sabarn01

What standard would you impose on hate speech. By what rubric do we ascertain what speech should be tolerated. If that rubric is flawed as everything can be flawed how do you challenge it.

It occurred there is ample evidence it occurred. The fear I have is that once a government has a power it never goes away. No matter how well meaning the original intent is people you disagree with will eventually come to power and use that power against you.

"Hate speech, on the other hand, is not. There is no place in this world for blatantly false allegations or denying historical evidence."

The issue is you can't pick the arbitrator of what is true. Once you do you create the tyrant. For once you have someone who will determine that which is true they can determine criticism of their decisions are also hate speech.

I think a true meritocracy is only possible using some type of agoge system, but that also violates human rights. When I say destitution I guess I mean to the acceptable minimum which that most people would find unacceptable.

Fear of failure is a useful social motivator. In rich societies that does't have to mean biological poverty.

When I lived in a urban poor neighborhood I had one neighbor who drove a asphalt truck while the other was on benefits and drank on the porch all day. As an external observer there was little material difference in their standard of living.

I grew up working class and have seen lots of people fail. Those without the wherewithal to get on social benefits generally moved on with their lives toward success. I also have know several to get on social benefits find that acceptable and live what seemed to me unfulfilling lives on a type of pseudo adult hood. It could be they were happy and who am I to judge. I have always known if I fail I will be destitute and I think it has helped me build a decent life. But what works for me may not work for others.

People should fear being destitute its the natural human condition. Learning skills is the only way to make wealth.

Its not desktop it indexes your org files on intranet sites. If you are signed in with you corp account to bing all searches also bring back relevant internal org info.

The soviet union induced as much suffering as the Nazis and remanded stable for the better part of a century.

> Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its protracted (and still ongoing) resolution.

We get to look back with hind sight and only remember negative consequences from positive actions. The US entered WW1 after Germany began unrestricted submarine ware fare for the second time, and coming on the heels of the Zimmerman telegram. France and Belgium were invaded by hostile power. Germany feared Russian modernization and fear of not being able to Compete with France and Russia. Russia sided with the Serbs. France Sided with Russia whose alliance it has sought to counteract the power of a newly unified Germany which had defeated France in 1871 taken territory and imposed a large reparation payment. Austria an absolute monarchy wanted to quite serb nationalism.

The us has low governmental capacity and lower trust then most other nations. We don't have a clear view of sovereignty between state and federal and have the most active judicial system in the world.

Every other developed economy was destroyed by the war. The rise of the middle class here was a result of overall economic growth and the economic suicide of the two world wars and the depression. Holding up the 1940's and 1950's as a model removes the context of cataclysmic world events of the 30's and 40's. Also remember that the US had virtually no welfare state at that time and used higher taxes to pay off war debt.

Its activism + old fashioned democratic politics. At least in the US. The suffragettes brought attention and then they mobilized a political coalition. Organized labor agitated but it was though the ballot box that the 40 hour week job safety were granted.

It has nothing to do with feelings and that is my point. Dwelling on any feeling no matter how serious will every make your life better.

I like to think of my self as happy Sisyphus enjoying pushing the rock up the hill. Thinking about the futility of the effort is by definition futile.

This is true but I think that is what close friends are for. Everyone needs support I just think the goal to be not to let your feelings master you.

Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.

Not doable. Most azure services are not "compliant" for o365. Especially not in gov clouds. Exchange has its own totally separate backed which existed before azure. The port of wonderlist is to exchange.

Its a philosopher writing in a psychological venue.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/sharon-hewitt-raw...

This is an ontological problem only. The goal here is to solve the problem of that we can't find a rational basis for knowing. If the physical world has primacy then you have to figure out how to solve the irreconcilable perception problem. It makes the philosophy easier to say conciseness is first. I don't understand why we need to have an absolute basis for knowledge as long as our approximations for knowledge are so astoundingly useful.

The pew numbers for terrorism are pretty similar

https://www.people-press.org/2010/12/02/despite-years-of-ter...

So 1/4 people worry about money constantly. My guess is you could ask that question about a great variety of topics and get a similar result. I think the thing we are testing here is the cross section of those who are by default fearful and their exposure to whichever topic is on offer.

I grew up in Appalachia we took food to people who lived in shacks. The county next to mine got electricity from the recc in 1979.

It only took about 5 years to get one rendering engine for both Mac and windows, but sure it would be easy.

There is a reasonable argument that competition for worker and increased wealth in the society also created these conditions.

This can be right when things change over time and people still operate under their initial assumptions. Times change constrains change but on some teams assumptions and choices are not revisited.

UPS's import system runs on one. Home depots retail system did until at least 2010.

Lets also assume there is a selection bias. The things the do right with the right intentions you never hear of. Its only when things go wrong do we know.

I would advise reading https://www.amazon.com/Political-Order-Decay-Industrial-Glob.... Due to the order of development where the US was free first then developed a bureaucratic state. The Us has always had a low state capacity. Add onto that the role of the states in the US as co-sovereign and you run into a lot of implementation difficulties in making these proposed Nordic policies workable here.

Any policy we attempted to implement would be resisted by the states. Held up in court, and ultimately made useless by special interest.

I don't think governments can solve all problems they can only solve cretin categories of problems.