3,933 karma · joined July 11, 2020
(Not just delayed briefly by starving investment or something.)
I don't think "cannot" should be the standard. If the same or better standard of peer review isn't provided (empirically) by some other system, then that's a legitimate criticism of the other system.
That's not totally obvious without sorting out the details. Similar to copyright, it seems to be inefficient (in the sense that it artificially restricts supply) but certainly a lot of people think it helps improve the overall supply of creative works.
I mean, sort of... but with something as complex as aviation, the feedback cycle into the market is slow and noisy.
The two of those that are easy to measure will always get chosen. It's not that people don't want "good", it just takes a lot of effort to figure out if you are getting something good or not.
Reputation is one way, but that can be, and often is, spent for short-term gain.
What's wrong with a great engineering firm? And is it possible to somehow reflect that greatness in the stock price better so that people don't feel a need to come in and change it?
People wanting to get more stuff faster is a universal motivation not limited (in theory or in practice) to capitalism. To the extent that anyone is exploited, that's just selfishness, again a universal motivation.
Obviously this requires some mental gymnastics to eventually complete both X and Y, or to come up with some task Y that feels important but actually is not. But it works great.
First of all, it's often a false dichotomy: you can answer the X directly and dig deeper to find Y.
Second, it places the questioner in a "normal" bucket: surely they must have the same boring mundane needs as everyone else, and we just need to figure out which one it is (Y). But some people really are working on something interesting, and need to understand X to do so.
Thirdly, even if Y really is better for them, they still might benefit from an answer to X to avoid asking future variations of X.
Sure, when something is clearly derived, or just expressed in a new medium, then I'm sure it's still covered. But if it goes through an LLM and the result bears little resemblance, how can that still fall under copyright?
I mean, it kind of makes sense but it's not obvious.
I don't think YouTube was profitable before acquisition. Now it's profitable and a great product.
Some people are great at the research / experimentation phase but not great when it comes to scaling up. Other people aren't great at scaling up but are great during the operational phase.
The operational phase is the only place profit is generated, but the other people need to get paid, too.
The accused can't be compelled to produce a password, and the prosecution can't use the defendant's silence as an argument against them. BUT the police can explain in court that they were unable to search and/or seize what's listed on the warrant due to an unknown password and unbreakable encryption.
In other words, they can't say "Joe wouldn't give us his phone password and that means he's guilty". But they can say "we were unable to search his phone or collect these documents listed on the warrant due to unbreakable phone security".
There's not a huge difference between those two statements when it comes to the jury. They'll understand that evidence is missing, and that the defendant can probably produce it but won't. Maybe civil libertarians won't like that, but I think that's misplaced: there is a warrant, remember, it's not just a random search. And the defendant can always produce it if it's exculpatory.
My question stands, then: does "legalize and regulate" mean that there would be regulations preventing the stated problems in Portland, and that they'd be actually enforced? Or is it essentially just the same as plain legalization?
A lot of comments here have a "Portland was a lot better before decriminalization" theme. So at least some people might think the war on drugs was working out better than the current policies.
I'm not saying we should bring back the war on drugs, but the argument you are making can no longer be taken for granted.
Regulation sounds good, but it doesn't just happen because it's written down. Enforcement is the messy part.
Now there's more of a safety net (money, foster care, and ambulances/ERs) which is largely good, but provides more opportunity to enable addicts.
I'm immediately skeptical of any idea where bad results become evidence that the idea should be deployed more widely.