YES, just put me in charge of everything! /s
I think history has shown long term symmetry is all but impossible, but it sure seems like you can achieve it for short periods of time and a lot can get done during that period.
I think the current challenge is that this used to be the purview of religion. Elites had to behave well insofar as they believed that a higher power could punish them.
We're in an era where not only is belief in a higher power waning, technological wonders are making it seem like you can 'become' a higher power. I don't know how to maintain symmetry between someone with access to a networked drone swarm and someone who can barely use the internet, honestly.
Substack seems to have proven that's a problem with the content, not the audience.
Because credit cards are very bad at EXACTLY these kinds of small and inconsequential transactions, especially at scale.
And it's in large part because they have to worry about, e.g. fraud and money laundering protections and massive regulatory burden.
The other part is the infrastructure to handle the bandwidth of that many transactions, which crypto has as well.
Crypto could fill the same niche that used to be filled by carrying around a few spare quarters.
(semi-relatedly, I would love a substack setup where you could buy say 10 (or whatever number) of general purpose credits and use them across any substack.
This is the use case that I'm annoyed Crypto hasn't managed to fill.
Same with newpaper articles. I'm not going to create an account and subscribe to read the couple articles per month I find interesting with every news outlet.
But if I could pay like 15-150 cents to read a particular article on the spot, with just a couple of clicks, I'd be pretty happy to do so.
I mean, I'm mostly curious as to how Hunter will behave going forward.
If they really want him, seems like Trump could direct an ongoing investigation into him and keep him under tight surveillance and ding him for any new crimes he commits.
It's a tad hard for me to believe that Hunter will just go completely straight after this.
Pardoning someone for any Federal crimes they committed specifically on the date of January 6th, 2021 and maybe even narrowing it to crimes that did not involve bodily injury, is not that difficult to do.
Being willing to take a short-term hit to discourage coercion or punish broken promises is probably a pretty good default, an attitude that’s close enough to rational more often than not.
Yes.
Although the goal should be to restore symmetry, not create a different class of elites who are beyond reproach and punishment.
Ah, this is basically the setting for The Expanse series of books and the show.
Mars got colonized and colonists are in the process of terraforming it, and eventually traded some of their advanced tech for their independence. Despite vastly lower population, their people are cream of the crop, their ships are therefore top of the line, and their population is ideologically aligned. Earth is using aging tech, its people are demotivated (some huge portion of them are on UBI handouts), and of course would have had the disadvantage of fighting an expeditionary war.
Mars has a HUGE chip on their shoulder, and its military wing is so Jingoistic that there are some whisperings of invading earth if they ever have to fight it out.
So Mars is basically optimized for churning out elite soldiers and navy, and elite scientists. They'd much rather churn out scientists but they can't ignore the fact that earth has sheer numbers on them, and earth has strong economic motivation to bring them to heel.
The books also have a third 'faction' from those who colonized the asteroid belt, who are looked down upon by both Earth and Mars and who really hates both of them.
Anyhow, pulling on that thread a bit, my one objection is that its not necessarily the case that extreme selective pressure will produce an all-around superior specimen. It seems just as likely to produce a specimen that is hyperspecialized for a particular niche but pretty useless outside that. I'm thinking, for example, of creatures that live in deep caves and thus don't have eyes because they'd be a waste of energy. Intelligence is obviously important for survival on Mars, but it wouldn't be the end-all be-all, and thus those who are the most fit for survival might not exemplify all the traits the essay is suggesting will be necessary for that first wave of colonists.
It'd also assume that Mars wasn't an IQ shredder of massive proportions where the colonists are so zeroed in on survival that reproduction is fully secondary concern, and they count on a continuing supply of mental elites to keep emigrating. Even in The Expanse it becomes clear that Martian society is actually harsh on its citizens because it has to squeeze resources into both military defense and terraforming, and any projects aside those two get ignored as a waste, and any person who can't contribute to one or both projects is also ignored, as a waste. So Mars doesn't have much in the way of an arts scene and despite all its great technology can't really provide prosperity for its people because they have no 'spare' resources to dole out.
