> losing body fat means that you must continuously make choices that decrease your comfort in some way - eating fewer highly rewarding foods, maintaining a state of hunger, increasing activity level
It is interesting to see "increasing activity level" as being a decrease in comfort. But I suppose that's because "comfort" here isn't defined absolutely. I also am not sure that "comfort" is an attribute that should be optimized for in disregard for all others.
If this statement is read as "anything that does not have 100% positive feedback is undesirable" then I think it would be very challenging to make any improvements in a person's life.
But then I also don't think that "comfort" is necessarily an ideal target to optimize. I think a more holistic measure such as "satisfaction" is a more productive target. We can find "satisfaction" in things that are not 100% pleasant but which in turn result in greater happiness or feelings of contentment than doing only those things that have positive feedback.
This measure of "comfortable" also does not seem to account for the secondary effects of "comfortable" choices. E.g., if we eat only "highly rewarding foods" and become obese we see discomfort in other parts of life (loss of mobility, health issues, difficulty performing mundane physical tasks, etc)
I don't like to sweat. I did construction work with my dad in the Texas heat. When I looked at careers, I chose one that I can do indoors.
I'm not saying that is good, I'm saying that is a strong value statement that I made when I was younger. It's hard to change values, even in the face of evidence.
I think people should find exercise that they enjoy. I have struggled with this due to other physical limitations (in addition to my weight) and my attitude and cognitive behaviors. I now enjoy riding my bike, hiking, and swimming.
> Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...
But from the article
> The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
> Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets.
I'd say it's just as valid of an argument to make in this case that I'm not sure I won't see more than $60,000 of value out of efforts to prevent the economic infrastructure of the U.S. from crumbling, especially amortized over 50 years ($1,200/yr in preserved income or purchasing power).
I don't disagree that it's a decent frame of reference to use when looking at government programs...but it's important to apply the same level of rigor to measuring output value.
Observing physical differences is not imposing an ideology.
The physical differences exist today and are exhibited based on biological genders. That does not preclude that these differences are unduly influenced by environmental issues (including socialization). However denying that they exist (which is what Cahill is objecting to here) on the basis that the cause might be environmental and not "innate" just means that the ability to understand and treat neurological disorders in females decreases.
The reality is that there are differences. The cause of that reality can be complicated and nuanced and not inescapable. but as the change in societal standards is quite slow all that's happening is a disservice to an entire half of the population.
The irony of your closing statement ("any result that just so happens....to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised....and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled") is that such "settled" facts in the scientific community are exactly the things that Cahill has been challenging in the neuroscience field.
Specifically to his point that:
> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.
In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.
So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.
Well, Cahill has his opinions, Ripon has hers. Obviously there is a
controversy on this issue, between experts on the matter, and I am not
equipped to resolve it, or even to know who is representing some kind of
consensus opinion. Basically, I know a couple of things about computers. I
don't feel I have the knowledge to weigh in on any other scientific subjects.
That said, I have to observe that if the matter was settled the way Cahill
claims it is, Nature wouldn't be publishing dithyrambs for Ripon's book, and
Cahill wouldn't be publishing his own article on Quillete. It would rather be
the other way. It's Quillette that's know to court controversy and Nature
that's know to be as controversial as a pot of instant noodles.
Even with a concise and simple tax code the problem is that those with large amounts of wealth are better off spending a portion of that wealth on intentionally obscuring their assets and incomes than by simply paying their fair tax.
From the article:
> They often have trusts, foundations, limited liability companies, complex partnerships and overseas operations, all woven together to lower their tax bills.
Which is to say that...even if you set out a flat tax rate of X% it is possible to arrange situations where multiple trusts, companies, partnerships, etc, are arranged in such a way that even though they are operated for the benefit of an individual that individual has little to no real obligation via their engagement, and the interactions of those independent entities behave in such a way as to - on paper - present a reduced income then it becomes exceptionally hard to determine who owes what without devoting massive amounts of effort collecting all of these loosely related entities and analyzing flows of money.
I mean, foundations and trusts, especially, are artifacts of a complex tax code.
LLCs maybe less so. Overseas operations much less so.
And look, the complexity of the tax code isn't (solely) a result of raw dysfunction. We decided that we didn't want to treat all income the same as all other income, and all organizations the same as all other organizations, in ways that are pretty defensible.
But that's generally true of the insanely high-complexity legal systems of modern countries: most individual decisions make sense, but the aggregate result of them is bewildering, easily-parasitized complexity.
I always say - for every regulation in the book, there was someone at some point in time who figured out a way to screw over everyone else by exploiting a loophole.
