the ability to share gossip efficiently about businesses using sites like Yelp is net positive for humanity
Maybe not Yelp specifically. They've been accused of effectively extorting small businesses, by asking them to pay for advertisements, and manipulating their reviews if they decline. The business owners sued and lost in the 9th Circuit, but (albeit from my brief skimming) the ruling doesn't deny review manipulation is happening, just says it's not illegal.
Businesses themselves manipulate reviews (for example, offering gift cards to customers for good reviews, also reporting bad reviews for inaccuracies), and unmanipulated reviews aren't reliable either because people are biased. Despite that, I still think (at least on forums where people are skeptical) that reviews are better indicators of quality than nothing. I also can't think of any regulation to prevent these kinds of sites from manipulating reviews without massive downsides, since review manipulation done right is practically impossible to prove. A more likely solution is that eventually most people stop trusting sites without transparent moderation, and stop trusting reviews without evidence or proof they are made by a real, credible person.
However, the idea that review sites are blackmailing small businesses for good reviews, and/or promoting big businesses more because they can pay more; especially because this could be contributing to why small businesses get less customers now than before (although overt advertising is probably a bigger factor); means that these sites may not be a net positive.
alsfhwe
1mo ago
I'm against this law because, even ignoring moral policing (and I'm against moral policing), how will it be enforced? Will Michigan set up their own GFW? Round up everyone and force them to install spyware? Install hypersensitive mics in every neighborhood and use ML to detect porn sounds? Imagine the money, resources, and time needed to prevent people from doing something in private that, right now, is widely accepted and extremely common. Money that could've been spent on, for example, lowering taxes or improving infrastructure.
This is different than CSAM, which is widely condemned and already illegal. There are no multibillion dollar websites distributing CSAM, you can't get easy access to it just by crossing state lines or using a VPN, and almost nobody is defending it (people defending basic rights like encryption and control over their own devices, e.g. opposition to ChatControl, aren't defending CSAM; those things would lower CSAM but have much worse consequences).
If this were to ever become law (and fortunately I doubt it), I bet it will be selectively enforced. Politicians in office and their families will watch whatever porn they desire and brag about it, but their opposition and "enemy tribe" celebrities will be charged on the smallest suspicion. Even if they genuinely don't watch porn, they could be indicted on fake evidence, and considering people thought "Shut up and Dance" was plausible, maybe even convicted.
Moreover, if cops have any incentive to prosecute this besides lawfare, lots of stupid but harmless people will be wasting their lives and taxpayer dollars in prison (as opposed to, worst case, wasting their lives more comfortably and wasting less taxpayer dollars at home). I can't imagine Michigan implementing anything that isn't trivial for anyone with the most basic technical knowledge, or basic ability to read and follow instructions, to bypass. But there are a lot of people who are very dumb, very tech illiterate, very unaware of current events, and very horny.
Why can't the right-wing create their own universities, or "Antiversities"? And grow them by redirecting the funds from existing universities (NIH, NHS, etc.) while only hiring outside academia.
What is being taught in school today?
I went to public school in a liberal area during the 2000s/10s. Here are some things I learned:
-
The United States is a great nation, largely because of its Constitution. The amendments, Bill of Rights, and separation of powers (along with access to plenty of natural resources) has kept our nation alive for (by now) almost 250 years.
-
The first amendment is very important, and it grants true free speech which is a very good thing. The exceptions are specific and largely uncontroversial, like direct threats, leaking classified information, and (the textbook example) shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The other amendments are also important, although we covered them less, but I do remember covering the second, fourth, fifth, and tenth.
-
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, MLK Jr...these people were covered extensively and framed very positively. Even Christopher Columbus and Thomas Edison were framed positively in elementary school, although later I learned they were immoral and fraudulent (Columbus was not the first person to discover America, and Edison ripped off Nikola Tesla).
-
Slavery, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights era were covered very extensively. Fascism, communism, and Nazism were covered extensively. I remember socialism being described as maybe OK, but the way it was implemented in the USSR was catastrophic. "Jingoism", Japanese internment, and the Red Scare were shameful and immoral, although covered minimally. The Enlightenment era, factories, robber barons, unions, United Fruit, "The Jungle"...capitalism as a whole wasn't irredeemable, but certainly in need of regulation. The atomic bomb was...controversial, but it was effective and there wasn't a clear alternative. The US destabilized foreign countries' governments for profit and the Vietnam War was largely a failure. 9/11 was a tragedy, and the Taliban and terrorists are barbaric, but the GWOT was too recent to really judge.