I dunno, I do want to travel to Mars to be part of a permanent colony, but I do want to hedge against being too idealistic about what that will mean for the quality of the people there. I can't think of any previous examples of a colony that, subject to the pressures of survival, managed to outperform its home country in a few generations merely by dint of attracting a far more talented population.
Even the United States had to get a boost from France to actually beat England off.
Kind of loving the fact that Biden, being old as shit, on his way out, and having been betrayed by his own party is willing to torch anyone and everyone who was counting on him to remain sidelined for the remainder of his term.
Also as usual I love that Twitter is a pretty good archive of public figures' stated positions on issues in the past so they can be dredged up when they blatantly alter said position without cause.
Community Notes is having a field day.
Not under the illusion that this will cause any contrition or self-reflection, but these folks are soon to be out of power for a while so I can take humor from this, rather than annoyance.
And finally, I generally support the Office of the Presidency having unilateral, unquestioned authority to pardon (federal) criminals although for somewhat obvious reasons which I can elucidate if needed, I think the pardons need to be precise and specifically define which crimes are being pardoned. And of course has to actually be retroactive, not prospective.
So Biden's approach to blanket pardoning Hunter's crimes during a broad period of time is raising my eyebrows quite a bit. Not claiming anything specific but if it comes out later that he did something, I dunno, treasonous that would be a HORRIBLE look.
My LLM-sense is tingling
Oof, yeah. The overuse of adverbs and adjectives as color and the lofty but imprecise language which avoids making a directly controversial point.
Hate to say it if this is a poster's own hand writing, but that's a lot of words to poorly explain the real essay.
Yup.
You can convince a young guy to literally endure repeated blows to the head if the payoff is high enough.
Do you have a more recent study to cite because every factor that's changed since that one was published would have made the problem worse. Fewer doctors per capita, more regs, Obamacare, and an older, sicker population.
What's the current status of the situation, according to your research?
Look, all I want is to be able to buy health insurance that covers only catastrophic injuries and the attendant recovery. I want to be able to pay my doctor in cash for any other services, and be able to have medical care for any minor but debilitating injuries readily available on demand. Why is that practically impossible under the current system?
As it stands, with health insurance tied to employment, I can lose access to a doctor if I switch jobs or the my employer switches insurance plans, and I can't actually be sure how much anything costs because there's no price transparency.
So I'm 'forced' into getting health insurance that covers every little thing, which most studies show doesn't actually improve outcomes for people.
It's designed well, people just refuse to use it correctly and we can't force them.
"People refuse to use it correctly" sure looks like bad design from the outside.
Ever heard of "Desire paths?". You can have a beautifully engineered and designed walkway, and people will still walk through the dirt if that makes more sense to them.
Similarly, you can try to get people to use their PCP as the doorway... but if that's too complex or annoying of a process they'll skip that and use urgent care.
Maybe just maybe there's a way that accommodates people's preferences.
Yep.
There was a local eye doctor with big dreams when I first moved to this area 9 years back who now owns like 6 different offices in two different counties. Actually, I just checked, now its 7 in three counties. Could quite possibly be pulling in 8 digits annually.
Entrepreneurial spirit in the medical field can be rewarded heavily, and because it is gated so heavily, you generally have a built-in advantage for reaping those rewards if you have business savvy.
Of course, entrepreneurs from outside the medical field are absolutely SALIVATING to piece up the medical industry any way they can, and it all seems to trend towards consolidation, where big, established players will eventually come in to compete with you.
Most doctors I've known are happy enough to just build up a big book of patients then sell off their practice.
Urgent Cares exist because people these days refuse to use the system how its designed (and it's because of incentives, I get it and have committed this crime also) but they aren't really designed for the care people ask of them.
Sounds like a design problem.
This has a number of important effects one of which is: most of the shit that annoys you most about doctors is not their fault, they are required to do it because they aren't in charge anymore (most people in most specialties are employed now and not in independent private practice).
Sounds like a design problem.
Doctors no longer work for themselves and are now required by law and by their employer to do things that annoy the hell out of patients and we hate it but its not our fault please dont blame us thank you.
Sounds like a design problem. I'm not blaming them, definitely not individual doctors.
But doctors are theoretically in the best position to raise the issue and demand or impart adjustments. Seems like there's a large... incentive problem, who profits from keeping things as they are, and why don't they suffer consequences for failure?