There was a time when there were powers and authorities in the Western world that would silence dissent via violence and murder.
See Galileo and the Catholic Church as an example. Or the Inquisition. Or any number of other examples of absolute authority executed by a State or State based actors in the pursuit of silencing dissent and controlling discourse.
A fundamental component of American ideology is the protection of free speech and dissent. Pretty much unequivocally. E.g., the "old" and "different" culture of authoritarianism that controlled Western civilization was overturned to give individuals more freedom.
So far this dedication to individual liberty and freedom of thought and expression is a relatively short lived blip in human history - but arguing that Chinese culture is just "old" and "different" side steps the fact that on the one hand we see an evolving and changing culture that embraces the individual...and on the other we see a continuance of abusive authoritarianism that subjugates individuals in pursuit of preserving the status quo.
In the one case you have China actively violating the freedoms and liberties of the people living under its control and on the other hand you have the UN as a collective body seeking to have a discussion about that.
China is actively seeking in this case to kill any sort of discourse. The UN has no power to impose its values on anyone else. It can, as a body, take certain actions to indirectly affect nations of the world...but it is not a world government that can impose anything.
In this case all that was on the table was a discussion - and even that was untenable to China.
That is China imposing it's values on others in a very absolute way - and I agree...that's an iffy thing. I would go even further and say it's unacceptable (by any country) to try to completely silence discussion.
But then, those are European concepts. I'm not even sure if they're really expressible in endogenous Chinese languages.
So is cultural imperialism OK, as long as we're really "in the right"? That was basically Spain's argument for taking over Mexico etc. God was on their side.
Only inasmuch as they were born in Europe who in turn had to flee their home country to pretty much make it a reality.
In the article in questions here no one is talking about intervening in the internal affairs of other countries.
The point of contention is that China is actively working to prevent the very discussion of what is happening under its authority. And they are actively using violent physical force to impose their authority and prevent discussion and dissent within their borders.
Is history replete with examples of Western countries undertaking violent imperialistic expansion? Absolutely.
Is that what we're doing now or talking about here? No.
> I'm not even sure if they're really expressible in endogenous Chinese languages.
And it never will be expressible unless and until free and open discussion can be engaged in.
Sure, China doesn't want people dissing its internal policies. No country does, do they?
And yes, they are repressing dissent within China through "violent physical force". That again isn't unusual. There's a broad consensus that a state has internal monopoly on force.
Me, I hate that. But it's not as if China is alone, in that. I'd love to go buy some LSD or shrooms. But authorities put people in jail for that shit. Some huge percentage of US citizens are locked up for nonviolent drug offenses. How is that not just as bad as what China is doing?
Edit: And what if some were organizing a UN conference to discuss the violent repression of recreational drug use in the US etc? That's not even a credible possibility, is it? And that's largely because the US has so thoroughly dominated the world regarding the issue.
I absolutely agree that there are questionable aspects to how the U.S. enforced drug prohibition laws and how non-violent offenders are treated.
But again, the fact is that we can openly have, and pursue aggressively, discussion about and attempts at reform around how this is handled.
In fact we see this by the spread of various drug legalization efforts in the U.S. and efforts at prison reform.
Though there is also a huge difference between a governments authority to regulate the distribution and consumption of psychoactive compounds (and/or the sale of such compounds) and the ability to even discuss how the government is handling the issue.
Free speech and criticism of the government are a bare minimum baseline. So you can actively organize your fellow citizens in an effort to legalize various compounds in the US and you can lobby and protest the government without any fear of being arrested because of what you are saying. That is a completely different world than what goes on in China. If you are a dissident you are a criminal.
And with respect to whether or not the UN could openly address internal affairs of the U.S. - well it does: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1
Yes the U.S. ambassador to the UN had some choice words about that specific report but it was all out in the open and wasn't suppressed
> But again, the fact is that we can openly have, and pursue aggressively, discussion about and attempts at reform around how this is handled.
Yes, freedom of expression in the US is wonderful. As is freedom of religion. But still, when I'm feeling cynical, I observe that freedom of expression in the US ends when you're actually doing anything.
Or even talking about actually doing anything. Issues around the ritual use of peyote and ayahuasca come to mind.
And still, it's about as good as it gets on planet Earth. Except for, in some ways, northern Europe.
That's a great US report. Thanks. I've drifted a lot around the US, and I was seriously into whitewater for a few years. traveling barely navigable creeks and rivers in the southeastern US, I saw some unbelievable stuff.
