> I need to justify that the items I am ordering are reasonably priced
Unfortunately it sounds like the process is misaligned with the intention. I doubt this mechanism actually works for efficient budgeting and even when it appears to work, it’s probably at the cost of standard quality.
It would not be higher in total if you included the estimated number of Uyghurs detained in internment camps. Even considering that, there are a couple other factors that don't make the numbers you presented mean much.
One factor is that the U.S. is the 3rd largest by population and will always skew higher in total prisoners than many other countries.
The other factor which explains the relatively high incarceration rate within the country's population is the investment into policing and reporting. We can take a city like Shanghai for example. They had a population size of around ~24m+ in ~2018-2019 [1] but only had 50k cops [2] (I couldn't find citable numbers for today but the data isn't too outdated). New York City, in comparison, has a current current population size of around ~8m [3] with 33k cops [4].
The 2 countries bigger than the U.S., India and China, also historically have had less investment in law enforcement, especially in rural areas [5][6].
Not an applicable quote to parent. Everyone made a choice, but not participating is definitionally a different choice than participating and going along with a specific option.
That was a great argument up until the guy who led an insurrection was allowed to run for president again. At that point, if you're apathetic, you're supporting what's coming.
Edit: The Royal You, not the person I'm replying to.
> The correct framing is that the first insurrection succeeded
If you redefine success to whatever you want, then sure.
> In 2029 every Republican will go along with plan A
If you treat people as enemies, they’ll become one. The arrogance in the assumption that every Republican will allow Trump to get elected for a 3rd term might spite them into it.
>If you redefine success to whatever you want, then sure.
The definition ModernMech actually uses in their comment would seem to be accurate. They did get away with it, they did assume power, and they are waging "information war" on the population. Although I might expand that to say they are waging war, in general, on the population. And government.
They're getting just about everything they wanted except AOC at the end of a rope, that seems like success to me. They're certainly having a better time than liberals or leftists. Or immigrants. Or black people. Or women. Or anyone else.
What part of this definition do you object to, and for what reason?
>If you treat people as enemies, they’ll become one. The arrogance in the assumption that every Republican will allow Trump to get elected for a 3rd term might spite them into it.
...which would mean they were enemies all along and ModernMech's assumption was correct?
People who actually had strong moral objections to Trump would oppose him regardless of the assumptions being made about them. People who lean into the evil because someone assumes they're evil are just looking for a justification.
And the assumption about Republicans seems justified given that they have the power to stop Trump and... haven't. At all.
Whenever Bitcoin is brought up, the same arguments against it are made by people who are too arrogant to look up credible counterarguments. I've decided to stop bringing it up to the HN crowd since it seems like a magnet for downvotes.
No, the perplexity chart is actually a really bad one to look at. It tracks a derivative of gold from 1975 onwards from which the S&P already accrued over 350% in returns. They also started the gold derivative off at a price of $178 while using the initial price of $17.57 to calculate S&P returns.
> Personally I am about $10M USD poorer for listening to people on the internet. I wish people would not spread falsities about finance that can actually ruin lives.
Ideally no one would blindly follow advice they don't understand or can't accept into their own mental model.
Any advice that you both understand and fits perfectly into your mental model is probably coming from whatever dogma you already follow and is therefore useless.
Any advice you don't understand is, of course, useless.
Any advice you do understand but doesn't fit into your mental model will just get rejected.
“I always pass on good advice. It is the only thing to do with it. It is never of any use to oneself.”
― Oscar Wilde
Although certain "advice" is actually SOP, in that case it is good to know (like stop, drop, and roll).
> Any advice that you both understand and fits perfectly into your mental model is probably coming from whatever dogma you already follow
I don't know what you mean by "fits perfectly" into one's mental model, but one can certainly accept new information validated against their own understanding of the world. People don't put an equal amount of weight in each of their beliefs and there are axiomatic ones that can be used in logical arguments to disprove the inconsistencies of others.
> How will his labor reconstiture itself into something new?
That's for the job market to decide. It'll be whatever people still find valuable to do.
> What if the most capable model you need to use to stay competitive costs $10k a month so you're locked out?
What if a capable computer needed to stay competitive costs $10k? Or if all SW jobs turned remote and electricity costs for computers cost $10k? I think the problem with this line of thinking is there was no logical path to this happening that was presented. You're raising a problem of an unrealized conclusion without a solid premise.
>It'll be whatever people still find valuable to do.
So you never considered
1. Some are simply permanently displaced and homeless
2. What the market wants is an arguable set back to overall society?
If all white collar work is obselete and you can't retrain, you're back to working on the fields or being sent to die in wars. If you have a bad leg or arm or eye, you're discarded by society. Is that a future to strive for?
> you'll simply have to do it three thousand times faster than your ancestors did to exchange that labor for a loaf of bread
Who's to say that a loaf of bread will be that much more valuable? You acknowledge that bread is cheaper than it used to be, but baselessly assert that an automatic loom will accentuate the value differential rather than lessen or maintain it with the innovations in bread making.
The originals of physical art pieces operate off the same logic that drives NFTs. As stupid as people think they are, they do show a modern drive for ownership of something with provenance.
Unfortunately it sounds like the process is misaligned with the intention. I doubt this mechanism actually works for efficient budgeting and even when it appears to work, it’s probably at the cost of standard quality.
reply