Another Eliezer Yudkowsky tweet that lives rent free in my head on top of the other one is his almost certainly correct argument that completely removing all regulations currently effecting the healthcare industry would create immediate improvements compared to the status quo.
So, hope that Trump takes a chainsaw to the healthcare regs?
He also has interesting ideas on addressing the status quo.
Yep, we discussed that a bit not long ago, so I can't say I'm donating entirely out of altruism.
I don't know if they filter out the microplastics from the blood somehow (probably not) or if they just get passed along to become the next guy's problem.
Well conveniently I explained what happened with my primary care physician elsewhere in this thread.
i.e., he's been 99% useless to me compared to the time and money cost, so urgent care is simply the better option.
Ultimately if you say, go to your lawyer and ask for accounting help, they may charge you for it and try and help but they aren't an accountant.
Ackshully, as a practicing lawyer, I can say that that may very well be malpractice, and its for this exact reason I keep a number of trusted accountant and financial advisors in my rolodex to send clients to rather than even risk that issue.
Somehow they don't even have to test the drop these days. They get the iron level some other way.
The fact that I was able to get an issue solved by a Physical Therapist with an investment of about $50 and 30 minutes of time seems to suggest that the medical industry is overcharging for certain services.
Not sure what you'd suggest I do when I'm experiencing ongoing immense pain but no immediate danger and it'd take weeks or possibly more to get in with a specialist.
If the urgent care folks had said "oh, we aren't really geared for this, go see a physiatrist" then I'd give them credit.
That ain't what happened.
Far as I know it's just based on some eligibility criteria. Giving more often in theory means more blood available (for others) for emergencies. I like to think I'm banking some karma.
I had severe and persistent shoulder pain a few years back, it would radiate down my arm to the point it it became actually debilitating. Went to urgent care, they did X-rays, a doc came in and felt around, asked me some questions, and looked at the X-ray results.
Said I likely had bursitis and gave me a scrip for muscle relaxers and painkillers, that BARELY got me through the next couple weeks until the pain went away.
Last year, the pain came back. This time I spoke to one of my Physical Therapist friends who I KNEW saw tons of patients a year. She agreed to do an exam for cash, then give me her thoughts and possible options.
Took her about 10-15 minutes of prodding around to diagnose elevated first rib and a muscle imbalance causing possible shoulder impingement.
She gave me some stretches to ease the discomfort, then some exercises to remedy the imbalance once the pain subsided. Took <1 week for the pain to alleviate, and after easing into the exercises everything started working even better than before. No drugs needed.
Sort of broke my last remaining faith in Doctors as the gatekeepers of health.
Lol I think about the same thing from time to time.
Back when I moved to a new area and had to face the terrifying fear of finding a new doctor, dentists, etc. all on my own, I spent a couple hours of research to find a doctor who accepted my insurance, was located conveniently close to my home, and seemed sufficiently competent from the dubiously reliable reviews and ratings systems there are for doctors (this shouldn't be difficult? There should be some easy way to ascertain if they've ever fucked over a patient or not?). The appointment had to be made a month or so out. I saw him a grand total of twice. Each time I waited about 20 minutes to be seen. I think I spent a total of 15 minutes in his presence. The first time he asked me all the standard health screening questions, including Tobacco use. I truthfully said that I'd had a cigar earlier that year, which he marked down on my sheet and noted "that might make it harder for you to get life insurance." Sent me to go get the standard battery of tests one gets as part of a general physical exam.
Second time, X months later I came back so he could review lab test results with me. All seemed good (BMI a little high but I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT), and I requested politely that he make it clear that I am not a tobacco user, and he was good enough to remove that from the sheet. Hours of research and waiting to talk to the guy for <15 minutes and be told I'm in great health, if a little heavy.
Never went back. Felt like the time investment was simply not worth the so-called 'preventative' benefits. What was the point of him and me being in the same room other than allowing him to show face and justify however much he was billing to my insurance co.? Every single measurement he took could have been done by a nurse, any information he needed to diagnose could be provided without me having to make the appointment and such. I can give a blood sample, turn my head and cough, and get X-rays done somewhere else and send them to him for review without needing to coordinate our busy schedules to coincide.
