xracy

I'm sorry, your hypothesis is that people will be less likely to try and build products around a naturally occurring weight-loss drug?

Like, less likely than they would be to pay Ozempic to use their patent? I mean, I could believe that if there weren't like Billions of dollars being funneled into weight-loss programs and foods that don't have any demonstrative weight-loss capabilities.

If this actually works and is naturally occurring, I'd be surprised if there weren't like enterprising startups and food companies adding this to existing products within a year or 2.

OR, it's really easy to prove the government doesn't do anything valuable when you run the government.

My concern is that they don't believe this across all pieces of the government, and they do believe it in ways that only impact everyone else negatively.

I like the part where your comment about it not having evidence is right next to the comments about the evidence is yet-to-be-published.

Sorry, I read the 2nd sentence as removing housing entirely, for some reason. I see that's not what they're saying, they're just talking about the relative weight of the thing.

My apologies for not knowing offhand everything that goes into the CPI, and not googling it for more context, I was just asking questions on the internet instead. I should've known better than to hope for learning something from my fellow humans.

Why wouldn't you include housing? It's often people's largest expense?

AKA, a 35 hour work week.

lol. In my heart I knew this, but I didn't think anyone would ever self-report like this.

Yeah, the article is literally about an entitled googler being vocal.

Man worth 100+ Billion complains he should be worth more, and that the grunts should have to make him worth more at all costs.

How is anyone who doesn't want to do that entitled?

Yeah, and how much money does he make vs how many hours he works?

Like, he's punching down with all of these comments, and because he's still punching up from where 99% of workers are at, people buy the line from the billionaire who stands to benefit from this.

"All of the Google Grunts should be putting in 20 more hours a week so that I can make more money off of owning Google stock in exchange for the same pay, and no additional work from me, a billionaire." - What Sergey is actually pushing for here.

It's no wonder the American dream is dead. People don't even want others to achieve it unless they're already a billionaire, or unless they have to burn themselves out to achieve it.

Hi, please finish this thought.

Google engineers are paid well so they should have to work twice as hard? Google engineers are paid well, so they shouldn't complain about the contract under which they get paid changing to expect them to work 60-hour weeks?

This is a leading comment, but you're not willing to say the quiet part out loud, which is that you think they shouldn't get paid as well because others aren't paid as well. You're arguing for a race to the bottom which doesn't actually help you. You should be arguing for a race to the top (everyone should be paying their employees more), which might actually benefit you.

The concrete reason that I've stated here and in other places, is that the way conspiracy theories grow they eventually consume all of the topics you can discuss with a person. I'm guessing this hasn't been going on long. My situation started with 1 or 2 conspiracy theories that my dad kept mostly private and we only ever discovered because conversation landed there on accident. Had it stayed there, I doubt I would've cut him off. But we got to the point where the only safe things to talk to him about that wouldn't lead to a conspiracy-fueled tirade were food and the weather. And then he started on a diet that fit into the web, and suddenly we couldn't talk to him about food (what to eat/what we like to eat) without it being a part of the wider web of conspiracy conversations. At that point, I could've tried to find new things to talk about, but I could also just accept that I didn't really want to talk to my dad, because there were no interesting topics of conversation that didn't lead into a conspiracy web I wasn't always prepared for. <- This is why it becomes reasonable, and I hope in your case it never reaches this point. If it does maybe you'll come up with a better solution than I did, and think of this comment and come respond. I would really like to hear how you reach a better solution. For now, it seems like you're not to this point yet, and so I hope you never get there.

Spending $10000 on this bet is not an indicator of making decisions that could lead to financial ruin? The son states that's a lot of money for them. They also literally explicitly state he's spending money from a joint bank account on stockpiling things they don't need. They're not giving the amounts, but like, they tell you he's doing questionable things with money, and you can extrapolate from there as a reader. I'm guessing you've been raised around money differently, because I know you've had this conversation in a few other places, and haven't actually engaged with how problematic this is. But especially in today's economy where things are expensive and money can be tight, making solo financial decisions with joint money is absolutely cause to cut someone off.

Separately, I will say, there's not a lot of middle-ground for spending time with someone who believe's you're just wrong for being who you are. So the Daughter's decision as one of self-preservation, feels equally reasonable, and I think if the mother has to hear about how her daughter is a sinner all the time, or character attacks on her children a lot, then that could lead to needing to cut off the father as well.

Communicating is hard, this is intended to be helpful and informative and I genuinely hope you take it that way. I'm being a little barbed with some of my feedback below, because you're engaging defensively, and I'm just trying to help because I was initially interested in having a different conversation with you based on your first comment.

