aknfffn

Ahh yep, I agree with that as well. Having said that I think selling the assets and renting them back means that what tax revenue there is, is structurally at a disadvantage from the days when the UK was prepared to own assets

False. The problem with the UK is that middle class expenses are much higher because what was provided by the state at highly effective cost is now a cost they bear privately.

Housing and education is expensive because social housing was sold and marketised removing an anchor on rental and ownership prices.

Expensive finance enabled the marketisation of tertiary education and so now instead of no debt, middle class graduates have ~$100k.

Healthcare is being sold to, again, enable marketisation.

This all leads to a middle class that is legitimately worse off that it was. Nothing to do with taxation, everything to do with the removal of the social provision of a ladder into middle class for the next gen

Straw man. I pointed out that publicly provided may be more efficient, my argument wasn’t whether profit seeking is universally bad

The moral dilemma is profiting from disease and the ill-health of a population.

The only argument against publicly funded drug production is that profit seeking is more efficient and the societal outcome is improved by not funding a public body to do this.

As other comments highlight, not only do societies publicly fund research (eg C19), they provide a legal system that protects monopoly profits, and won’t use single-payer bargaining on price…

So when pharmaceuticals then drop more cash on executives and shareholders it’s natural to question turning Covid19, cancer, or obesity etc into a profit centre for the wealthiest in society

I think the issue with “don’t worry about things you can’t control” is, in this tech forum, not as valid as you might think.

We are building technology, to suggest no agency is helpful in avoiding any feeling of responsibility or guilt — perhaps rendering your comment within the realms of waxing philosophical.

Who better to worry about this than the people of hacker news?

From a pure mental health standpoint, sure, it’s solid advice but I think it’s narrowed the context of the broader concern too much.

An alternative to learned helplessness of “nothing you can do” is to encourage technologists to do the opposite.

Instead of forgetting about it, trying to put it out of your mind, fight for the future you want. Join others in that effort. That’s the reason society has hope — not the people shrugging as people fall by the wayside.

Depression mediation by agency feels more positive, but I don’t have a lot of experience tbh. Just a view that we, technologists, shouldn’t abdicate responsibility nor encourage others to do so.

That culture, imo, is why a large section of tech workers, consumers and commentators see the industry in a bad light. They’re not wrong.

EDIT: to add, “what problems can I personally solve” also individualises society’s ability to shape itself for the better. “What problems can I personally get involved in solving”, “what communities are trying to solve problems I care about” is perhaps the message I’d advocate for.

I’d love to learn more about this — can you recommended any resources for building something from the ground up with the relevant safety-critical considerations? Appreciate any pointers