The A10 Warthog is still in service due to the outsized volume of some incredibly wrong voices being able to shout down modern understandings of warfare. The role of CAS as an extension of the ground troops themselves controlled by infantrymen with tooling to automate that job is the future but the military industrial complex moves slowly.
Yup, Medicaid and SNAP are extremely efficient. Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them. Additionally you mentioned that Medicare gets money to medical providers but I suspect that was meant to mean medical insurance providers - rather than health care providers (like doctors) since the system is partially direct payments but mostly runs through intermediary privatized companies and, of extreme note here, is that Medicare is famously barred from cost negotiations so while our Canadian healthcare system can talk to a pharma manufacturer and tell them "The price for this drug is unreasonable, we won't cover it unless it's cost competitive to biosimilars" Medicare just needs to roll over and accept whatever made up numbers it's given.
The benefits that are intended to go exclusively to the impoverished though, those are extremely means-tested and often have work requirements or other hoops to jump through.
> Social Security is almost completely disbursement charges but those disbursements aren't means tested so even quite wealthy individuals receive them.
Only to those who paid into the system and far less than they personally could have earned on investing the same dollars.
Yeah, one of the problems I have with taxes is that if I pay $100 into taxes I don’t get $100 of value back. Everyone should get at least as much as they put in back. Also, some other people should get more back. But we shouldn’t spend more than we make as a government.
Assuming the presence of a sovereign wealth fund which does work somewhat logically for programs like social security - that would make sense. The government should sensibly invest money they're holding onto... however, it's unrealistic to ever expect the government to tolerate a level of risk and thus a rate of return above what you're personally comfortable with so it's unrealistic to assume that the government will be as efficient with money as you'd personally be if they'd never taken that money.
Additionally, a lot of these programs will pay out beyond what you've personally put in - programs like Medicaid are nearly entirely social subsidies to ease poverty and financial distress, so I'm not certain where you'd find the money to pay for them if not looking at either other people's taxes or debt.
As a taxpayer I expect the money I give to the government to be evident in some social projects but I don't personally expect that for each dollar I pay that I'd see a dollar in benefit to me personally. I have a belief that I indirectly benefit from the expenditure of charitable safety net programs even if I never expect to collect from them directly - the improvement in the lives of those around me is to my personal benefit by making society more just and egalitarian as well as reducing the incentive for crime which is a difficult to measure but observable direct benefit to myself.
The fact that so much of our budget goes to debt servicing is probably my personal biggest objection as it is effectively just a wealth extraction from our earn national budget to some select individuals.
I think it's extremely hard to argue that kids tend to be emotionally immature and especially vicious in this regard. But considering the GP has admitted that in retrospect they find this action to be a dick move I think it's important not to try and generalize immature behavior to all of humanity.
The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.
1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.
There's never going to be philosophical consensus on the "good/evil/social/antisocial" debate because the human impulse to self-justify and believe that you're the "good guy" is extremely powerful. Those of us who seek to understand human nature have to proceed without consensus as a goal.
Mao Zedong was able to convince kids and teenagers to have their parents and teachers killed during the Cultural Revolution by convincing them that it was prosocial behavior, and indeed their duty. So the question is fraught with conundrums of the form "humans tend to prosocial/antisocial according to which standard?"
There are plenty of business' products that I use where I'm unaware of if I share or don't share the owner's political views and I'm totally fine using them. Elon Musk has made it impossible to not be aware of his political views by constantly shoving it down our throats.
OpenAI, xAI, Anthropic, Google, MSFT, Spotify, Duolingo and NVidia - those are the ones that come immediately to mind. They're either selling the AI (or the tools to make the AI) or hoping against all hope that they're on the right side of bubble history.
If we soften the claim to "increase engineer productivity" I think something like 70% of engineers would also agree. If you tack on "if applied wisely" then you'll probably be up to 95% of engineers
I think it opens them up to a huge customer base of less technically apt people who just downloaded some random "S3asYourFS.exe" program but also opens them up to needing to support that functionality and field support calls from less technically apt people. I don't know if that business decision makes sense (since AWS already lacks the CS infrastructure to even deal with professional clients) but the idea that you could get everyone and their brother paying monthly fees to AWS is likely too tempting of a fruit to pass up.
No - it's actually local variance in materials coupled with the difficulty in moving materials between markets economically. Some areas just have better suited limestone or gravel or sand and can afford to build resilient structures for a fraction of the price that it'd cost in other areas.
This issue here is mainly that it's very expensive to ship all the components of a Concrete in the volume necessary in an economical manner. Some areas of the world just lost the lottery when it comes to having resilient building materials.
Corruption absolutely is an issue as well - I don't mean to downplay it - but even if we remove it as a factor there are just a lot of variables involved in making a reliable Concrete... finding a good mix is an artform and if, for instance, your limestone quary suddenly hits a more clay-laden amalgamation then your Concrete that was reliably lasting for three decades under certain conditions might suddenly lose a decade off the expected lifetime. That change in material quality can also be difficult to detect so there are real quality assurance issues in Concrete mixtures outside of just corruption and cutting corners.
reply