Really importantly, I'm not saying that you're lying. I was offering some constructive feedback on what you said, because I was interested in your experience given that you've clearly reached a different conclusion from me. I was disappointed you weren't willing to talk about it, because I suspect if you're experiencing this and this is your advice you're just earlier in the process than I am. But if this isn't the case, I (and others clearly) were interested in this experience. I don't have a solution to this problem, and I came to this article looking for other ways people were navigating this experience.

> Just sharing my experience.

But you're explicitly not sharing your experience. You're just saying that you have experience, and then asking why someone would make a decision in this situation. In my response, I can either talk to:

1. Why someone would make a decision in this situation

2. You about your experience.

If you don't have experience in the situation, #1 makes more sense. If you do have experience in the situation, then I'm much more interested in the #2 conversation but to do that we have to be a little bit more willing to share some broad strokes about how things have fallen apart.

I shared my situation in response to this without making anything too personal/revealing about the family members involved. You'll notice I didn't make an appeal to having personal experience. I just described the experience, because I'm looking to have a conversation about what others have tried that has worked for them.

> The person I was replying to did exactly the same thing: "Without going too deeply, I sympathize with the writer on an extremely personal level."

2 things:

1. This is the age-old "if people on the internet jump off a bridge you'd do that too?" My initial response was trying to give you the tools to be better at this, and you're just being defensive here for no reason. I thought your question was still worth responding too, I'm just calling out to you that it's stronger without the appeal to experience that you're not backing up in any way.

2. This is a disclaimer on their own partiality towards one party in the original story. This is actually achieving the exact opposite of what your comment goes towards. It reads much more as "I am stating my bias and what I'm partial towards up front, but I think there is a difficult choice to make here and I'm not certain what the right path is."

By contrast your statements taken together read as "I have experience that tells me there's no reason to ever sever a relationship and you just have to take me at my word." But your initial statement could have been "Why would you consider severing the relationship?" and it would've led to less confusion from people interested in the experience.

Okay, but like, Will Japan be more Japanese when the last fully Japanese person dies, or will it be more Japanese if people move and live there and melt into the culture.

Yes, there will necessarily be parts of your culture that get lost (in Japan's case it will be the part where they don't like immigrants), but not as much as if you fold people into the culture and teach them about it.

And yes, change is scary, but sometimes it's good for us. Sometimes change makes us more resilient as a species. Also, Japanese culture isn't going to disappear just because they allow immigrants in. In the same way that other cultures haven't disappeared just because they allow immigrants in.

American culture used to be so exciting because you can experience any kind of culture in the world just by meeting your neighbors. I miss meeting new people and experiencing their local cultures through them.

Population is such a weird thing to worry about. When it goes up, people worry about there not being enough resources. When it goes down, people worry about there not being enough people.

I'm sure there continue to be real problems to Japan caused by the upside down population, but I think the thing you likely have to consider is that there are a lot of good reasons to be mindful about having a kid. You want people to be intentional about being able to raise and take care of a human being and provide for them in a way that we expect from a civil society.

Or at least, that's what I want. But then again, I don't worry about the population one way or the other.

Just want to call out, totally fine to not want to share the details of your relationship online, but if that's the case, you can't really make the appeal to "being in a similar situation" if you can't back that up in some meaningful way.

It reads as being willfully misleading. It seems apparent to me from your other comments that your situation is not really like the one described, because you're not really familiar with the hallmarks of it. But it doesn't matter one way or another since you're just asking the question 'why would you sever a relationship like this?'

Which is a fine question to ask on its own without making the appeal to "I've been in this situation", which you don't want to verify.

It would honestly make your first comment more solid if you just asked the question instead of alluding to being in similar situation, and then backing off from it here.

exactly, there is nothing else. And worse, everything becomes a part of the 'enlightenment' or 'the truth'

> I don't see why you'd ever server a relationship over something like this.

I don't know more about your situation, so I can't help you with what you're missing. What I can say is that I have been in the same situation, and it seeps into every interaction. It starts off as one thing, and it becomes all-consuming, until you can't have a normal interaction with the person that doesn't get pulled into the conspiracy web.

I used to have a list of topics I would avoid around my Dad. What was truly devastating was watching all of the things I could relate to my dad about slowly get consumed into that web of topics that were all connected. What was more devastating was that my dad is a smart guy, and he's painfully effective at making the leaps he wants to make from where he's at. If you brought up any topic on the list, he would immediately run you around all of the topics on his list, and any time you make a substantiated claim on one thing, he'll jump to another thing, just to argue.

This story was devastating to me, because I wanted them to find a way to make this work out. And I was hopeful the father was going to be willing to believe that he was wrong given that he brought up the idea of the bet in the first place. But the giveaway to me was that when they discussed the stakes, the dad wasn't really considering losing as an option.

