165 karma · joined May 30, 2020
I have trouble imagining how labor could ever lack a political dimension, and the distinction that presents itself to me between the past supposedly 'less politicized' workplaces, is that workers (or at least minoritized workers) were simply less safe to discuss politics and justice in this context that dominates their life and survival.
edit: I believe [0] was the feature I read.
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/confessions-marcus-hutchins-hack...
As for being tricked by poverty, malnutrition, etc. statistics, check out these from the UN group FAO.[0] One in nine people go to be hungry every night. That doesn't just make me think 'this isn't perfect' that makes me sick to my stomach. Can you imagine one in nine people in your group of friends and family going to bed without enough to eat? I don't find that acceptable, and while I surely owe my life to modern medical science, I find it truly galling to compare our current state of affairs to a utopia.
Or we could extrapolate from this UN report about child mortality: [1] 'At least one child dies every ten minutes in Yemen because of preventable diseases such as diarrhoea, malnutrition and respiratory tract infections.' That boggles my mind. Assuming that trend was accurate for an entire year, more than 50 thousand children would have died of preventable causes, just in Yemen, just in 2016. That is not utopian.
0: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1152031/icode/ 1: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/malnutrition-amongst-c...
0: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/global-nutrition-re...
ps. I love JACK and Ardour, you are awesome!
What I meant by 'making rules out of chaos', is taking evidence from places like search rankings and recommendation widgets, and interpreting how that ranking came to be, the extent to which it was influenced by the presence of links on other sites, the presence of keywords, accessibility features, the video length, and so on. Is that a poor understanding of SEO, and/or do you disagree more with the original phrasing?
As for the other inaccuracies I would be grateful if you mentioned them as well so I can rectify them.
If you're interested in a more theoretical (and less bourgeoisie oriented) discussion of the tensions between a social contract justification for punishment and our practical inability to leave the state, I would recommend "Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play" as well as "A Theory of Justice", both by John Rawls, as well as "The Principle of Fair Play" by A. John Simmons. You may know the second as a standard component of any introductory political philosophy curriculum, and the first and third were parts of a philosophy of law class I took, taken from a textbook by Frederick Schauer. They are quite interesting.
The conclusion I have come to is that we are morally bound by the laws of a state in proportion to the degree that they benefit us in comparison to other possible bodies of law. This approximates our willingness to agree to a given scheme of rules if we were presented with free migration between all possible states, and the extent to which we would prefer the state we are actually in, we should be considered to have willingly agreed to their laws even if that did not happen in reality.
Doesn't seem like it to me.
You mean all of the workers at foxconn benefiting from their innovative suicide nets?
Whatever ideas you have about the state needing to have the highest authority in the land, if we follow that through by not holding them accountable for agreements made, then that actually substantially dilutes the power the state can have.
> We were also unable to control the contents of a file on disk
From the first and second sentence.
[0]: https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/releases/tag/1.46.1 (basically just MS source minus branding)