drewrv

It’s interesting to me that in these conversations, some people think it’s inevitable that intelligent life will want to colonize other systems (or die trying) while others think it’s impractical.

But I think both of these opinions come from human-centric reasoning. A species that could hibernate may be able to control hibernation through technology, so a ten year journey wouldn’t be as complicated for them. Other species on earth simply don’t have the curiosity to explore the way humans do.

Speculation about alien intelligence is interesting to me, but I imagine it’s a lot weirder than we think. Especially around topics adjacent to intelligence, like curiosity, motivation, and cultural values.

I suspect solving those problems within a solar system will almost always be easier than traveling to other systems. Then again maybe travel to neighboring systems is easier in a denser neighborhood.

I do think this idea answers the Fermi paradox. We are here early in the universe’s life. Especially considering it was mostly just hydrogen and helium for the first few billion years.

Gaining the power to shut down businesses that are a public health threat? They already had that power and use it. Most people are glad restaurants are held to cleanliness standards and concert venues have capacity limits per fire code.

Requiring people to wear something in public? They already do that too with shirts and pants. And again, I think most people prefer it that way.

Wealth begets power. We have checks in place for political power (term limits, separate branches of government). We have restrictions on arms (tanks, anti-aircraft guns).

There are countless examples of wasteful or pointless government programs, and countless successes too. This article feels pretty specific to me though. It’s saying the federal stimulus in the spring was mostly successful, however the situation is still ongoing and the federal government isn’t likely to act again. Therefore it’s up to the state to do something similar, and the state can afford it by raising taxes on capital gains.

I personally know people that were saved by the $1,200 earlier this year. Waitstaff, retail workers, even some healthcare workers. This is a clear example of “we are part of the way there and need more funding”. The vaccines are being manufactured, we just need to give people more time.

> Without addressing the actual root causes of inequity, distributing... funds will amount to little more than an invitation to use force to take from the haves and deign to the have-nots

I’m curious what you think the causes of inequality are? Picketty makes a strong case that it’s caused by the fact that wealth grows more wealth at a faster rate than labor grows wealth. In which case a wealth tax or capital gains tax would cut right to the heart of inequality.

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people

I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this:

The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more wealth and power. It doesn't have to be this way, it's a product of our laws and can be changed.

Warren Buffet doesn't directly exploit anyone. However he does pay less taxes than his secretary. To the extent that Uber drivers and Amazon warehouse workers are exploited, it's because our society has millions of desperate people struggling to get by. What's the point of being the wealthiest nation ever on paper, if there's terrible schools, high infant mortality, and lead in the drinking pipes?

Lots of people have jobs where they should be disruptive to other teams. Financial audits are disruptive to accounting. Legal can disrupt just about any team. HR can disrupt hiring decisions. Security disrupts my desire to move fast and break things.

That does not create a hostile work environment. It's healthy and normal. I would expect an ethicist to fall under a similar category.

Damore was an engineer whose continued employment would open the company up to a risk of lawsuit.

Gebru was an ethicist who was willing to resign over some deep concerns. Presumably ethical concerns.

We don't know much more about Gebru's situation, but they're different enough that it's not a useful comparison.

This is something I've wanted for a while, for personal use only. I wonder if their pricing and license will actually accommodate this kind of use case though.

“ There is a secret message under Drumpf's 2016 square, which reveals a bonus trend: 'No nominee whose first name contains a 'K' has lost'.”

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

> It would hurt the current duopoly

I get that this is conventional wisdom, and a lot of smaller parties support rank choice voting because they think it helps them. But neither of the major parties like "spoiler" candidates, it seems like the ability to "collect" votes from the green or libertarian parties would be in their interest.

I suspect the reason it's not more widespread is more mundane. It isn't incomprehensible, but it's more complicated than what we have. If you're explaining you're losing. Also people are (perhaps rightly) cautious about messing with how elections happen. Finally, it doesn't ignite the same passions as abortion or police reform. The interest groups pushing most strongly for it are, by definition, small and not really powerful.

It's also possible he's a once great journalist who has gone off the rails. Which seems likely given the fact that the editors at a publication he founded refused to publish this piece.

> There's no hard proof they're real

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Lean to the left compared to what? I don't think there's an abstract platonic "center", rather the center is defined by the major institutions in a society.

These institutions probably lean left of our national politics, but our national political system was intentionally designed to give disproportionate power to rural, low population areas.

Republicans have said the same thing about Hollywood, academics, journalists, and scientists. And they've cherry picked stories to "prove" it with those groups too.

