The correctness of the historical record is consensus driven since none of us were there; those experts had people around them providing signal through the noise. The outcome runs contrary to past story but achieving the outcome relies on consensus the new work was viable as a replacement.
Einstein did not start by defining numbers himself. He relied on consensus that our number system to that point was correct.
If you have some fancy notion that’s contrary to one that exists, do share. But also consider it’s consensus based social truth to even allow such ideation rather than subjugate everyone in to the mines.
It’s consensus that gives rise to big rockets and internet.
No hermit of a mountain man has ever changed the world. There was always consensus such efforts be enabled.
It would be nice if the American public would do better than toggle between a political duopoly.
But that would mean the exceptionalism of their system failed. Figurative belief is sacrosanct even to non-religious minds. There’s clearly an innate desire in the species to end the existential dread. Unfortunately the inability to allow for figurative death is increasing the probability it will be literal death of the species.
There’s no guarantee this author chose the right data points.
Just because you feel satiated does not mean the end of RvW won’t spark a sudden social meltdown. We could be one stupid political decision away.
We’re not property of the elites. None of the bank tellers by me own the banks. Mortgage strikes, wfh worker strikes could follow further erosion of human rights. Good luck going door to door, Jamie Dimon and co.
There’s a broader distribution of possible triggers than the ones in this post. People still need to eat so certain behavior will look the same. That doesn’t mean they aren’t ready to eat the rich.
Actual economics is easy; people trade information innately.
Ok sure an economist can wrap it in math with correct order of operations as it looks like this geometric object on paper. But that’s unnecessary obfuscation intended to empower them and traditional talking points.
It’s 1984 levels of double speak going on; without economists counting there would still be trade. Their work does not give rise to human agency.
I agree it does not come from voting as politicians themselves are just rent seekers.
Economic opportunity comes from the masses clearly not wanting to kill each other but collaborate. If the opposite was true we’d have done it already.
The politics of it are a synthetic inner monologue implanted by power structures. Circle English constructs all they want, the scientific truth is people collaborate without the high minded bullshit of Anglo-gibberish. We did it before formal language, why believe sermonizing in historical script means anything?
Bridges and machines need a formal language for safety. I am unconvinced formal language defining social truths can be anything more than mind viruses intent on thought policing.
Am I freer by ogling images of Pelosi with her magic scepter and nodding along with McConnell’s obvious equivocations? No. I’m surrendering agency to standing there nodding along, memorizing their platform and sermons.
Coddling such things in our inner monologue is antithetical to free speech and agency.
Look we have plenty of long term officials in Congress.
It’s a train wreck. Their plans enacted insulate them from real work and threaten the public with repercussions for not doing the work they won’t.
It was tried. This is the result; another nostalgia obsessed group of elites an gerontocrats bleating story and words of power that are nonsense.
We should ban old people from roles that impact the next generations they won’t be around for.
It’s tacit ageism against the youth but no one will call it that.
It’s shocking how kowtowed we are by people we’ve just seen have no ability to support themselves without abusing workers. So much for American memes of self sufficiency. Their self sufficiency is still based upon dumping on lower castes.
Contradicts actual economics research that voting out incumbents helps create opportunity for the public: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766
I’m far more inclined to listen to the second most influential economic policy group in the US (after Brookings) than a random blogger who makes it sound like giving a monopoly on power is a good idea.
Tribal feudalists and nomadic spirits have been waging culture
wars for a long time.
Contemporary British politics seem a bit selfish. Not sure the BBC should be taken too seriously as its government funders push austerity. Deflect! Project!
Tomorrow they’ll run articles about being more mindful for clicks anyway. Does anyone else get tired of this intentional emotional ping pong?
Just went through the interview gauntlet and timezone was a common topic. As software delivery pace is communication driven being within a couple time zones was explicitly called out by most recruiters and mentioned by the rest as being preferred most of the time. There was exception for working on the road even if it took you out of their preferred TZ band for a few weeks. Going too far away or for too long? Call it vacation instead. Just get shit done, was the sentiment.
So it’s in employers minds too. They’re still hiring local it’s just local is defined as a TZ now not an area code.
Disagree and we can do better than traditional vague tribal gossip with data.
Polls tell us clearly the public would prefer equality of condition with regard to health, education, and access to food of nutritional substance, by their support for policy that enables agency to those ends.
What they don’t care about is policy providing everyone TVs and McMansions.
We can be a bit more specific than the hand wavy, traditional narratives. How much less duplication of effort is there if stability and a casual life is available to the masses keeping truly useful work moving along and not mired down in administrative matters because people need to compete for jobs?
We don’t know because we can’t try. Tacitly making our system unfalsifiable.
When asked privately, opinions diverge wildly from public consensus. No one wants to publicly be the person who blinks.
Einstein did not start by defining numbers himself. He relied on consensus that our number system to that point was correct.
If you have some fancy notion that’s contrary to one that exists, do share. But also consider it’s consensus based social truth to even allow such ideation rather than subjugate everyone in to the mines.
It’s consensus that gives rise to big rockets and internet.
No hermit of a mountain man has ever changed the world. There was always consensus such efforts be enabled.