
In the article in questions here no one is talking about intervening in the internal affairs of other countries.
The point of contention is that China is actively working to prevent the very discussion of what is happening under its authority. And they are actively using violent physical force to impose their authority and prevent discussion and dissent within their borders.
Is history replete with examples of Western countries undertaking violent imperialistic expansion? Absolutely.
Is that what we're doing now or talking about here? No.
> I'm not even sure if they're really expressible in endogenous Chinese languages.
And it never will be expressible unless and until free and open discussion can be engaged in.
I am not saying that there aren't parts of the U.S. government that actively work against free speech - because that is certainly the case.
However the very fact that we can discuss these things (or that there is a book that is freely accessible to all on the subject of a specific instance of institutional oppression in the U.S.) openly and without fear that our doors are going to get knocked in and see us getting swept off to a "reeducation camp" are the signs that we live in a country that strongly values free speech.
The U.S. does not have a perfect track record by any means...but for all of the examples you give of bad action by the U.S. as an institution I am aware of large and public and accessible documentation in the forms of museums, installations and other means of dissemination and availability.
In other words the U.S. airs (or allows to be aired) its dirty laundry as much or more than most other countries. And while this invites "whataboutism" it certainly, in my opinion, helps validate our position to openly question and try to discuss the actions of other nations.
In the one case you have China actively violating the freedoms and liberties of the people living under its control and on the other hand you have the UN as a collective body seeking to have a discussion about that.
China is actively seeking in this case to kill any sort of discourse. The UN has no power to impose its values on anyone else. It can, as a body, take certain actions to indirectly affect nations of the world...but it is not a world government that can impose anything.
In this case all that was on the table was a discussion - and even that was untenable to China.
That is China imposing it's values on others in a very absolute way - and I agree...that's an iffy thing. I would go even further and say it's unacceptable (by any country) to try to completely silence discussion.
There was a time when there were powers and authorities in the Western world that would silence dissent via violence and murder.
See Galileo and the Catholic Church as an example. Or the Inquisition. Or any number of other examples of absolute authority executed by a State or State based actors in the pursuit of silencing dissent and controlling discourse.
A fundamental component of American ideology is the protection of free speech and dissent. Pretty much unequivocally. E.g., the "old" and "different" culture of authoritarianism that controlled Western civilization was overturned to give individuals more freedom.
So far this dedication to individual liberty and freedom of thought and expression is a relatively short lived blip in human history - but arguing that Chinese culture is just "old" and "different" side steps the fact that on the one hand we see an evolving and changing culture that embraces the individual...and on the other we see a continuance of abusive authoritarianism that subjugates individuals in pursuit of preserving the status quo.
I mean...if they could organize they could have the effective weight of a union - but the circumstances of Uber's employment scheme make that more difficult.
I imagine that would only be orders of magnitude harder to manager in this circumstances than in previous generations.
Especially for Uber who can incentivize payouts in an elastic fashion as the available labor pool shrinks. Service quality might decline a bit as available drivers decrease...but Uber won't even have to explicitly go out and find "scabs" - they can simply temporarily surge pricing to entice some of the drivers who either aren't striking or who aren't as committed.
Difficult indeed to really cut at the heart of Uber in this case and really swing some leverage as organized labor.
> a common global framework ....will ensure that the Internet does not get fractured, entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections.
Homogeneity favors business but does not foster independent or challenging thought.
Converging on a "baseline" common set of standards for "harmful" speech and what constitutes "privacy" is only going to reach the lowest common denominator.
Let people opt in to the level of control and sanitization that they want, but do not apply global restrictions without opt-out.
My girlfriend tried out the Instacart gig for a while as she finally got her chronic low energy and fatigue addressed through B12 shots and wanted something to occupy her and give her a little extra spending money outside of what's budgeted.
That experience was absolutely demoralizing in terms of what she was able to actually make. Granted we live in a lower density city in the southeast so that result makes sense. But everything is very skewed toward the company in the case of Instacart...mileage reimbursement is from the store to the delivery...and you can be sent 10-15 miles from your point of origin to the store to purchase goods at.
I'm not surprised at all that Uber (and the gig economy as a whole) are squeezing their "independent contractor labor force" given that for them it's just a stepping stone toward a fully autonomous pipeline. The calculus here isn't toward establishing and maintaining a happy and committed workforce but bridging the gap between funding and profitability through autonomous solutions.
I don't know what the answer is but I couldn't imagine being in a position where one of the few viable options available for any sort of gainful employment was working as part of the "gig" economy.
edit: If that rate is intended to also cover fuel costs then fuel can easily eat up >10% of that $0.60/mi rate. Man.
> you end up on the list for being sued over the money you owe
You mean like the summary judgments that can be leveled against debtors in the US by debt collection agencies...
And which...ding your credit score. Which makes it harder to get credit...secure a loan...(sometimes) get housing...(sometimes) get a job
Versus...institutional segregation and denial of services by the government. Definitely not even in the same ballpark and definitely an artifact of the "social credit system" as described by the authors of this article in other comments here as being an accumulated set of practices and programs in China - no single thing.
> Its revelation that multinational corporations, including some of the most prestigious brands in the United States, had been making illegal contributions to political parties not only at home but in foreign countries around the world would later be described by Ray Garrett, the chairman of the SEC, as “the second half of Watergate, and by far the larger half.”
Is in reference to this:
> the Multinational Corporation Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy of the House Committee on International Relations; and the President's Task Force on Questionable Corporate Payments Abroad
In all earnestness I am curious what your definition of "suffering" is.
Is your position that there is physical violence that has been done that would not have been done had Gab not been available? If that is your position do you have evidence to support it?
Or merely that the propagation of certain ideas is itself a form of "suffering"?
It is interesting to see "increasing activity level" as being a decrease in comfort. But I suppose that's because "comfort" here isn't defined absolutely. I also am not sure that "comfort" is an attribute that should be optimized for in disregard for all others.
If this statement is read as "anything that does not have 100% positive feedback is undesirable" then I think it would be very challenging to make any improvements in a person's life.
But then I also don't think that "comfort" is necessarily an ideal target to optimize. I think a more holistic measure such as "satisfaction" is a more productive target. We can find "satisfaction" in things that are not 100% pleasant but which in turn result in greater happiness or feelings of contentment than doing only those things that have positive feedback.
This measure of "comfortable" also does not seem to account for the secondary effects of "comfortable" choices. E.g., if we eat only "highly rewarding foods" and become obese we see discomfort in other parts of life (loss of mobility, health issues, difficulty performing mundane physical tasks, etc)