I'm genuinely curious what the republicans want here. I get that they're mad because they think big tech is out to get them. And I don't even expect a policy proposal or bill at this stage. But is there even a paper from a think tank, or a right-wing law professor, who has put forward a coherent framework for how to regulate social media?

My understand is that if you repeal section 230, social media sites would either have to be completely unmoderated (like 4chan) or really heavily moderated (as they'd be liable for everything people post). Is that their goal here? Or if they want to replace 230, what would they replace it with?

If that's what people actually wanted, they wouldn't need to regulate it with zoning laws.

I understand that people should evaluate products as they're delivered, vs promises of a vague wonderful future product. And Tesla has made some wild promises that they've taken payment for, but I really doubt they can fulfill.

That being said, one thing that I like about my spouses Tesla is that it reliably gets OTA updates that adds features and improves functionality. For example, they recently added a video feed from the blind spot cameras when I'm in reverse. I'm not sure of any other car brand that would do that. My experience with other brands is that, best case scenario, it would take a trip to the dealership and hundreds of dollars to add a feature like that. More likely they'd try to upsell me on a 2021 model. Meanwhile the Tesla adds that stuff on a regular cadence while I sleep.

I'd bet the 2018 Tesla they tested would perform competitively with todays models. And in two more years the 2018 model will compete well against 2022 models. CR shouldn't speculate this way but it's probably worth consideration if you're looking for a new car.

They don't need to claim any reason, they can take down any content they want for any reason.

The only legal protection they have is not being held liable for the speech of their users. Newspapers don't have that because the writers are on their payroll.

From my understanding about section 230 (which mostly comes from the articles below), I'm not sure I understand what the republicans in this country want or expect from any of this. Removing immunity and treating social media companies as publishers will increase moderation, not decrease it. If Facebook or Twitter could be sued for libel based on what their users post, they would be incredibly heavy handed about hate speech and misinformation.

On the other hand, requiring websites to be "neutral" in order to keep their immunity is also a minefield. It would require new legislation, and what does that look like? Zero moderation? Would all posts have to be chronological, or would companies be able to algorithmically create timelines?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

> When big tech platforms can amplify or decrease thoughts, sources, and even political candidates voices, they literally decide politics.

That's been happening for some time now, by algorithms that are optimized for outrage, engagement, clicks, etc.

It's been argued time and again, from one side that Facebook and Twitter are private companies and that free speech doesn't apply on their sites, and from another side that what we're talking about is an abstract principal of free speech, not the legal definition.

But if you remove the loaded term of "free speech", what's actually being discussed here is "website moderation policies". With that framing, what is the expectation for Facebook and Twitter? To devolve into 4chan?

Personally, I like well moderated sites. That's why I'm here! It's bizarre to me that so many other people who chose to spend their time here expect Facebook and Twitter to be laissez faire about moderation.

> Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left.

This year the president has sued to stop publication of two books because they embarrassed him, one from John Bolton and another from Mary Trump.

This year police in cities across the country have opened fire on journalists.

These are legal and physical attacks, on journalists and publishers, coming from government officials. Social media moderation policies are interesting and important. But if you see censorship and attacks on free speech only coming from one side, you should probably diversify your media diet.

It is really terrible. https://lifehacker.com/customer-service-chat-services-see-ev...

PBS Spacetime did a great video on this topic back in June: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0

As a founder, self funding makes a lot of sense, as you avoid dilution and aren’t beholden to a group of people expecting 10x growth every year.

But as a candidate I’d be cautious about taking a job at a self funded startup. They’re probably cash constrained so the base salary might not be as much. And if there is equity, I would want management beholden to people expecting 10x growth.

There's some misunderstandings in this comment. Liquidating only his gains would not mean he no longer owns any stake in Amazon. And while you're right that selling some of the gains might cause the share price to dip, there's no need to sell shares. He could transfer the shares rather than cash.

But honestly the fine details of this hypothetical cash transfer don't matter. It's a thought experiment to demonstrate the absurd situation here: a handful of people in this country are amassing more wealth than entire nations while millions of people are struggling to keep a roof over their head. Structuring our society that way is a choice, and I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a sensible choice.

USPS has to deliver mail to every address in the country, whereas UPS and FedEx do not. Comparing a public service that handles the long tail and edge cases to private companies that can axe unprofitable routes (or outsource them to USPS) isn't a fair comparison.

This reminds me of a similar article I once read: "I opened a charming neighborhood coffee shop. Then it destroyed my life."

https://slate.com/human-interest/2005/12/my-coffeehouse-nigh...