That's how lab tests work! I go to a location that has plentiful availability, they do some tests and send the results to the Doc. Surely he could have looked them over and sent back some recommendations or concerns as needed. He can presumably do that from the comfort of his home, even!
If I feel something physically wrong with me and it doesn't go away, I go to urgent care and get attention on the spot. If I want to know about some given metric about my body I can usually purchase or borrow a tool that will give me acceptable measurements, then punch those into google (or, more recently, ChatGPT). As somebody with no chronic health issues I simply don't see the value-add of having a primary doctor that will just tell me things I already know, but with the authority of an M.D.
I donate blood every few months and they do a mini-physical that allows me to have a small insight into my health going back for years, so its not like I'm just sticking my head in the sand!
Now, OTOH I kind of love my Dermatologist. Visits last <30 minutes, about 10 of those she's physically present, and the entire time she's actually doing examination of the relevant organ. I pay in cash, I get another appointment 1 year out, and that's that. If something out of the ordinary is noticed, she can write the scrip and I can usually physically see the improvement the treatments bring.
I wonder how much of the prestige for doctors is still driven by all the Primetime shows that portray doctors as various types of savants or at least dedicated, hard workers who are subject to insane pressures and generally rise to the occasion. It probably makes the layperson think its GOOD that we limit who can be a doctor. "Doctors have to be like top 10% for intelligence and capable of working insane hours, that's not something just anybody can do!!"
Nevermind that the shortage of doctors is the reason they get insane hours and plenty of people in the top 10% for intelligence would avoid the field BECAUSE of that.
I have come to despise the proliferation of messaging apps with slightly different functionality, and each one tries to justify itself somewhat differently but end of the day the features anyone cares about are identical.
"Meta" missed a huge chance to live up to their name and build up interoperability with every major messaging app so that Facebook users could end up having a single account on one app that allows them to chat with everyone on every other app through one interface.
I decided long ago that you should never meet your heroes or role models.
They won't live up to the hype, and they'll inevitably let you down with their behavior.
So mostly glad that I only ever stayed on the periphery of the alternative/indie media scene. Never followed any of them too closely, picked and chose who I thought was actually trustworthy, and certainly never financially supported any of them. I turned out to be consistently right on the money.
As much as I think legacy and mainstream media is corrupt, the problem with independent media tends to be incompetence. They don't have the experience or connections to maintain a positive public image in a high profile environment, so they have to make things up as they go along, and any missteps could blow up in their face. If they didn't have their life together when they became famous, an injection of fame surely wouldn't help them get it together.
So, so many 'prominent' internet personalities from the early 2010's/Post-gamergate era turned into or just turned out to be horrible people. Not worthy to be looked up to as leaders, but somehow given outsize influence over their little corner of the culture. The lucky ones just slowly fade into irrelevance, their content getting <1% of the attention it used to, but still churned out with some regularity.
Except PewDiePie, somehow that dude made his money, found his girl, and got out without nuking his reputation or sending his life into a tailspin. Also JonTron seems to have hit a point in his career where he can spit out a video every few months to a million or so views, and just live his life the rest of the time.
I suspect that the nature of the internet, which is able to bestow some random citizen with more attention and fame than literal emperors in olden times would have gotten, out of the blue (think Hawk Tuah girl, for sure) and most are just not psychologically trained to handle that with grace. Eventually they'll choose to indulge whatever their worst impulses are, and usually their fans will cheer them on because they're just there for the drama. Then its either a slow descent into degeneracy, or possibly a rapid unplanned disassembly. Or, perhaps, the better interpretation is they go through the same sort of travails that most 'normal' people experience, but being broadcast to an audience of hundreds of thousands kind of raises the stakes.
The sort of people who seek to be 'pundits' or leaders of political movements are probably predisposed to be sociopaths or narcissists who will eventually abuse their influence.
There are some exceptions. I really enjoy the Indie Scifi Book Series written by Travis J.I. Corcoran, and I got to spend some time around him and he... is exactly what he represents himself as. Curmudgeonly as all hell, but also unwilling to compromise on truth and is charming in his way.
I also briefly met Larry Correia and he's pretty cool.
More options
Context Copy link