non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
But when Darwin says that traits that favor the preservation of the species are preserved, no new information is gained.
To someone who thinks that traits are not passed down, it is. Someone might think that the distribution of traits in cats today are the exact same as the distribution of traits in cats 5000 years ago.
Also, there are interactions between traits. Say someone has a mutation that removes their thumbs, but has another mutation that makes them a super genius. Are they more or less likely to pass down their traits than an average person with no unusual mutations? Understanding Darwin's theory is the first step to understanding the exceptions, to understanding why detrimental traits are passed down sometimes.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Would this fit better in the Culture War thread? It's roughly on topic and certainly seems fleshed out enough.
I sometimes like the lower standards of the smaller threads. Less pressure to thoroughly defend my position.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
A politician's constituents are less likely to be as unified on these issues as they would be on abundant and affordable housing and energy.
Across a nation? Sure. But I'm certain you can find some smaller constituencies where the voters are quite unified in what they want their representative to do.
Can you define hate speech?
I can't, and the voters might not be able to either, but that won't necessarily stop them from demanding something be done. I have a similar response to the rest of your questions: I am not trying to argue for specific policies, I am asking what a politician has the obligation to do when their voters start angrily making demands that something should be done, but what they say they want is not what they really want long term.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
So how does a politician apply that rule when it comes to an issue that's a values judgement, like abortion, or the best amount to redistribute from the rich to the poor, or gun rights, or freedom of speech vs hate speech?
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Those might be better options, but that dodges the question of what responsibility the politician has when their voters say they really want price controls but would in reality prefer one of those options, or even doing nothing, over price controls.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
So is a politician justified in restricting the rights of minorities, if the populace is deeply bigoted and actually want the politician to go even further?
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
As for actually answering your question—the only winning move is not to play. Reneging on a popular promise is suicide. A politician ought not to make ones he thinks are stupid or immoral. He should run on a positive platform that just happens to deprioritize or counter the popular thing; it’s much easier to be ignored than be told you’re a dumb idiot.
Sure, but say 2 years into a 5 year term there's a massive gasoline shortage, and the majority of people start calling for price caps like in the 70s. What do the politicians do then?
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
That's kind of my point. The people think they want one thing, but they really want another. I don't think people really want to erase minority cultures or kill a minority population with roving death camps either, they just get tricked into thinking they want it. But what rights do politicians have to bypass what the people think they want?
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
It'd probably be easier to make the automation with a chrome extension that automatically fills out the fields when you navigate to the webpage. Creating an android app interface feels like a lot of work, especially for a beginner, when you're the only one using the app. The only reason I'd see to use the app is if you often want to do the parking requests while you don't have access to your laptop. And even then, I'm pretty sure it's possible and not too much more difficult to do browser extensions for a phone browser.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
To what degree should the politicians do what the general population wants, when what the general population wants is stupid? The most clear cut case of the general population wanting stupid stuff I think is price controls- the idea of keeping rent or gasoline below a certain hard cap is very popular with a lot of ordinary people. But it of course would be counter-productive- it'll only result in a lower supply of something people desperately want, and force them to start paying with their time in long lines instead of paying just with their wallets. So if 90% of the population say they want a cap on prices of something, does their elected representative have a responsibility to say "No you guys are stupid, I know what you really want" and not implement price controls?
Another example would be nationalism. A lot of times, people will be chauvinistic about their culture, and want to oppress minority cultures. Not really so much in the US recently despite all the fuss about race relations, but there are many extreme cases internationally. The majority will try to inflict on the minority restrictions on using their minority language in schools, prevent access to elected and civil service jobs, take children away from families, forcibly expel people, even execute the minorities with roving firing squads or death camps, in a brief list from least bad to worst actions chauvinism often leads to. Does a politician have any obligation to say, "No, I will not implement this policy. Not only is it immoral, it won't actually make life better for you" to the people who elected him if the 90% majority population wants to inflict those degradations on the 10% minority?
The obvious slippery slope is a politician thinking he knows better in a case where he doesn't actually know better, or deciding laws based on his own personal values instead of the general population's in a case where there is no option that's better on all metrics. E.g, abortion laws always have a trade off between the preferences and health of the mother against the fetus, and where you want abortion laws to be at depends on the ratio of which you value mother:fetus.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
People have been protesting Israel and calling them genocidal basically every year since 1947, with only small breaks during the periods of hours to days when the Arabs start a military offense and briefly look like they have the upper hand before getting their asses handed to them.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
People are already achieving that level of communication with randos in online comments sections. Pen pals rarely formed very tight bonds.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
We try to avoid making two-flavor combos where the dessert could be done as a single flavor in one of the two flavors
I'm having a hard time understanding what that's supposed to mean
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
I feel like, for better or worse, we're stuck with social media so we've gotta work forward through that.
Encouraging people to be friends with complete randos I don't consider the right step forward.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
I'm in a similar position to you, but I still read a few books a year. I was a voracious reader until I was about 16, reading multiple fiction books a week. I'd go to a library, check out 10 books from the kid's section, read about five, and return the others(sometimes weeks late, to my parents' chagrin).
