Negative feedback is far more valuable to the receiver then it is to the giver. In fact the giver is often punished for his presumption.
Therefore its no surprise negative feedback is not a popular concept among the plebs.
262 karma · joined September 17, 2019
Therefore its no surprise negative feedback is not a popular concept among the plebs.
If you don't see the irony in that your an idiot.
The "cheerleaders" you are talking about clearly did not understand these concepts, and the result is mis-association, and thereby in effect dismissal of the idea of freedom as absurd.
Even though "ideally", "In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority", In practice to achieve this end, this means creating a level playing field which take things into account such as "IP protections, environmental costs, etc."
From a libertarian perspective, in order to eliminate a "government or other authority from all forms of economic privilege" in the long term, is to in the short term work to better define property rights and rules to play by to force more accountability with the individuals involved.
The free market is about creating a level playing field. Globalization was shit because because it did not create a level playing field, it created a subsidy for "developing" countries, at the expense of "developed" ones.
Its hilarious that people think that somehow free markets and libertarians are responsible
Hypothesis: Prices are high because of inefficiencies in the markets caused by bad laws attempting to subsidize one class of people by another. Hospitals aren't able to refuse treatment by law to those that can't afford to pay for their services and insurance companies are coerced to insure unprofitable people by law and the net effect is to try and coerce people into a redistribution of money from people that require more care from those that require less care to cover these expenditures.
Because there is no mechanism to coerce people to do this willingly that's efficient enough for the increasing demands of those requiring care, both industries to give the invoices to the government (who created the problem) thereby getting rid of the requirement to think about how they will fund their expenditures - making it the governments problem to figure out.
This thereby allows them to continue uncontrolled expenditure resulting in exuberant prices in an ever increasing downward spiral to catastrophe as in effect they are spending 'other peoples money' in the hopes that "eventually these invoices will be paid" through some sort of government sponsored coercion mechanism forcing socialized heath care or some other such method with the same result.
Its really quite simple and clever and funny how it still works.
-5% of the population accounts for more than half of all health spending.
-50% of the population with the lowest spending accounts for only 3% of all total health spending.
Edit: Anytime I share this viewpoint, a bunch of either misguided or prejudiced people downvote me. I'm guessing its because they don't understand the argument completely, or see its logic, but disagree with its implications.
A good one - "If I've been able to reach new heights, it's because I strove after the examples set by my inspirations."
Think about it: A teacher should be paid according to their skill, supply, and demand. A great teachers time is highly valuable and there should never be a cap on how much they make or considerations on such an important task to hinder on concepts such as tenure.
If I hire a private teacher for my kids to teach them programming, I know that a great teacher has options to go work anywhere and I need to pay enough to afford a good one. I might get a couple friends kids to join to afford his time. Put together a few different subjects and all of the sudden you have a school.
So the question is why is this simple concept not being followed? The answer is lack of accountability, artificial barriers to entry, limitations on control to pick your instructors, standardized testing requirements, checkbox mentality, teachers unions, etc.
I think Steve Jobs was right in this regard, if we're going to continue to coerce money out of peoples paychecks to fund a dilapidated educational system, we are much better off giving the money we spend on a kids education directly to the parents (with the obligation to spend it only on education), and letting them select the course of education for their own kids themselves.
As for these "unions" its not so much that they care about the kids as they care about themselves. They just use the kids as leverage to get subsidies.
The causes are actually bad laws which are put into place by an increasing majority of people living in want trying to force the "State" into providing it services they cannot pay for themselves.
The "state" can't afford to pay for their services either, and the net effect is to try and coerce people into a redistribution of money from people that have money to those that don't have as much to cover these expenditures.
Because the mechanism used (income taxes) to coerce people to do this now isn't efficient enough now to meet their ever increasing demands, and the voters force the government (who created the problem) to fund these "services" without really thinking about how they will fund their expenditures - making it the governments problem to figure out - which it can't without using coercion.
This thereby allows them to continue uncontrolled expenditure in an ever increasing downward spiral to catastrophe as in effect they are spending 'other peoples money' in the hopes that "eventually these invoices will be paid" through some sort of government sponsored coercion mechanism forcing socialized redistribution by holding peoples and companies properties or income hostage or some other such method with the same result.
Its really quite simple and clever and funny that it still works.
Hospitals aren't able to refuse treatment to those that can't afford to pay for their services, insurance companies are forced to insure unprofitable people and the net effect is to try and coerce people into a redistribution of money from people that require more care from those that require less care to cover these expenditures.
Because there is no mechanism to coerce people to do this willingly both industries to give the invoices to the government (who created the problem) thereby getting rid of the requirement to think about how they will fund their expenditures - making it the governments problem to figure out.
This thereby allows them to continue uncontrolled expenditure in an ever increasing downward spiral to catastrophe as in effect they are spending 'other peoples money' in the hopes that "eventually these invoices will be paid" through some sort of government sponsored coercion mechanism forcing socialized heath care or some other such method with the same result.
Its really quite simple and clever.
-5% of the population accounts for more than half of all health spending. -50% of the population with the lowest spending accounts for only 3% of all total health spending.
I myself always wonder about "Genetic memory" and the idea about how certain instincts/intuition are past down in genetics.
Lets go with the Hilter example since I think this is an interesting thought experiment.
Was Hitler a failure? (From his evolutionary perspective.)
