yeah, that is honestly a good win, going from awful side effects of prohibition to intelligent legalization. Even cannabis has been largely legalized, although there is the opiate epidemic to worry about now.
Still, overall, I feel like drug policy now beats 100 years ago :)
Obviously, calling out for violence and building organizations that commit atrocious acts of violence is a bad thing.
However, it is really hard to do without the help of others.
If you start arguing that your country should invade your neighbors and mass murder various types of people, the people listening have a choice in how they react -
do they politely remind you that we're generally happier and richer if we're nice to each other and "treat others like we'd like others to treat us", or shout "JAWOHL MEIN FURHER" and go invade neighbors and mass murdering undesirables?
The problem isn't always the guy shouting hate, it's the crowd listening and implementing hate.
> As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.
The piece compares the USA and 100 years ago.
He notices that we are still in a time of large social change, often in some of the same areas, while also noting that we are materially more comfortable.
I don't think "this some sort of a paid advertising piece, to make you feel better about inflation, lack of affordable medical care, lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs for recent graduates, etc...", I think it's just a historical retrospective.
Author is pointing out that material, we're more comfortable than 100 years ago, and it's true.
It was arguable also true in 1926 - I I'd rather have been 26 in 1926 than 26 in 1826 (especially if I were a woman or black), and I'd rather be 26 today than 1926.
Being educated enough to whine on the internet about how despite recently graduating from university, I've not found a job that pays me enough to buy a home in a super expensive metropolitan area, while not ideal, is still, in my opinion, than moving from the farm to go work in various factories and shops in the city.
Have you ever seen a graph of the stock market?
It doesn't always go up all the time, but in the long run, it generally goes up on average.
the two party system is, in my opinion, unlikely to go away without electoral reform to change election at all levels of American government from "winner takes all" to "proportional representation", if Duverger's law is correct.
I recommend you read the book "Pimp" by Iceberg Slim, about a Black America in the early/mid 20th century.
Personally speaking, I found the book very 'awe-inspiring'/it made me go 'wow' a bunch, because I found the author's experience so completely different from my own :)
I have a hard time seeing how "I'd like to live in a world where everyone is equally cared for" accidentally leads to "others must suffer for me to be better cared for than any other human who has ever lived", but then again I'm not exactly an intelligent person so I can struggle to understand these sorts of things :)
> power laws basically spoil it because it gives a hard worker an exponential advantage
s/hard worker/person with more capital/
I can make 500 euros from a day of consulting as a software engineer. That's a typical day, working remotely, 9AM to 5PM, with a nice long lunch break.
Minimum wage in Bangladesh is around $133 per month. Many workers in the Bangladesh garment industry work 12 hour days. I look at what they do, and think "wow that's really hard I could never do that, glad I don't have to work that hard to live".
Yet somehow, I have exponentially more money than they do. And, thanks to the beauty of our current system, I can go ahead and invest that in the stock market, and get even richer while basically doing nothing.
It would be nice if we lived in a word that rewarded hard work, but as far as I can tell, we don't, and never have.
Look at the institution of slavery. For literally thousands of years, there was "those who worked", and "those who had".
The system rewards decision making, not hard work.
Now, if you're a young tech worker working on an important project at a big company, yes, choosing to work hard, IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE is a good decision, and it'll be rewarded.
But if you're a child laborer in a Third World sweatshop? No, your extra hour at the office probably won't get you anything extra.
If you're a Roman Senator in the year 30BC, you don't get rewarded for your work, you get rewarded for deciding to have your slaves spend more time farming grapes for wine and less farming wheat because wine sells for a higher price, which means that with your good decision making, you can now hire more slaves, to farm more grapes, to make more wine, which you can make for more money.
And if you look at rich people today, what they have is probably closer to the Roman Senator than the Third World sweatshop laborer - they find a thing that people like to buy, and invest lots of resources (their money, other people's labor) into making that thing and selling it, and are rewarded with money.
I really hate to call people stupid, but I would actually go ahead and call people who choose option B idiots.
I'm sorry if that offends anyone reading this, you can downvote me out of spite if that makes you feel better.
I say this because I read a while ago (like years) an article in the Economist showing that happiness in a society is correlated with equality - (sorry for the dash I am a human I just happen to use em dashes sometimes) not just amongst the poor, but also for the rich.
You'll note that rich people in highly unequal societies tend to struggle with mental illness more than in equal societies.
Money doesn't buy happiness. Being filthy rich won't heal the hurt in your heart. If you're too stupid too realize that, that's fine, enjoy your suffering, but I'd appreciate you having the honesty to admit that you're a deluded moron instead of trying to create completely false arguments for why the misery you're creating for yourself and others is actually a sign of anything less than pure human stupidity.
I couldn't find the original Economist article, nor the study it cited, but here's a link I found on Google.
If you have a machine that makes widgets, which requires people to operate, the machine (capital) without anyone operating it (labor) is worthless, but if you have people (labor) without any machine (capital), you won't have any widgets.
I feel like this is one of those situations where "the whole is larger than the sum of the parts" - combining the power of capital and labor, you get much more value than just capital or just labor.
Of course, this does NOT imply that "I provided the capital, it couldn't have happened without me, ergo I deserve all the rewards" is true, even if, if we look at the history and current state of the world, generally speaking it is more advantageous to provide capital than it is to provide labor.
not the person you're replying to, but someone who agrees with the gist of their message - I personally use Claude Code as a better Google search for debugging and syntax.
It used to be "oh, why am I getting an error on line 352, let me google the error message and wade through Stack Overflow answers" now it's "Claude, why am I getting an error on line 352? Ah, it's because $REASON, let's see if that fixes it, yes, thank you."
Obviously reading the official documentation is very useful, but sometimes you can't find anything that relevant to your exact use case, and forums are also very useful, but it can take hours or even days to get a reply to question when the LLM can do it in like a minute.
there's a difference between having the LLM write stuff for you, checking it yourself, modifying it and merging it yourself, and just blindly trusting it to do whatever it wants.
You can ask an overseas consultant to prepare a prototype of your program for you, check it yourself, and only use it if it passes your standards, or fire your whole dev team and blindly trust the overseas bodyshop.
The difference, at least from my point of view, between "using" and "outsourcing" is that in the former case, you're still responsible for the output, you view it as a tool that helps in some use cases, vs just giving up all control.
The facebook/meta algo might be same for all users, but it had different inputs for each user.
HN, on the other hand, everyone has the same front page. If I like a post I can favorite it to 'bookmark' it, but HN won't modify my front page based on what I favorite, whereas facebook will.
I think the GP's argument is, when it comes to social media, "one size fits all" might be less addictive than "custom made" :)
email: [email protected]