Ma8ee

There was no fake pity. I feel genuinely sorry for people that think that their value is only monetary.

It is only part of the world (or even the US) that behaves like this. And there's nothing given that says that the parts that do must. We can as a society choose differently.

And the problem with your solutions (not that they are bad in themselves), is that they will never gain traction while people believe that the economy is the end and not a means. It is easy to argue against socialism, et c., if you think that the economy is the only thing that matters. But it is hard to argue for the current system if you believe that what matters is people in themselves, not the role they play in the current capitalistic system.

I'm so sorry if you really believe that your only value is your economic value. And as importantly, that you believe that you are for the economy, and not the other way around.

The only reason we care about the economy is because it is a means to improve people's lives. If it doesn't, it isn't valuable in any meaningful sense of the word.

And your friends and your partner definitely care about if your are good friend and partner, and what they think about you is enormously more important than what your employer or the stock market think about you.

Society is for people, people like you. Not the other way around. And your value to society is definitely not measured in what stockholder value you can produce for an employer.

And in what lies the difference?

How do you know that they don’t? And conversely, how do you know any other human than yourself do?

If you simulate that chemical process in a computer, if necessary a quantum computer?

> hasn't been replicated anywhere that I know of.

Did you hear about this little band called the Beatles?

> The amazing thing about America is that there are paths for those not as wealthy

The US is not special in that regard, and in fact not even particularly good at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

To my knowledge there are many millions of teapots orbiting the sun.

It’s like saying ”I support worker’s rights.” There is in general a huge power imbalance between the employer and the employee, and a union does a bit to rectify that.

My understanding from trying to read the post is that WF isn’t happy with the process because the vote isn’t closed. It doesn’t sound completely unreasonable to me. And then they are attacked because they are working with a law firm, since a decade or so, with things that has nothing to do with union recognition thing. Apparently that law firm is known as a ”union buster”, but there’s no evidence that the law firm has been involved in the negotiations around the union. To me the argument that WF is evil and hostile to unions is weak.

I’m always careful when I see a post about how bad and evil WF is. They come up quite frequently nowadays. WF have powerful enemies, because you can still read things like climate change is real and vaccines are good for you there.

I don’t think WF is perfect, and I do think their shortcomings should be publicly criticised and discussed. But overall, I still think they are an important force for good, and will continue my monthly donations to them.

I’m referring to the climate disaster in my last comment. It’s global warming that is the main culprit. There has never been a class of people tending Canada’s forests by collecting sticks.

And? Capitalism is the current system, and the one that is actively thwarting efforts to mitigate the disaster. I don't see how the existence of other systems that would be equally bad or worse is relevant.

One of the many problems with limiting the amount of sunlight reaching Earth is that it reduces plant growth worldwide. This would not only decrease agricultural output, with the obvious consequences for food production, but also reduce the amount of carbon absorbed and stored by growing vegetation. Which of course wouldn't help.

Don't put this on the environmentalists when the simple explanation isn't short term cost effective to do this. If you need to put some big blanket blame, then blame capitalism. If nothing else because it has so far stopped all effective measure to stop the climate crisis.

That is often a different type of difficulties. I was thinking about decision like, should I buy car A or car B. I've done my research. Economy, safety, et c. are very similar. But it is a lot of money, and I don't know which is the "best", and of course I want the "best". I could spend weeks on a decision like this. Now I just acknowledge that they seem to be equal. Car B comes in a nice shade of red that I really like, so I buy car B.

Regarding your question, there's always going to be known and unknown unknowns down the line. My only advice in that case is to get to the unknowns as fast as possible. And from the start take into account that you most likely will have to rebuild a big part when you learn more. That is one of the reasons modularity and decoupling is so important. You want to be able to easily scrap and replace one part without it affecting everything. And keep it simple. Never try to build something that should be capable to handle all imaginable scenarios in the future. You'll be bitten by one of the unimaginable ones, and your complex "can handle everything" architecture will be too rigid to change.

> If a decision is hard to make, its often because the differences are small, and therefore it doesn't matter much and you might as well decide by dice-roll.

My life became soo much easier when I had that insight. I used to spend so much mental energy on decisions that most often were inconsequential.

Apparently it is so slow and expensive to build nuclear power so no commercial entities are interested without extreme government subsidies and guarantees.

One thing that has struck me with our own solar panels is that they have to be very dirty before I notice any significant degradation in efficiency. And when they do get completely covered in pollen or leaves, a brief rain is usually enough to clean them.

I don't say we shouldn't do research. What I do say is that we do have all the technology we need. And more importantly, we don't have the time to wait for some future technology that potentially could solve all our problems. The climate disaster has already started (and this [0] is not "the new normal", this is just the beginning, a hint of what we should expect).

The only reason we are in this shithole is because of the lack of political will. It would have been comparable trivial to solve if we just had started 30 years ago when scientists started to yell about that it was getting urgent.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jun/24/europe-he...

We don’t need any new and untested technology to solve to stop spewing out greenhouse gases. We just need to scale up current green tech. It’s not know how and technology that is lacking, it is political will.

You clearly have some hangups. Of course I know I am very lucky. The only people I judge are the even more lucky people who think they are entitled to destroy our planet just because they have the financial means to do so on a larger scale than most.

I don’t know what your point is. Of course some people have more choices than others.

(And btw, I’m faster with my cargo bike than the car drivers. I never get stuck in traffic chaos outside school and I never get stuck in traffic jams, and I don’t have look for parking. I hate the days when I have to use a car.)

No, I don't mean life satisfaction, I mean exactly what I wrote. Our material standards are unimaginable high compared to a few hundred years ago. I've never imagined kings to be particularly happy.

I am convinced there will be a point where humans will find other ways to compete than buying expensive goods. I thought the whole "humans are slaves to their genes" became quite out of fashion already 30 years or so.

I wouldn't call it poshy, but it is mostly inhabited by academics. And it is not in the US.

I genuinely don't understand why you think it is entitled.

What a miserable world view. What do you need a yacht to when you have two weeks of holiday every year?

While I agree that many people are status seekers, that can be different things. Where I live, a yacht is vulgar. Even a bigger car is looked down on if it isn't for some specific utility. Status is showing your care for the climate by leaving your kids in daycare with a cargo bike. Status is being able to leave work early to be able to spend time in the afternoon with your family, or do so some garden work. No one wants to be the one with an expensive car but not knowing your own kids.

If you instead imagine the perspective of anyone from 16th century, you’d realise we are already living as kings. We have way more food and clothes than we can eat and use, we have self driving carriages, magic devices with entertainment in our pockets, not to mention that almost all our kids live to adulthood.

At what point do we say that we don’t need to waste more of earth’s resources and instead find time to enjoy our current enormous wealth?

I think part of the point is that Einstein’s genius was only partially the brain. It was also a unique upbringing in a specific point in time that made it possible. We would have many more geniuses if we game more people the opportunities.

I like that idea.

I'd rather let Archive block access to that specific article for a while, but still archiving from the start.