-
History in the early years was almost entirely positive, but in high school I learned more and more of the unsavory details. However, I never got the impression that the US as a whole was bad, just imperfect. We still looked up to the founding fathers and the Constitution (I learned that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and had a child with one, but he was still portrayed as humane overall because "it was a different time"). We still learned about and looked up to the "great men" (and some women, we seemed to focus on individuals more than groups). We still celebrated the US's success, it's growth and eventual dominance, victories in World Wars I/II, and cultural influences ("the American Dream", the Wild West, Hollywood, Woodstock, 80s, 90s). I graduated with (and to this day have) pride and patriotism, albeit nuanced; our nation isn't without flaws, because no human, group, or nation is without flaws, and acknowledging your mistakes is how you overcome them and improve.
-
I did learn about other countries and history before 1776, but my lessons were very US-centric.
Granted, this is only some of what was covered, and of what I remember. It's (not intentionally but) certainly biased towards the lessons I felt were important and my interpretation of them. But when I hear what people in the US are saying and doing today, I wonder if they grew up learning something completely different. I've always thought the above is a general curriculum that exists in most schools, but maybe not so?
This seems very reasonable and non-partisan. It doesn't mention Democrats or Republicans, and directly acknowledges that division and political violence is wrong regardless of ideology.
Something about this situation, probably the clear-cut "violence against speech" and reaction, makes me unusually sympathetic. I disagree with most of Charlie Kirk's ideas and share the perspective that his "debates" were performative and one-sided, but since the assassination, I feel only respect for the man himself. And I can't be the only one: that people should challenge their assumptions, hold fair and respectful discussions, and never respond to speech with violence, those are ideas that I was taught in school, and that I've always believed are liberal (and still do, though "liberal" is different from "leftist" and "Blue Tribe"). I'm not the only one who's said or written something like this. I suspect some of the Democrats voting "yes", even being politicians, are doing it not just for appearance but with genuine conviction.
alsfhwe
2mo ago
The Line in Saudi Arabia
It's under review and construction has scaled back, due to financial issues.
Saudi Arabia is reassessing the scope and timeline of its $500-billion NEOM initiative, according to Bloomberg and CNBC, with officials reportedly reviewing key components of The Line in response to deepening financial strain across the kingdom’s Vision 2030 infrastructure program. The move comes amid mounting vendor arrears and a liquidity crunch that has prompted an urgent reallocation of energy-sector capital and personnel.
According to sources cited by CNBC, planners have frozen development on large portions of The Line, NEOM’s flagship linear city concept, and slashed active construction manpower by 35% since April. The labor cutback reflects a broader slowdown as fiscal priorities shift away from breakneck expansion and toward cash preservation.
alsfhwe
2mo ago
Tao isn't the best example to defend academia because 1) he'll be fine (allegedly his funding was partially restored, but moreover he and his students have plenty of potential sponsors), and 2) his field doesn't have obvious, real-life impact.
What about the NIH scientists working on treatments for cancer and other diseases, and those running long-term experiments that will have to be cancelled without funding?
How are we, as a society, supposed to do any universally-beneficial or long-term research with politicization? When one side demands loyalty, then the other side attacks you for said loyalty, how do we ensure the safety of, if not ongoing, then at least future research?
Industry has been embraced by both sides, but doesn't seem keen to host anything "universally-beneficial" or "long-term". Providing upfront funding for decades-long experiments, especially if it's coming from grassroots organizations (since no government or industry), seems infeasible.
alsfhwe
3mo ago
I strongly caution against sneaking oil/butter in her food. It may cause her to be anxious she's not losing weight and restrict more, and that's if you don't get caught.
Cooking good food and planning dates at fancy restaurants, and nudging her to eat more, are good suggestions.
alsfhwe
4mo ago
Likewise, the 2015 song Renegades was originally written for a commercial advertising the Jeep Renegade. After I learned that, every time I heard the song on the radio, I felt I was listening to a glorified advertisement.