I considered that list and thought to myself "Yeah, I would take all of these bets, and yeah, if I was wrong about all of these I'd be willing to tell the person I was seeing something wrong about the world." But it was clear from the bet setting that there was no world where the father could believe he was wrong. He just wasn't anywhere in the same world as the rest of the world, and honestly, that's what scares me the most.

It feels like we have this incurable disease that makes people believe things irrationally, and there's a risk that anyone can catch this disease just by spending enough time online. What truly scares me about the 'cutting them off' piece here, is that it's a measure to protect yourself and it also represents giving up on the person.

When I cut my dad off, I explained to him my concerns that led to the decision, as well as that I was willing to talk again if he was willing to work on this and at some point I called in to check on how he was doing, and if he was making any progress, and the most baffling thing to me was that he didn't even register the part of my communication (written down) that explained I'd be willing to talk to him if he worked on this. Like, working on this wasn't even something he would consider doing to salvage the relationship, which was pretty devastating because of how long I spent trying to fix this relationship and make it work.

The sad part here is that the 4-year degree vs high-school also feels like it's probably more of a class divide than anything else.

I think the current valuation of twitter is around $9B? Which answers the age-old question "How do you make $9B?"

You start with $40B

But I don't know what metrics you're judging by other than general ~vibes~ but 75+% loss of valuation is a pretty clear crash and burn. Additionally people are still leaving the site because it's such a cesspool, so yeah running a site into the ground with fewer users and is way easier than running a site with more users.

It's hard for me to imagine that the software built around this isn't just going to start crashing with enough of these changes. You've given a handful of (generously) junior engineers access to decade+ old software and they've just started changing things willy nilly. There will be downstream effects of this that software stops they're putting in place just stop working.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone changes this accidentally in a way that a limit like this is by-passable with minimal effort in the coming weeks (if not already).

Well, at least the answer to the question "what weapons WW3 will be fought with" is "asteroids" that's a fun surprise.

I guess we'll see if Sticks are still a thing we can fight with for WW4, but stones was definitely a solid prediction.

It's easy to add reliability to a system if you scale the interested userbase down. Which is exactly what Xitter is doing by pushing content far to the right, and making it a more hostile environment for discourse.

Like, yes, I can run a reliable system with 20% of the engineers if I'm aiming for 20% of the userbase and 20% of the quality of the platform that I was originally trying to run.

Elon's 'Strategy' looks a lot more like consolidating the power of government in the executive branch than actually reducing the size of government. That actually makes government bigger and scarier in my view.

I would now consider if anyone else gets the chance to govern, they should meaningfully reduce the power of the executive branch aggressively in order to avoid this kind of consolidation in the future. But good luck with that and also having a functioning gov't.

If your actual policies are unpopular, then you have to spread lies to make them popular.

I don't see a strategy here other than just blowing things up... And that's concerning me. Why are they doing so much self-destructive shit.

I mean, this might've made sense if he was killing it fast... but He's killing it with enough time for it to come back as bluesky.

I will mark this as reason number 521 that Cryptocurrencies are 'bad', and we shouldn't be using them for anything real.

I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." One of the lessons of the pandemic is your economy is actually better serviced by many people spending money than by 1 person hoarding it.

You can make the cost of doing business in your country that they have to be worth less than your cap.

But the effect of this is actually that we would realize we don't need the ultra-wealthy. We would likely do better because it would be a significant downward pressure on inequality in the countries that enforced it, and more people would have opportunities to make it big.

Is this a real question? You can't imagine any population that can make this determination for itself?

If only there were organizations responsible for populations that could determine this locally for places in the world. Guess we just got to take a "world vote".

There's an old joke where a man asks a woman

M: "Would you sleep with me for $1M"

W: "for $1M dollars? Yeah, I guess I could be convinced for $1M."

M: "What about for $10"

W: "No, what do you take me for!"

M: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."

I don't think this is that funny of a joke, but the point I'm making is that picking a number is a detail that comes after we decide that there needs to be a number. And I think if you agree that there needs to be a number, the gov't is the one that could set it (or the voting public).

The most likely answer is you pick some multiple of minimum wage, and then some number of years at that number. 1000x minimum wage, 10 years of earnings at that value. That's the maximum you can have. You want more? You gotta raise minimum wage.

We can't criticize corporations because we don't have morals as a society. And we can't criticize "the system that creates the lack of morals" because "that's a whole 'nother discussion"? This is such weird speech policing. I have no qualms saying "Companies should hold themselves to higher standards, and I won't economically support them while they make these changes."

But it feels like your take is: "Guess all there is to do is just sit and feel righteous indignation while companies have their way with us, and the world crumbles around us."