kangnkodos

If instead, he had negatively imapacted the finances of the company by alienating the right, he would still have a job.

It's only CEOs who go against the left who actually get fired.

If he had sent out a public tweet that he was against the Texas law, he would still have a job.

Public opinion on the left - OK.

Public opinion on the right - You're fired.

This is why self-driving vehicles will never be accepted in the west. OK, I'm including Japan in the west for this.

- Self driving software correctly stops.

- Human decision making overrides, and says go.

- Pedestrian gets hit.

- Self-driving vehicles are taken out of service.

Does anyone else see the irony of this situation? The software was right, and the humans were wrong, so shelve the software, and have all humans drive buses for the rest of the paralympics.

In the west, it's the story that counts.

But in China, the math would be calculated differently. The self-driving buses would keep rolling, without human supervisors.

The basic assumption is that if M1 talks with F1 for a long time, and M2 talks with F1 for a long time then M1 and M2 will talk for a long time.

Assuming it's based on hetero dating type situations, you can see why this wouldn't work. But there could be many other factors in play also. For example, if the M's above were talkers and the F's above were listeners, of any gender, you can see that two talkers or two listeners would not have a long conversation. But a talker and a listener is a good pair.

Instead they should look at this. If M1 talks to F1 and F2 for a long time, and M2 talks to F1 for a long time, then will M2 talk with F2 for a long time?

I think this would have a better chance of working.

Someone who is retired, has a million dollars invested in the stock market, no debt and no income today is not rich. They are middle class.

Assume they are collecting an average Social Security check. That's 18K per year.

If the person draws 3.5% of their net worth each year, that will give them an additional 35K per year. (I picked 3.5% because if you look at the history of the stock market, that's a safe rate to draw money for a long period of time, even during past historical market downturns.)

So they can spend a grand total of 53K per year. That's very close to the average US salary, 52K per year.

It's true they don't have to work. But they're not rich. They are middle class.

Is it basically a commune? If so, who washes the dishes? What are the incentives? What is the punishment for skipping dishwasher duty?

Every time I read about communes, I get so excited. I always get inspired by the ideals they are trying to live by.

But then when I hear the details about the day to day logistics and governance, it always ends up sounding like a terrible place to live.

---

I can't tell. It looks more like an organic farm with a few caretakers living on the farm, and financially supported by the community. I like that.

He is advocating for the homeless in order to help them not freeze in the winter. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

I agree. His heart is in the right place. And he's fighting the good fight. There is something wrong with a system which won't allow a spot somewhere in the city to put up tents. He's right about that.

But I don't think everyone has to go as far as you, and give more than they take. I think we can find win-win situations where we both benefit. I cut your your hair and you paint me a picture. We both win. But it's hard to find good one to one barter like this. Money is the way to find more win-win situations. In a system with no money, you're back to only one to one, so there are less win-win exchanges, and everyone is poorer.

I agree that in small situations you can bring social pressure to solve this problem. Sometimes. Some families break up over issues like this.

As you scale up, it gets harder and harder. You get a few people who are intentional free riders. The hard workers see the free riders sitting right next to them stop. Then more and more hard workers defect.

That system of emergency operations is a great counter example. You correctly point out that it's good to have a system with more than just monetary incentives. You have to have a mix of monetary incentives, punishments and other incentives such as just the feeling that you're helping out, or perhaps prestige.

I'm not arguing to get rid of all incentives except money. Those other levers are vital. I'm arguing against a system with no money.

Yeah. With money, there are lots of problems such as this too. I agree that money is evil. But I think a system with money is slightly less evil than a system with no money.

He wants everyone to suddenly stop using money. If that happened, who would wash the dishes?

Many communes have failed over this exact issue. They go on for several years with several people, usually women, making the sacrifice and doing what needs to be done. But eventually, the people who do the dishes get fed up and stop, or leave. And then the whole thing collapses.

The alternative is for the leaders to have some type of power to compel people to do the dishes, and some type of punishment to mete out.

There are certain tasks in society that no one wants to do. In order to get them done, you have to choose the carrot or the stick. Money or punishment.

If the society has no money, there's going to be a whole lot of punishment going on. It can work in theory, but in practice, a society based on punishment tends to snowball out of control, with the people in charge of punishment going too far. The people in charge make a small mistake in the size of punishment relative to the transgression. With money, small mistakes like this happen constantly, and they are constantly being adjusted by changing prices and salaries. The garbage man makes a higher salary than other manual laborers. But without money, the process has more steps, and is harder to get right. People protest, the leaders listen to the protests, go through the rule changing process, and eventually adjust the punishment to fit the transgression. Without money, more people are involved in the process. Some are removed from the actual issue. It takes longer for the adjustment to be made. With only the tool of punishment available, it's more difficult to fine tune every mismatch. In practice, it's really, really hard to get a punishment based society just right.

So you're saying that even though scientists have completely debunked the idea that water witches' success rate is above random chance, you would still bet money on the unscientific idea that the dowsers do better than chance.

Does this give you any insight into a person who would bet their life on the unscientific idea that vaccines are dangerous?

I don't understand either position, so I'm looking to you for more details.

It's true that people are people, and everyone has a weird thought now and then. It's natural. That's just how people are. Everyone all over the place has ideas like this.

The New York Times goes on and on about 12 people on Facebook repeating weird ideas about vaccines being dangerous. They are Republicans so that must be condemned. Because it's not scientific.