In fairness, I believe artists "pour their soul" into their art, to some extent, even when it's made with strict guidelines for a paycheck. Even non-art professional software, as evidenced by Easter eggs and the occasional feature that is unreasonably clever and well-implemented for no apparent reason. Ideas that come from "goofing around" aren't much different from those that come from insight, both arise from spontaneous thought. The opposite side of "people create a retroactive narrative to explain their actions", is that people's actions are influenced by their past experiences and suppressed desires, sometimes in ways they don't consciously realize.
alsfhwe
4mo ago
IIRC we already have a system where people get seem immediately for emergencies, but have trouble scheduling appointments for non-emergency issues.
It works terribly. Someone notices a strange lump on their body, calls the doctor, and makes an appointment months out. They start feeling weak, call the doctor again, but still have to wait until that appointment. Things get worse and worse until suddenly they collapse and are rushed to the ER. It turns out they had cancer all along, which is now stage 4 and requires expensive surgery and medications. If they got a checkup when they first noticed the lump, they would've had better outcomes and their insurance/government would've paid less.
Also, "how much risk they're willing to bear" means that unlucky people who were low-risk get stuck with unfairly high payments. A 21-year old may not just get injured from a car accident, they may suffer from an autoimmune disease or genetic condition that only appears later in life.
Why bother?
I've thought about this question a lot. It's why I've never really posted on this site. I spend lots of time on many other forums but post very infrequently. In-person I don't talk much either.
I often reflect on the things I do write or say. In hindsight, many of them seem obvious and therefore unnecessary. Others I regret because my opinion has changed. But occasionally I'll look at something I wrote and feel glad, because I was right. Whether it's because I predicted something, I made someone else agree; or it's something I wrote when I was much younger, and despite having far more experience, my opinion hasn't changed at all.
Here are some reasons why you should argue for your beliefs:
-
To convince yourself: people aren't perfectly rational, we form beliefs for illogical reasons (e.g. because we heard them from friends or family), and we hold beliefs without understanding why. When you argue for such a belief, you create the argument on the fly. If it's a "justifiable" belief (i.e. aligns with your other beliefs), the argument can reinforce your confidence in it later; or if it's not, you may start writing, realize you can't find a good argument, then change your belief for the better (happens to me).
-
Because it may convince some people: the vast majority probably approach your argument firmly holding their own conclusions, but perhaps one or two are unsure, and your argument moves them to your side. I believe this happens, everyone has some concepts they don't hold a firm opinion on and can be persuaded either way. If your giant wall of text convinces just one or two people, was it worth writing? That's up for you to decide, but note that enough "one or two people"s can sway an election.
-
Because it appeases people who already agree with you: It makes me happy to read and hear nuanced opinions similar to mine among a sea of surface-level takes. I appreciate them even though I already agree with them. It makes me more confident, because it signals there are more people like me in this world, and that my worldview may not be "wrong" because others hold it. If the opinion is backed with evidence, I can use it if/when I restate the opinion in my own social spaces. Thus, even if everyone that reads your post agrees, it may still have positive consequences.
-
Because it appeases people who don't agree with you (if you care about people in general): I like reading some nuanced opinions that I strongly disagree with, because they make me think. As much as I dislike some parts of society, I wouldn't want everyone to think exactly like me, because it would be much more boring.
-
Because of pride, and/or because you want to for some other reason: people aren't perfectly rational, we can't control what we want. If posting makes you feel better about yourself, or feel like you accomplished something, then even if there's no other reason I believe it's worth it. Scott Alexander has written a lot, he's written that people have said (paraphrasing) "wow, you write so much. How do you do it? Isn't it hard?"; and he replied, he just really likes to write, for him it's not work, it's relaxation.
To elaborate on "because you want to" and expand on "why bother": why bother with anything? I have a dog, and dogs seem to live meaningless lives: they sleep, eat, go for walks mostly around the same places, play a repetitive game (fetch), get pet, and occasionally meet people who are invited over. People live much more meaningfully: we travel, build things, lead corporations and governments, go into space, etc. But those things are only more meaningful because we feel they are; for depressed nihilistic people they aren't meaningful at all. Likewise, I think a post is intrinsically "meaningful" if the author feels it is, even if there's no other reason...
...I don't know, I guess I "bothered" to write that last part, and this whole post.
alsfhwe
7mo ago
That reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1425/
The election's still over a week away? I feel like it's been on the news forever. US political campaigns are way too long (and infrequent); there should be a short period where the news is flooded with a recap of each candidate's policies and past, then be done with it until the next election.
More options
Context Copy link