I don’t disagree that addiction indicates a lack of something broadly related to “care”. I just take issue with claiming “it is necessarily better that people in pain receive care, and addicts do what addicts do”.
If this is indeed a spectrum (certainly debatable), with increased access definitionally increasing addiction, the argument that one side of the spectrum is strictly better is wrong.
I was arguing that such a complaint will fall flat with many people if they share the same general experience as me. Not that it’s “objectively” true or false, assuming you can find something objective to measure. In fact I don’t think you can find something useful to measure objectively, and will necessarily fall back on subjective arguments about what is better, more important, more moral.
Is it some custom pricing plan? I only saw the IAP program with those fees but it’s still a waitlist. Very interested to find a 10% all-in fee on $1-$10 transactions for arbitrary credit card purchases.
> The harm to society of people who need them not getting pain drugs far outweighs the pain to society of those who don’t need them abusing them.
I can see the argument here morally (and I agree with it), but in practice I know far more people negatively affected by drug addictions and drug addicts than I know people unable to get pain management medication they need. I imagine my experience may be typical, and so I am unsurprised the pendulum has swung so far.
My reading suggests that this is the correct interpretation. And I think it actually crystallizes in the question of whether such services should be allowed to exist. To me it’s hard to argue that we should prevent people from creating and consensually engaging in these large-scale social platforms from an individual liberty perspective. However in aggregate they have so much power to disrupt people’s lives. How do you balance these issues?
If 23andMe is in the wrong here it seems to be because this entire approach of large scale social networks is wrong, and we must solve it at a regulatory level.
I found this to be interesting because it’s just such an outlier when it comes to cast bells. More than twice as heavy as the next heaviest, which itself is an outlier (and a modern creation). Could it really have been so huge, so long ago? Could we really find it in the bottom of a river? Pretty cool. Sounds like a Clive Cussler novel!
A bit tangential, but as someone who has been responsible for paying many people, I have never seen increased pay improve performance and rarely morale. Promotions have sometimes covered the latter.
What I’ve found is that mostly people work as hard as they care to, and that is mostly orthogonal to compensation and title.
How much responsibility does Square/Toast/whatever POS with integrated client facing tipping have for the recent change in culture? How much did they drive it vs. respond to demand? Does it matter?
(Personally I don’t think they have any culpability per se, just interesting to think about the mechanisms at work).
You’re exactly right. It matters only for one thing: peddling trash rage bait thinly disguised class warfare bullshit, with the only concern being clicks. More of the same:
> Chen and Yu purchased their house last April for $2.05 million, according to property records.
More of the same indeed. No relevance whatsoever. Stoking outrage so they can get those clicks.
> Written by Kevin Truong, Michael Barba, and Joshua Bote
You can reply to someone and agree with them, even provide additional bolstering evidence — like a direct quote. It turns out not everything on the internet is a fight you have to win.
If this is indeed a spectrum (certainly debatable), with increased access definitionally increasing addiction, the argument that one side of the spectrum is strictly better is wrong.