I suggest you should read up on the far more recent case of Fred Hampton and COINTELPRO regarding US "protection of dissent". American institutions protect the status quo and allow "safe" dissent (meaning bounded (e.g. NY Times) or ineffective (tiny groups / grandpa screaming) dissent). However, free speech is treated more seriously here than most other places and times in history, that is true and good.
That said, what is being done to the Uyghur people in China is vile and is contradictory to established human rights. It is completely appropriate to take China to task at the UN. However, as US citizens, it is difficult for us to have a strong moral voice given the wars, assassinations, coups, and destructive sanctions we have initiated along with our history of indigenous genocide, colonialism, and slavery that we have still not fully reckoned with. Even now we are implementing a slightly different version of the Japanese internment camps for the most vulnerable people in our society, undocumented immigrants, to distract from the economic depredations of the ruling class.
If we want to be a more effective and just nation, we have a lot of work to do at home.
I am not saying that there aren't parts of the U.S. government that actively work against free speech - because that is certainly the case.
However the very fact that we can discuss these things (or that there is a book that is freely accessible to all on the subject of a specific instance of institutional oppression in the U.S.) openly and without fear that our doors are going to get knocked in and see us getting swept off to a "reeducation camp" are the signs that we live in a country that strongly values free speech.
The U.S. does not have a perfect track record by any means...but for all of the examples you give of bad action by the U.S. as an institution I am aware of large and public and accessible documentation in the forms of museums, installations and other means of dissemination and availability.
In other words the U.S. airs (or allows to be aired) its dirty laundry as much or more than most other countries. And while this invites "whataboutism" it certainly, in my opinion, helps validate our position to openly question and try to discuss the actions of other nations.
> a common global framework ....will ensure that the Internet does not get fractured, entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections.
Homogeneity favors business but does not foster independent or challenging thought.
Converging on a "baseline" common set of standards for "harmful" speech and what constitutes "privacy" is only going to reach the lowest common denominator.
Let people opt in to the level of control and sanitization that they want, but do not apply global restrictions without opt-out.
My girlfriend tried out the Instacart gig for a while as she finally got her chronic low energy and fatigue addressed through B12 shots and wanted something to occupy her and give her a little extra spending money outside of what's budgeted.
That experience was absolutely demoralizing in terms of what she was able to actually make. Granted we live in a lower density city in the southeast so that result makes sense. But everything is very skewed toward the company in the case of Instacart...mileage reimbursement is from the store to the delivery...and you can be sent 10-15 miles from your point of origin to the store to purchase goods at.
I'm not surprised at all that Uber (and the gig economy as a whole) are squeezing their "independent contractor labor force" given that for them it's just a stepping stone toward a fully autonomous pipeline. The calculus here isn't toward establishing and maintaining a happy and committed workforce but bridging the gap between funding and profitability through autonomous solutions.
I don't know what the answer is but I couldn't imagine being in a position where one of the few viable options available for any sort of gainful employment was working as part of the "gig" economy.
edit: If that rate is intended to also cover fuel costs then fuel can easily eat up >10% of that $0.60/mi rate. Man.
My company was bleeding money so I had to close it down over this past fall. Spent all of my savings and had to start making money asap.
I turned to uber eats, grubhub, and doordash. None of the companies value the drivers. If anything it feels like the companies are trying to milk the drivers so that the company can profit.
If the drivers are happy the customer will be happy and profits can be made. Raising rates for customers, lowering payouts for contractors is a bad idea short term. Automation of transportation is not close enough to discourage all of your contractors from working.
And you think human nature would just magically change and everyone would be equally motivated to create things of value because you burnt down all the institutions? Hierarchy and inequality exist regardless of what political system you put in place. It is literally a law of nature. Every single system creates inequality, it’s just that capitalism also creates wealth, where as other systems historically can not compete in this regard. Humans are on average wealthier now than at any other point in history and this is a VERY good thing for creating the most good for the largest number of people possible.
I imagine that would only be orders of magnitude harder to manager in this circumstances than in previous generations.
Especially for Uber who can incentivize payouts in an elastic fashion as the available labor pool shrinks. Service quality might decline a bit as available drivers decrease...but Uber won't even have to explicitly go out and find "scabs" - they can simply temporarily surge pricing to entice some of the drivers who either aren't striking or who aren't as committed.
Difficult indeed to really cut at the heart of Uber in this case and really swing some leverage as organized labor.
I mean, the surge in pricing wouldn't even be a thing someone has to do. It would just happen automatically.
That's the whole problem with this issue: Uber has made the market for taxis/rides incredibly liquid, which has driven the prices down to pretty much exactly the marginal costs. There are plenty of people who have already sunk the cost of a car, and have nothing else to do, so it still makes economic sense to do this with their time.
