ndileas

I think this is a classic case for government intervention; buyouts back to state or federal land seems practical and just to me. And the government typically does intervene to help people, just not in the most optimal way IMO; there are stories of people whose homes have been rebuilt multiple times in vulnerable spots. I don't have a clear notion of how common of an issue that is, but I think the natural human tendency to pick a spot and defend it at all costs is shortsighted and leads to tragedy and high costs all around. And then a surprising fraction of people defend ignoring a reliable signal that something has to give... either building practices, or locations, or something else.

Well, "compelling" isn't a good organizational principle. I'm not saying we should evict grandma at the first hint of insurance prices rising. There could absolutely be compensation for property, negotiated buyouts and moving costs, or other good policies.

For better or worse, markets are the clearest signals we have in a hugely messy world. That shouldn't prevent us from doing the best thing available, but the world is not inherently fair and safe, and it's not possible for it to be perfectly fair and safe with our current technology and psychology.

I feel strongly that we should save every human life it's possible to save during disasters. Fema is pretty great at that.

However, that doesn't neccesarily imply that there should be flows of money available to rebuild in vulnerable locations. Insurance becoming unavailable or unaffordable is probably the best signal available that someplace is a bad place to live. If you can't afford the price or the risk ... There are lots of other places in the world.

I mean that if you measured various qualities (like grip strength, skin thickness (callouses), flexibility, eyc) that there isn't a standard human. Individual robots likely would be adapted for certain tasks too.

I think it's important to note that many individual humans are adapted to only a few of these tasks. A construction worker's hands and a magician have very different muscles, skin thickness, grip strength, dexterity, etc. even though they can both wash a dish and open a door.

I'd say excessive commercialization so that the whole activity is centered around buying and selling, or most members are gearheads who rarely go out and do stuff, etc, is definitely unfortunately common. But I see it mostly as an individual failing, enabled and made worse by media environment. Tune out.

I live in Rochester NY, grew up in Buffalo. Housing markets here were nuts the last couple years, probably due to this effect (although laughable compared to SF I'm sure) and pent up demand. I'm not sure I really want it to "blow up" any more, although I'm not much of a big city guy - I like going to the same diner every Saturday and reading at home. Life is pretty good.

The other day I crammed some awful internal docs into zeal. It was a fun time, good format -- was able to reverse engineer it without looking at the specs in an hour or so. I wanted to be able to look at those docs having to remember exactly where they were every time.

For me it does require bravery. I wasn't intended to be condescending. I really do have to remind myself of that.

Is it really that hard to say "Selling something? Not interested, have a nice day!"? I'm fairly anxious and introverted and don't love having to do this, but once a month or something is very manageable. Gotta be brave and interact with the world sometimes.

I mean, maybe you do. I'm just a dog on the internet.

Rhetoric != Law

I don't see any particular reason to pay attention to century-old rhetoric. I think "intended " was a poor word choice; see my other response. Also, I could live on minimum wage today but I'd hate it.

2-d printing is a hard, boring problem and many people increasingly print very little, especially hackers.

I'm just making an observation in the sense of "the purpose of system is what it does", not writing a treatise on the history of rhetoric around minimum wage. Maybe "intended" was a poor word choice on my part. Minimum wage can't easily feed and house 3 dependents in many places as it stands today.

I think a lot of the confusion here comes from a conflict between people talking in personal mode and societal modes. As an individual, you absolutely want minimum wage to be temporary, and if you are smart and lucky you can usually make this happen.

You're taking more a societal point of view. At this level, I think you're missing the point of minimum wage. It doesn't provide a family with a living wage; it's just a limit on the monetary abuse that an above board company can dish out, just like we have labor laws that limit other types of abuse (like excessive hours for example). Whether and how our society should be ensuring living wages is kind of another discussion, much more complex. As they currently stand, minimum wages are probably a net good.

I do sometimes get confused when reading it, since the markers for main post, replies, etc are not super intuitive to me. Feels like a stereotype of a multiple personality disorder before you figure it out.

Is there a guide for the markup somewhere?

I agree with this, as a monist. Unfortunately medicine is still very much in its infancy in this regard - many things are too subtle or just still hidden.

That was a hypothetical of a government taxing production. Of course in practice they tend to do the opposite, subsidizing food production quite heavily.

Unfortunately, selling it to repo men is a widely accepted practice.

I had thought that the thesis of seeing like a state is that when you attempt to rationalize a complex system, you necessarily simplify it and sometimes destroy the value in it. E.g. If a government wants to raise money via taxes on food production, growing food becomes disincentivized. Or the simple fact that maps can't show everything about the piece of land they represent.

I think the opposite of the tyranny of structurelessness looks more like our legal + regulatory system where sometimes you need a team of experts to tell you where you can build a building, or the military where everything is so regimented so that you need to fill out forms to buy toilet paper.

Thankfully there are already gap fillers here, like (US) govt programs and private charities that give out cell phones with prepaid plans. They're not perfect by any means, but there are people and programs trying to solve these problems.

I think you're thinking of far more complexity than I am. I'm thinking of common applied math - accounting, weights and measures, carpentry. These things still have the reality correspondence problem, but truth isn't necessarily absolute. If I measure a cup of milk, I can safely treat it as a cup of milk regardless of the number of molecules in it. That's a kind of truth. Utility/ matching observed reality ought to be enough truth for anyone. As we get better and better at observing, the models will change, and that's good.

My maternal grandmother and mom were/are hoarders. I don't fully agree with your "decluttering is a luxury" statement. There's certainly an element of that, because times were lean for them sometimes. I think the hoarding is really a proxy for control, not for direct utility - and sometimes the instinct can go wrong and there's no value at all, or negative value, to the continued accumulation. Everyone, rich or poor, needs space to walk around and space to prepare food or wash dishes. Obviously there's a spectrum of behavior when it comes to these things from "cluttered, but mostly functional" to "need a strategy, dust mask and boots to cross the room". I've seen way too much of the latter to be fully on board with your point.

Here's a great blog about two sisters cleaning up their late father's mess I've found fascinating and helpful in dealing with my familys' situation: https://tetanusburger.blogspot.com/

Sure, but in this particular case he's not even being selfish.

I agree with you, but I feel compelled to point out that math regularly generates truth.

At least the benevolent supreme leader cares! Just look at the corpses!

It's possible...but the point of this instrument is to measure star locations very precisely. It probably has a star tracker for positioning doing what you're suggesting. If you were to use that type of positioning info you could introduce inaccuracies into the measured data eventually.

Also, every mission comes to an end eventually - better to do it in the right way and have the right amount of propellent saved for either a graveyard orbit or de-orbiting. It met the mission timeline and goals.

From this and your other comments life sucks for you right now. There's no magic bullet. Religion might help or it might mess you up worse. Sometimes life sucks for a while then gets better. Keep your head up - find one thing you can still enjoy and savor it.

I mean, $100 a year is 15% of my bill - I might have to look into the data sharing stuff. I guess if you're already burning money on comprehensive and large deductibles that might not matter as much to you.

Rest of your analysis seems spot on. Important to note however that getting in accidents already increases your premiums - I don't really think the data sharing is gonna change that much.