justinpowers

You’re right in the sense that people often use the term imprecisely and hyperbolically, but in this discussion they are more right than wrong, at least by this measure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#Putative_oligarchies

> That’s entirely different than determining agricultural policy, or putting people in jail, or conducting the census, or maintaining the border, or doing anything else that a ruler does

You’re making a mistake of your own by conflating oligarchy with tyranny. They often go hand in hand, with the former generally preceding the latter. So it’s probably better to cry oligarchy before it’s a given rather than afterwards.

This is obviously about money supply. And UBI is not necessarily an increase in money supply (as it’s usually paid for by taxes and reduced welfare programs), whereas a government stimulus during an economic slowdown is, nearly by definition, an increase in money supply via government printing.

(And the relationship between money supply and inflation would be covered in 101, not 102)

Money circulates.

This is a gross misrepresentation of UBI.

Amongst other reasons, UBI would only be given to individuals. Unlike the stimulus, most of which went to industry and government.

I’m not deep enough into the culture to know whether disputing, or simply asking for explanation, of a downvote is “bad form”, but i would bet that using downvotes as an alternative to a cogent rebuttal is considered “worse form”. And there’s no way to counter it except to do as gp did and call it out, asking for explanation. Unfortunately the downvoter is unlikely to ever offer an explanation. So the gp and others like him (myself at times) relies on the crowd to figure out whether or not there’s a misunderstanding. Discouraging that, when the downvote is seemingly arbitrary, doesn’t help the situation at all.

How else can a downvoted commenter, and bystanders, learn?

> …I could have just logged into with root privileges if I wanted

He did say it, though indirectly :)

[edit: And then I got downvoted. Oh humans. Lol.]

The fit of alternatives was not the focus of the comment I was replying to.

The fact is that many people hold their wealth in cash, and many of the same people are part of vulnerable populations.

One shouldn’t remove another’s alternatives simply because it’s assumed that the other lacks access or sophistication. Even if true, both potential deficiencies are fully reparable and do not permanently negate the benefits of uncensorable money.

~22% of the US population if you equate being unbanked or underbanked with holding your wealth in cash.

Worldwide, the percentage is similar.

Of course being unbanked isn’t equivalent but it’s likely very nearly so.

Not to mention, the chances of being unbanked are higher for vulnerable populations, especially those who might benefit from uncensorable money.

They don’t “turn off” pain. Likely, they either objectify it (i.e. dispassionately observe the experience of pain) or ignore it (i.e. focus on a separate sensation) or dilute it (i.e. focus on “nothing” or alternatively, the all-encompassing sensation of “being”, the “now”, so that the experience of the pain is not the sole focus of their attention).

> Censorship? In Russia? Why, I never.

This may be your personal reaction, and though valid according to your (and my) personal experiences, it is not necessarily the reaction of others. Some people might need direct, firsthand evidence to be swayed. And still others would never accept any evidence whatsoever.

Besides, this may reveal exactly how and where Russia censors, particularly in instances that may be unexpected. Perhaps it will even reveal their thought processes and goals.

I’d agree if I believed they could/would take money out of their retirement accounts and somehow disallow benefitting from trusts, but that seems highly unlikely.

Prison time allows for disincentivizing as well as rehabilitation. Death sentence on the other hand…

Perhaps part of the problem are our prison conditions. And the minimal effort directed towards true rehabilitation. Fixing those might make prison time less ethically fraught.

Trump surely didn’t think it was a negligible fraction.

This is brilliant. Can you offer any more insight or background to this? Is there a name for this technique?

I would guess it has to do with zero latency.

And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.

Thanks. This all makes sense.

I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition.

Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards:

The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place.

The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox.

Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some).

In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics

Agreed. I wonder why?

Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics?

Or there’s a certain prestige carried by the traditional camera silhouette?

No idea. And I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly.

I must be confused because I don’t see how. Isn’t it the exact opposite?