At first glance you would say yes, obviously. He had no kids, he killed himself and was probably very unhappy and distraught with how things turned out in the end. The very people he thought were the "best" in his society actually suffered the most (as defined by him as he said "all the best have already died in Germany").
Now, if you think about it as a kid who was born with almost no family structure, no inheritance, and not very competitive in terms of capability compared to his peers (He wasn't a good architect, he wasn't a good painter, most of the esoteric things that he tried at he failed). I don't think its a stretch to suppose he thought his environment didn't bring favorable advantages for him (and others) and he sought a remedy to this. What did his remedy amount to?
The destruction of a large part of genes from the gene pool. And what where the genes that were largely removed composed of? You could argue he was wildly successful in influencing the genetic frequency of expression of a certain types of genes, while suppressing others.
Example: It feels like Japan is trapped and can't grow where it is anymore. Is it so out of line for them to offer to Russia or Brazil like $10B over 10 years for like 1000 sq KM?
Its because they worry that it creates incentives that could lead to a decrease in productivity over time.
I think the root of it really is the first line Management. These guys need to be really good at their job in order for WFH FT to be more productive. If these aren't all that efficient to begin with, that will make it much more visible in a WFH situation. I think all parties intuitively feel this.
-In the past people found it "morally upsetting" that no matter how smart you are or no matter how hard you work, that doesn't matter to the DNA you pass down to your kids.
But if you think about inheritance not about DNA as a whole, but rather as the frequency of expression of individual genes, you see that you can affect the future gene pool throughout your life that can affect the expression of "your" genes in the gene pool as a whole.
Example: You are shakespeare, you pass down the inheritance of your genes NOT through procreation, but through the creation of artistic work which affects the genetic expression of genes in the gene pool to give certain genes just a little bit of an advantage over others. This tiny change in frequency has an enormous affect over hundreds of generations.
How do you affect the genetic expression of genes in the gene pool by a book? -Think about all the people that read that book, and how it affected them and their procreation, and you get the idea.
Example: If you are depressed you are more likely to focus on input data that is 'negative' and overlook the 'positive' data. For instance if your depressed, instead of focusing on the different ways people are trying to improve the conditions of existence, you could focus on "the shitty conditions in india/africa/china/etc.) You could say this is more "realistic".
Example: If you are optimistic on the other hand, you could say to yourself, I have no control over those variables that make the world 'shitty', let me try and focus on the variables that make the world 'positive' and see if I can affect them, so that the world as a whole can be more "positive". Some could say this is "unrealistic".
Which is more "desirable" I would argue the latter, but I hope the argument has shown that these are value judgements subjective to the individual.
The whole process of implementation of autopilot is based on the logic that its implementation is scaled as a function of the number of lives it SAVES through its utility. Meaning that as the percent automation increases, you should be able to see a net DECREASE in casualties in automated vehicles compared to non-automated vehicles. If we are not seeing this, then the rate of implementation may be too high, and the software needs to be corrected until it is.
Nothing in life is perfect, there will always be accidents, the only question is can we create tools which will decrease the percent chance of them happening.
What percent of the money dedicated to old artistic creations gets dedicated to the commission of new work, thereby incentivizing the development of new skills and content from contemporary creative artists.
I feel like a lot of these people just buy expensive (or even go look at) paintings so they can show off to their friends that they have a [or saw a] "Picasso", not because they genuinely love and appreciate the work. Maybe they have don't know how to actually appreciate a work. Would they understand its value without the name attached?
A very small portion become superstars and a majority fall somewhere in the middle, this is a natural phenomena.
What these platforms have allowed to happen is allowed individuals to capture more of the value they individually produce, with the result being these creators with abilities to perform BEYOND the average do much better.
Of course you don't see the natural selection cycle - the fact that many do not perform as well, and need to find some other - low competition - arena to express themselves in. In which they can perform more efficiently to capture more value for themselves. Typically in high competition environments it becomes harder and harder to make a profit.
These concepts should be obvious, I find it therefore distasteful and deplorable that one could somehow demean these platforms by saying that they "create a small number of superstars who earn orders of magnitude more than the average creator, with all other creators getting a relative pittance". They question the metrics the individuals who voted with their time and money used to decide "merit" because they didn't win by those metrics.
"The United States Constitution presents an example of the federal government not possessing any power except what is delegated to it by the Constitution — with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution making explicit that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the people and the states."
But what I think sometimes happens is even the target audience doesn't understand what the papers are saying.
Goethe said something about this in his autobiography about health/chemistry books that were popular in his day where imposters would write some "Scientific" book which is full of esoteric terminology that would look appealing to the lay reader, but once you started analyzing and reading that work "the book still remained dark and unintelligible; except that at last one become at home in a certain terminology, and, by using it according to one's own fancy, felt that one was at any rate saying, if not understanding, something".
Just imagine, how different would life be if people tried to live it in such a way, that if there was eternal re-occurrence, they would be content to relive it indefinitely.
The funny part really is, for all you know this isn't the first time where having this conversation.
When people say something is “evil” what they mean is they don’t believe it’s in our long term best interest. Meaning even though paternalism got you to where you are today, doesn’t mean it will get you where you want to be in the future.
Finally you imply that those that stay calm and agree to disagree won’t write the future, while I won’t disagree, I would caution that if you let disagreement evolve into coercion and conflict without a channel for resolution besides violence, there will not be a future for someone to “write”.