lanfeust6

That's not what an Economist does. They can tell you that a specific policy is likely to have an impact along one or two dimensions (e.g. interest rate), but they don't know what policymakers at home or abroad are going to do, e.g. Trump's trade wars, or impacts of innovations across industries, e.g. AI leading to RAM shortage and data centres.

It's childish to pretend like Economists are supposed to anticipate everyone's every move in order for their work to be given credence. If you think tariffs are bad for consumers, an Economists worked that out for you.

Chekhov is great

Similar sentiment, have not read the book but I imagine I've absorbed some of it through rat/ea circles and here. I can appreciate an argument that rapidly-improving AI, with mere probabilistic output, could lead to bad outcomes owing to neglect and complacency, or aiding at wreaking havoc. What I don't buy is the argument that sentient super-intelligence could "accidentally" manifest itself through recursive self-improvement, which is along few dimensions. I'm not sure it would be even possible to intentionally create one, but it would be redundant; you don't need RSI to generate the value people want from AI. We could pass strict laws against that, but it wouldn't satisfy the doomers who are already arguing that human minds are "just an algorithm", as though AI sentience is a foregone conclusion

correct, and I mentioned it because cancer warnings are explicitly now on the table for policymakers in the West related to alcohol, iirc

It's been covered everywhere in social media, including HN. Try the search function

Of course. It's just that cancer as a key risk factor has grown in salience.

What's interesting is how low alcohol ranks compared to obesity and diet. It makes the recent moral panic following loose interpretations of the Lancet study seem hypocritical, if not misguided. If anything deserves a "may cause cancer" sticker, it's nitrate-ridden processed meat.

> I don’t think dialogue has ever been the principal motivator for social change.

You cannot divorce dialogue from change in sentiments among the public. It spreads for a reason.

For instance, we've entered a period of populist hysteria with both left/right variants.

> they were certainly not popular with the locals either.

No, but the cause was popular enough with broader electorate.

Success of protests and grassroots movements does not scale with harm/annoyance to society. If that were true you'd just have to be as annoying and hostile as possible to win, which would have been sussed out a long time ago.

The predictor is public moral sentiment, and maximizing exposure to an issue people would be sympathetic to.

Blocking traffic "for climate awareness" does not engender sympathy. People think themselves "aware" that climate is an issue, but aren't on board with perverse degrowth solutions.

does Aurora still work? Last few times I tried, I couldn't install anything.

The update turnover is so fast for certain apps that I switched back to Fdroid.

I would think nicotine does most of the heavy lifting qua addictive potential

It's just because cigars (and presumably pipes?) are puffed, not inhaled. You absorb nicotine through the mucus membrane in your mouth (not as much), and otherwise enjoy the flavor. The practice with cigarettes is to inhale into your lungs. You could technically puff a cigarette I guess.

People make a big deal out additives and accelerants, but the carcinogens are 99% from smoke, burning plant matter. In that respect, pure tobacco isn't meaningfully safer. That said if you "puff", that's probably safer, though still risky (mouth cancer, and you're still going to inhale some amount of smoke).

I use a similar heuristic, but I think what we "do" for leisure is still consumptive, albeit an active sort. Reading, for it's part, exercises cognition better than something like TV.

I rank listening to music way above audiobooks and podcasts. Music is a revelation.

you might find this interesting - https://untranslatedjp.substack.com/p/japans-book-scene-is-q...

Japan's libraries allow cafes and bookstores to operate, which can increase traffic.

I like the smaller scale. Once, I really cared about having qwerty, but now I don't care with the way touch has progressed (using Futo). It's the experience of the BB I miss. I'm not sure how far Linux phones have come but last I checked they were sluggish and unstable.

I miss my blackberry

Related: https://www.bensouthwood.co.uk/p/eight-architecture-myths-bu...

Modernist builds aren't really cheaper.

Since the topic is preference qua aesthetics, your "point" wasn't analogous.

> These are some prominent Effect Altruism guys

https://www.chalmermagne.com/about

I don't see the link with Chalmers. I know Wiblin is.

> benefits like reducing pollution

Not over burying the waste, as mentioned in the article. And, it has the added externality of using more energy... leading to more pollution.

Littering is mostly cans, disposable cups and food-related containers; not bags straight from the grocery store.

The article goes over this. Plastic in oceans is from east asian countries without a good municipal waste system, not from developed countries.

That's how I roll, but I also have a couple of sandboxed apps like MS Auth that I sideloaded. I learned last year that, not shockingly, major sports venues now require showing digital tickets for entry, but thus far it's been possible to access them with a browser.

Petty projection, that's all you have. Maybe one day you'll grow up.

It doesn't. Thought terminating clichés are rhetorical devices, I pointed out what real world data reflects. You're free to actually address it unless you want to redefine poverty to suit vibes.

No, I'm taking the only definition of monopoly, and you're creating new "contexts" whenever it suits you. I addressed your arguments and you have no rebuttal, so this is what you resort to, taking your ball and going home.

That would also not be an inter-species relationship.

It's funny, because extreme poverty rates as defined by the UN have been decimated in the last century, and continue to drop, because of growth qua capitalism.

You're reflecting the populist notion that wealth is zero-sum. If that were true we'd still be in caves fighting over sticks. The average quality of life has skyrocketed in the last century alongside growth, and there's no non-capitalist country now or in history that's been an enviable place for average people to live.