GP is essentially saying “that’s what you’d say if you were lying” and I’m responding with a silly, opposing example of “that’s what you’d say if you were telling the truth”. They are both meaningless statements. The second serves to point out the meaninglessness of the first.

Or I’m just going crazy.

Desperation is certainly a dangerous beast.

Fortunately we aren’t quite at WW1 equivalence yet. And, my history isn’t even close to perfect, but i believe the Germans pre-ww1 were, per capita, much wealthier and much more aggressively nationalistic than your average Russian. They were also much more industrious and threatening (disregarding Russians current world-destroying arsenal and unpredictable leadership).

But you’re right, it’ll be an interesting, precarious situation regardless.

> I just don't feel like catologing every red flag instance on here. It's a more widespread social trend

Fair enough, but since this then becomes fully anecdotal and about personal perspective I should share my own: I am seeing far far less ignorance than i’d normally expect. And certainly far less than i‘ve seen the past few years within the US. But, that said, I no longer use Facebook. And I rarely use Twitter. So…maybe that’s why.

> I think you're drawing conclusions from OPs statement that aren't there.

Maybe you’re right. I’ve been seeing a lot of Russian-invasion-related hyperbole on HN; I’m trying to cut through the BS.

> The populist trend to try and deport/target innocent exchange students is definitely a trend in that direction however.

I’m even having trouble finding reference to this online. I see that Swallwell [1] suggested this, but the same article claims it was the first time the suggestion was mentioned by anyone. And I don’t see any other relevant articles at all [2]

[1]: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/swalwell-floats-ex...

[2]: https://news.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CExchange%20student...

Banning cats? Banning vodka? Firing Putin supporters?

This is bloodthirst? This is disregard for innocent children?

I must have the wrong dictionary.

[edit:as far as being simply “anti-Russian”, perhaps this qualifies. I can see how it might be concerning and even foreboding. And we should keep an eye on it. But i think it’s a stretch to call it anti-Russian. At this point, it’s really just anti-war and equivalent to communal shaming and shunning. I doubt many poor Russians will be hurt by the cat/vodka ban. And they certainly wont care that a likely-wealthy Putin supporter must now look for another job.]

> Public figures Russians being cancelled for not speaking out

Ehh, this is nothing compared to Japanese internment camps. And not suggestive of bloodthirst or disregard for children.

> anecdotes of "Russian" restaurants being boycotted vandalized

This is sad. And even sadder, completely unsurprising. But again, a few anecdotes of stupids doing stupid and hatefuls doing hateful, doesn’t qualify as a “bloodthirsty mob with no regard for innocent civilians and children”. Not to minimize the experience of those victims — I’d be furious and concerned about escalation if I were them — but the original comment suggested something much more broad-based and sinister.

(Interestingly, my first reply was downvoted prior to this reply. And this isn’t the first time I’ve been downvoted for an innocuous question related to this war. And no explanation or rebuttal is ever provided. I wonder…)

> it's being actively cheered on by a bloodthirsty mob who have no regard for innocent civilians and kids.

What are you referring to here specifically? Genuinely curious. I haven’t encountered much anti-Russian sentiment (yet), I’ve only noticed anger towards Putin, his cronies, and their soldiers. As far as I can tell, most understand that the Russian people didn’t choose this despite how little they did (or could do) to stop it.

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

So this ^ deserves a downvote? Please tell me why.

Similar events? Please specify at least a couple of the similar events you have in mind…

Huh? It’s also the exact same response you’d get if it had nothing to do with censorship. Your comment offers nothing.

You speak with such authority on these matters. You clearly must have sources and relevant studies to back your claims. Especially given the subject matter; it’d be quite ironic otherwise. So please do share your sources…

“Once we’re all at the bottom, then we’re all on equal footing. And effectively, relatively, socially, there no longer is a bottom or top.”

- A Smirking Philosopher

Shorthand for ”using an indoor rowing machine”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_rower?wprov=sfti1

Completely agree with you. I’m just continually surprised that some (many?) can so blithely disregard wealth and its concomitants when analyzing oppression in a capitalistic system.