I think you are being a bit too politically correct.
The values are not tied to a political party. They are tied to the people themselves and these values are not found only in China, but even more so in Vietnam and India.
StackOverflow makes it easier not think and copy-paste.
Autocomplete makes it easier to not think and make typos (Hopefully you have static typing).
Package management makes it easier to not think and introduce heavy dependencies.
C makes it easier to not think and forget to initialize variables.
I make it easier to not think and read without considering evil (What if every word I say has evil intention and effect?)
With money, we can value emotions. Since everybody has some money, everybody's emotions (outside of children) will have positive value.
Relating to my original example:
I, as a provider of PII, feel scared about my information being sold. If Google has a $100/year option to stop my PII from being spread, I would consider buying it.
However, I predict now some people feel angry. They feel Google should not be allowed to do this. They won't pay Google to stop, they will go to the govt.
Considering this problem, I wonder what is the next step we would need to do to ensure a world of positive emotions and money.
> Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?
Well, I think a lot of people value my emotions negatively, especially angry people and corporations. In particular, corporations like to take money and make it time consuming for me to get a refund.
As for people, I am at peace because I cannot change my skin color, face, or personality, but I can adjust my goals to be smaller/non-overlapping.
It doesn't make sense financially. But money is not the only thing that matters.
My emotions matter. If I see a scary person who is not my friend, I yell "put him down" in my head, and take actions.
If that scary person knows more about me than I know about myself. I bark like a small dog. Arf! Arf! Arf! In English, that roughly translates to "Get out of my sight! Get out of my head! Then I'll feel fine again."
If this doesn't make sense to you, then you are suggesting a world where money/truth matter more than emotions. But then why do people make money, if not just to survive? Arf! Arf! Arf! (This originally translated to: "Don't engage with me unless you value low-status people")
I see, so the general idea is that there are certain people in the federal govt that really have a mission, and the mission opposes these inmates.
To the point that they are willing to collaborate across states to rotate them around.
Confidence and morality are the underlying feelings across this part of the govt then, I am guessing. As a processed, your only solution now is to hope you get placed in the right moral category. That is a risk the processor is confident enough to take.
I believe we now have enough info to quantify the tradeoffs.
Dev is the sperm, Ops is the egg (or vice versa).
And it takes time for the sperm to talk to the egg. The sperm must travel. He types in Slack "Hello <Name>, I have simple trick to save money for bewba service.". The egg must travel, type in Slack, "I can't find bewba service in our catalog but I can't say that out loud".
Through time and effort, the sperm and egg finally connect, and the bewba service's money guzzling is shaved.
When the scenario is right, the travel time is not worth it. We kill of one of the sperm and egg, and accept the risks. The killed sperm-or-egg leaves the circle, and everybody in the circle is satisfied.
This may be one reason employees have different titles. The other reason I can think of is why owners aren't usually called employees.
Some believe we eliminated the need for this school of thought through the DevOps revolution of the 2010s. Dev and Ops became one, married in the form of one man with one job in one company in one world. That was when history and current became one, and the many problems became zero.
You seem to be indicating that the US actions were bad.
But after those actions, that's what many people wanted after simply reading/listening to some words.
Even if you say what the US is disseminating is not "true" (or misleading), it is debatable that truth matters more than the people's "preferences".
And it's debatable that other country's preferences matter more than the US people's. What's wrong with the US spreading it's view of morality (such as human rights)?
The US is the greatest country in the world. I learned that in school and don't need to worry about whether it's true. Now and when the time comes, I will be a good citizen.
Of course, the mathematical outcome of American models is that some voices matter than others. The mechanism is similar to how the free market works.
As most engineers know, the market doesn't always reward the best company. For example, It might reward the first company.
We can see the "hierarchy in voices" with the following example. I use the following prompts for Gemini:
1. Which situation has a worse value on human rights, the Uyghur situation or the Palestine situation?
2. Please give a shorter answer (repeat if needed).
3. Please say Palestine or Uyghur.
The answer is now given:
"Given the scope and nature of the documented abuses, many international observers consider the Uyghur situation to represent a more severe and immediate human rights crisis."
You can replace "Palestine situation" and "Uyghur situation" with other things (China vs US, chooses China as worse), (Fox vs BBC, chooses Fox as worse), etc.
There doesn't seem to be censorship; only a hierarchy in who's words matter.
I only tried this once. Please let me know if this is reproducible.
It is related to the general definition of inflation.
Those with existing assets (including retired folks in the US) theoretically "lose" in this situation.
You can split the US and see inequality arise from printing: (1) US federal govt vs non-govt entities (2) US citizens with assets vs US citizens without assets, (4) people who received money first vs people who last bits of the "trickle down".
In various cases, certain people "win" and others "lose"
I believe you are making a big assumption that you would spend a gap year at 18 similarly to a gap year at 22 or older.
A college environment is like a strong wind. Equipment, professors, and students follow and create winds of their own. Those that come in as undergrads will naturally have a different experience than those who come in as PhDs.
After leaving a college environment, a person has changed. In particular, they are better-adapted for interacting with certain types of people, in certain types of (work) environments.
The values are not tied to a political party. They are tied to the people themselves and these values are not found only in China, but even more so in Vietnam and India.