Toxic positivity and toxic negativity are grating to some, myself included.
The issue is that soft, squishy not-STEM "sciences" aren't all that evidence-based or experimentally-verifiable. That doesn't make them completely useless, it makes them prone to fungible, inconsistent guidelines rather than hypotheses, theories, or laws.
Changing channels to it results in nothing. It goes to WeatherNation, Bloomberg, or anything else but Sky News only on every Android device within the app.
Billionaires like Koch and economists fabricated libertarianism to do away with costs and pass on externalities to everyone else. It's a utopian ideology far polar opposite of Communism. What's sad is how many "smart" people fall for it because it assumes everyone plays nice and common infrastructure is cheap. It's a filter bubble warped reality that plays from an unconscious bias Upton Sinclair effect of favoring what's good for you is good for everyone or everything. I would wager every billionaire is implicitly and explicitly out-of-touch with the concerns, worries, and stresses of the homeless and working poor.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
Since jerks and clueless idiots exist in droves, government regulation is absolutely essential to police what (greedy) people can and cannot do.
Demonzing China isn't constructive and has the optics of racism. China isn't an imminent military threat to anyone outside the South China Sea and the border with India. The US is a far greater threat with hundreds of bases worldwide. China is a larger threat ecologically because of wanton water and air (including emissions) pollution through the manufacturing of domestic and export goods. China would be wise to tax carbon, regulate air/soil/water pollution, and/or cap/trade, even if it means driving nearly slave-wages carpetbagging corporations to Africa and other parts of Asia. Even if political interests prevent particular remediation solutions, China has the advantage that it can choose to deploy evidence-based solutions at scale ahead of economic interests in a self-serving, sustainment manner.
I think it's disingenuous to call libertarianism fabricated, especially by people like the Kochs. This implies that those supporting its views are either manipulators or being ignorant of manipulation. It's a range of ideas rooted in enlightenment thinking that goes back hundreds of years, some of which are more extreme than others.
I find this kind of sentiment across many political groups where each seems to think they are the enlightened ones trying to save humanity and others are just in it to manipulate others for personal gain. This is conspiracy theory thinking. We should treat arguments in good faith in that those arguing for them really do think they have merit and are the best for most people, as we work towards discovering where we might have incorrect assumptions or just plain different ideas on what is "best" and what is fair.
You think, based on what specifically? I don't think you know the history or how it was legitimized. Thom Hartmann has spent a few hours on this very subject across various shows. Checking facts, he gets them right every time. Cato (climate change deniers with phony IPCC reports), Koch (dirty industries tax write off), and Reason Foundation (libertarian grooming factory by rich reporters and rich celebrities pushing a viewpoint, not academics or independent professional journalists) often promulgate ideas that aren't helpful to anyone except the rich and those who vote against their own interests with an "alternative flavor" of "freedom" that isn't free for anyone but the well-off.
Generalizing all political systems together is intellectually lazy and lacks nuance. Extreme utopian ideals like communism, libertarianism, and anarchism don't scale in the real world. I think you need to learn more about each of them in detail before you write it off as tribal "muh green team is better becuz it's mine." You're coming across as lacking in knowledge, experience, and a leg to stand on and going for a cheap shot.
Practical is somewhere in the middle that gets things done and considers enough peoples' needs. There are dumb ideas, like for-profit healthcare, for-profit policing, "everyone picking themselves up by their bootstraps (as misinterpretation of a children's parable)", hyper-individualism, and doing away with government (anarchy, anarcho-capitalism).
I stated that it was rooted in enlightenment thinking, to be more specific it is an amalgamation of classical liberal ideas supporting individual liberty and limited government. Ideas espoused by philosophers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and even Lao-Tzu. These are ideas worth understanding.
I gave no defense of it other than to imply that should not be dismissed as total manipulation by rich people. I agree with your assessment that we best avoid utopian ideals and the laisse-faire and anarchist libertarians take things way too far. You clearly have an issue with some contemporary brand of libertarians, and I think a lot of that is valid.
> You're coming across as lacking in knowledge, experience, and a leg to stand on and going for a cheap shot.
I think this was unwarranted and I don't appreciate it.
Hmm. Why then do I see so many item comments blasting the media as "biased a particular way" and dismissing articles outright with derision? I see a lot of knucle-dragger-signal comments brigading like this, and it's disappointing.
Suppose some piece of infrastructure along the way lacks a checksum or ECC, and gets hit by a cosmic ray or a hardware defect. You now have +2^17 USD - txamount more or 2^19 - 2^18 USD + txamount less in said account. Throw FDIC insurance out the window because they're probably a) not going to do it and b) stick you with fees and losses.
…I imagine the whole thing wouldn’t be running off a single server + hard drive. There’s not any conceivable system design where this bit flip would be possible
Hell f'ing no. Traditional and inverse totalitarianism in one go. This would be "amazing" for taxation, mining people's habits, and financial crimes but brutal to individuals who can be located or shut-out of the economy entirely. The unbanked would also be left twisting in the wind.
Not if you genocide it with antibiotics or your parents or environment didn't have it well in the first place.
People may want to take a fecal sample before starting antibiotics to "reseed" themselves.
Also, it will take time to map and analyze essential and harmful constituent species. Perhaps there will be the equivalent of "vitamin" essential bacterial for persons of particular genetic makeups and diets.
The issue is that soft, squishy not-STEM "sciences" aren't all that evidence-based or experimentally-verifiable. That doesn't make them completely useless, it makes them prone to fungible, inconsistent guidelines rather than hypotheses, theories, or laws.