If the demand for unskilled labor doesn't increase, this will get worse.
Uber operates with a loss. The prices are under marginal cost. The drivers have no scale benefits like ordinary Taxi companies when it comes to buying cars or maintenance.
It only makes economical sense to drive for Uber with the car if you can't sell it for a good price (you know the car is good and not abused, the buyer doesn't) and that you don't plan on buying a new car after the wheels fall off on the present one, or you need to liquidize your assets a little bit, i.e. getting approx. 100USD for decreasing the value of the car and buying gas driving for Uber for 100USD.
That's why effective unions, like every government, use the threat of violece to enforce the social contract. They can delegate completely to the government if they can win recognition as employees (they aren't ICs under a reasonable reading of law) and jump through the appropriate hoops to get a closed shop.
I mean, that's temporary. Are you saying all workers will agree that only say 20% of them work at a time (rotating) to artificially create scarcity, raising price of labor, then redistribute income amongst themselves in a communal fashion? Because that's strictly worse.
There will always be the hopelessly desperate just waiting to be taken advantage of. The market will not magically stop this happening. We must make the choice; maybe we'll choose to allow exploitation of the hopelessly desperate, maybe we won't, but praying to the market to magically fix it won't do a thing.
No, there won’t. Wages are rising for all levels of employees. Driving a vehicle without dealing with coworkers or a “boss” just happens to be something many, many people can do so as a supplier, you have tons of competition, therefore the prices you can charge are lower.
Work towards a position that requires you to be differentiated from others and see your ability to charge more go up.
Do you have any evidence that one day there will no longer be hopelessly desperate people? The evidence so far indicates otherwise. Where is your posited utopian future coming from?
Work towards a position that requires you to be differentiated from others and see your ability to charge more go up.
This is the standard trite, middle-class advice towards people who are hopelessly desperate and trapped in poverty. The hopelessly desperate cannot do this on their own. They don't have the time, the health, the regular hours, the safety blanket of cash, the lack of children, the support network, even the simple knowledge of how to gain skills, on and on - all the things people need to take your advice. They don't have that. That's what being hopelessly desperate is.
Wages are rising, at least nominally, of course. I know they the wage and wealth gap is increasing, and the top 10% are running away with almost all the spoils, and is not a good situation.
However, the context of my response was to the person you had responded to had said that Instacart would have to pay more if people stopped running food for them, to which you had responded that Instacart wouldn't since there was an endless supply of hopelessly desperate people that Instacart can pull from.
Getting from point A to point B, especially with the help of navigation software, is something everyone can do, hence the bottom of the barrel wages. You're competing with almost everyone. Expecting to earn more than the very minimum in that kind of market is unrealistic. Before, the bottom of the barrel jobs were retail/restaurant/hotel/service jobs, but now with Instacart and Uber and whatnot, those are the new bottom of the barrel jobs, and retail/restaurant/hotel/service jobs have had to raise their wages.
I understand some people might not have a good education, some might not know the right language, have a stable home, and that is something society needs to work at fixing, but that's not the reason Uber/Instacart can afford to pay little. It's because the type of work (unscheduled, be your own boss, no language skills necessary, no customer service skills, etc) is desirable compared to other jobs that have a large supply of labor.
I think the government should step in with UBI, supplemental income, or some such, but it would be wrong to fix price of labor for one particular industry/market. The latter is just a hack.
I mean...if they could organize they could have the effective weight of a union - but the circumstances of Uber's employment scheme make that more difficult.
This is nothing to do with self driving cars and everything to do with the imbalance of power when management acts an an organized team but labor doesn't.
It’s a good thing there is more than one organized team of management to pick from! Gainful employment is not a right, it’s a voluntary agreement by both parties. Vote with your feet and go elsewhere... they will feel the crunch.
It is interesting to see "increasing activity level" as being a decrease in comfort. But I suppose that's because "comfort" here isn't defined absolutely. I also am not sure that "comfort" is an attribute that should be optimized for in disregard for all others.
If this statement is read as "anything that does not have 100% positive feedback is undesirable" then I think it would be very challenging to make any improvements in a person's life.
But then I also don't think that "comfort" is necessarily an ideal target to optimize. I think a more holistic measure such as "satisfaction" is a more productive target. We can find "satisfaction" in things that are not 100% pleasant but which in turn result in greater happiness or feelings of contentment than doing only those things that have positive feedback.
This measure of "comfortable" also does not seem to account for the secondary effects of "comfortable" choices. E.g., if we eat only "highly rewarding foods" and become obese we see discomfort in other parts of life (loss of mobility, health issues, difficulty performing mundane physical tasks, etc)