On the other hand, water witching is new age. So they're Democrats. So it's OK for the New York Times to give a wink and a nod to the idea that these Democrats just might know more than scientists.

It inconceivable how a Republican would believe an unscientific idea about vaccines being bad. It's natural to see how a Democrat would believe an unscientific idea about water witching being good.

#18 does not have any answer. It's impossible to cover the squares as requested.

Richard Cory had everything a man could want, power, grace and style.

#18 is impossible. This margin is too small to provide the proof.

"Access housing that is within their budget." It's by far the biggest issue to address. And also the most difficult one.

So easy to say. So hard to implement. Especially if the goal is that the access does not go away as income goes up.

Most solutions out there involve shoveling money at the problem. But in practice, this will just make housing prices go up. The poor will still be left out in the cold.

The only solution which might work is building more units that would appeal to people with low income in desirable locations. This is still almost impossible due to zoning restrictions, but it's the only way out.

Addressing ghosting is great! You should add something to Rethinking Triplebyte to indicate you are doing this.

There's no mention of the ages of the people responding to the survey.

I know several people who said they planned to never have children when they were younger, and then changed their minds when they were older.

What if I came to work at your company as janitor? And I did a great job. Worked hard. Attention to detail. Polite, and easy to work with. Arrived early every day. Stayed late. The best janitor in every way.

What are the chances I would move into another position at your company?

My guess is 0%.

You might keep me employed, and not fire me. Maybe pay me a little more. But there would be no realistic hope to jump up to the next level.

That's been the case for a long, long time.

But now something new is happening. Now professionals at many companies are realizing that they are in the same position. They see that hard work will not lead them to jump to the next level.

We're approaching Kessler syndrome. A situation where cascading collisions make certain orbits unusable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Maybe they were made to be walked, like a labyrinth?

This points out the absurdity of exactly two separate sports competitions for males and females. That's old fashioned binary thinking. Get rid of separate sports for males and females.

Instead, set up a lot more levels of each sports, and let each person compete at a level that makes sense for them, varsity, JV A, JV B, JV Z, club, intramural, etc.

I'm a male, and when I entered high school, I weighed 100 pounds. There was no way I could actually play on the football team. I could try, and sit on the bench, but that's all. I picked something else I could be good at. If they had a level with kids about my size, I still wouldn't have been that good, but I could have participated, got some exercise, improved, and had fun. And that's what sports should be about. All this focus on college scholarships twists the focus of sports around the wrong way.

Get rid of all college scholarships for sports for all men and women. Throw the whole college sports complex with million dollar TV deals and ticket sales out. Bulldoze the huge college stadiums and arenas. Turn them back into simple fields.

If you're really, really good at basketball, join the Overtime league, and make your way to the pros that way. But for the 99% of high school athletes who will never make it to the pros, add more levels, so anyone can participate, and bring back fun.

You grossly misunderstand the point I was trying to make. My point is more about who gets to say what's acceptable on the internet.

On the one hand, you have thoughtful, rational nosaltarians such as myself and millions of my minions, err... followers.

On the other hand, you have the craven beasts at Epicurious who want to encourage the consumption of eggs, living suffering plants, and even conscious salt.

Yes. Everything in this universe has at least a little consciousness. Even salt.

I say that the internet should be ruled by those with the most people pointing out problems. In this case the problem is that encouraging the consumption of conscious beings, such as salt, has logical consequences.

You may call my idea mob rule. But I call it the voices of a thousand rational beings simply trying to save one of our own.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

"Mob rule" as it might be called has one victory down, but we won't stop until we reach the logical end.

My moral standards are different and superior to the lax proprietors of Epicurious. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to hold back and let others violate my moral standards. I won't stop until everyone follows my unquestionably superior moral standards.

Yes. A thousand times, yes. Electromyography has proven that plants scream in agony at that point. Isn't there a more humane way?

New theories of consciousness posit that everything in the universe has consciousness to a greater or lesser extent. Even rocks are conscious to a small degree. And salt is a type of rock. Therefore, we must all rally together to shut down any company that encourages the ingestion of salt, a conscious being. We nosaltarians must impose our moral views on everyone else.

Some people publicly admit that they think it's OK to eat eggs?! Outrageous! Reading those words are causing me actual harm. Why isn't there a trigger warning? Egg eaters are on the wrong side of history.

I mean it's one thing if you sneak out to Waffle House at 3 in the morning when no one is looking for two over easy.

But anyone who publicly condones this barbaric behavior should be cancelled.

And any company that encourages this barbaric, utterly un-eggs-eptable behavior should be cancelled.

But they still publish recipes with eggs, the innocent unborn embryos of chickens. Disgraceful!

Is it correct to call the debate around renaming this a Coq-fight?

@thinkingemote - Thanks for one of the best comments in this thread.

Also, part of the way this swinging back to equilibrium will work is by the left tearing each other apart with more and more demands to just accept the liberal orthodoxy handed down from on high. At each step along the way, more and more people will pop out and realize that the whole thing is flawed because it is based on the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

This reminds me of the conspiracy theory book, Lab 257. There was a lab on Plum Island in the Long Island Sound that studied infectious diseases.

If you trace back the spread of Lyme disease in time, you get two points. One in Connecticut, and one on Long Island, where workers got on the boats to Plum Island.

The lab was studying diseases similar to Lyme disease at the time.

All those are facts.

The conspiracy theory is that Lyme disease was accidentally released by that lab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_257#Discredited_consp...