Sometimes I still devour books in a similar manner, where I'll read hundreds of pages in a week. But that's a rare occurrence. I think that's mainly because it's difficult to find books I enjoy. The majority of books I start simply don't engage me, and I can often force my way through, but I'll probably just be reading a couple chapters a week when I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time. But when I find a book I really like, I make time for it. When I was a child, I had much lower standards and there were a lot of engrossing books.
Also, I don't think there's ever been a "classic" that I've really enjoyed. The closest would probably be Animal Farm, Dune, and Lord of the Rings, but those were still books I forced myself through. The books I burn through are the modern page turners, stuff like Cradle or Dungeon Crawler Carl that are really popular on Reddit and have tons of action and tension. Sometimes non-fiction too, I like Frans de Waal's pop sci on animal intelligence a lot.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
That's a terrible idea. The big accounts I follow, I follow because I like what they post. I don't want to be redistributed to some rando. I'd immediately unfollow any rando the social media tries to make me follow, and I'd be annoyed I had to do it.
And on a lower level, for friends, the number of followers they have doesn't mean much on its own. If I make a friend, and they have 100 followers and follow 100 people, that doesn't mean much compared to another friend that has 3000 followers and follows 3000 people. The second person is just more of a social butterfly who follows a lot of people and gets the obligatory follow back. The person who'd have more social capital than either is the person with 1000 followers and follows 400 people- that's probably a hot girl who posts the occasional revealing photo on a public account, but is also perhaps a normal person who for whatever reason has high social capital for another reason.
One time I reached out to the creator, and they replied back, and they became one of my very few Twitter followers who isn't a bot. I think something like that, on a larger scale, would help Social Media become more "social" instead of mindless passive celebrity worship.
I don't think that's a particularly important goal. No matter what you do, social media friends will very rarely be "real" friends. Real friends will hang out with you to get drinks, will help you move a couch, will send you job opportunities that are a perfect fit for you they heard about from another of their friends. We should absolutely try to do something to rebuild communities and make people more social again, but doing it through social media isn't a worthwhile goal.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
What does gold pill mean? I've heard of red, blue, black, white, and pink pills, but not gold.
I really don't know what Objectivism is. I've just never really seen anyone defend or explain it in depth, and I've never seen anyone smart recommend it besides Rand herself.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
I know codependency as mostly a gag in sitcoms about crappy couples. Like Jerry and Beth from from Rick and Morty.
I've never read an Ayn Rand book. I don't really know how it differs from other types of libertarianism, but I mostly see lefties mocking Ayn Rand as a dumb libertarian, and libertarians politely disagreeing with Ayn Rand as also a dumb type of libertarian. So I assume Objectivism is somewhere between wrong about literally everything and wrong about most things.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
I really wasn't intending to. I think Khan Academy has great lessons. If I need to refresh myself on economics, since I really only have a 101 knowledge level myself, that's where I go to. I think everyone who wants to argue about economics should go through all the Khan Academy lessons first.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Maybe you do honestly believe he fails to grasp basic economics, but "Let me recommend Khan Academy/community college/a textbook" is a polite way of saying "You're ignorant and you don't know what you're talking about,"
I do believe he fails to grasp basic economics, although I'd guess it's more he doesn't "know" basic economics than "fails to grasp" basic economics. He seems smart enough from his writing ability. In his own words, "It’s an entrenched mythology of capitalism that companies lower prices based on competition". That's some pretty basic economics he's denying. Not knowing basic economics is the same thing as being ignorant and not knowing what he's talking about. The best way for him to learn, in my opinion, is to go through some Khan Academy lessons. I could've recommended he enroll in some Harvard classes instead, but that'd cost him hundreds of dollars and probably not actually be as effective despite being more prestigious.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
It wasn't supposed to be a slight at him. Khan Academy is a great learning resource, and I'm pretty sure he's never learnt any economics beyond articles and blogs(If he has and just chose to reject it, then I should stop wasting my time here). I think he'd learn from just going through the lessons there than any amount of arguing with me or reading more articles and blogs, because there are actual graphs and formulas involved that Khan Academy is better set up to teach.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Grocery stores will always need to have lower prices than an expedient restaurant like McDonald’s, otherwise few would eat at home. Consumers are more likely venture far away for groceries, because it can be cost-saving to do so. This is different from having only a few fast food places to go to on your lunch break. There may be dozens of grocers, some of which will not know their competitors’ pricings.
Going to any mall food court, I have a dozen different fast food restaurants to choose from. Even more if I'm willing to walk 15 minutes to places outside the mall. Your argument here seems to boil down to, "Once there is sufficient competition and lack of knowledge of pricing between businesses, then competition will bring prices down". But I don't see any plausible explanation why that emerges for grocery stores and not a mall food court. Especially since not all fast food items are equivalent. A Wendy's hamburger might be basically the same as a McDonald's Hamburger, but how does a local business sushi place and a McDonald's arrive on equivalent pricing?
And because the food is already purchased in bulk and perishable, grocers need to sell some food at a discount otherwise they lose more money in the whole. This is all very different than a fast food place with very efficient supply chains.
Sure, that explains some food discounts. It doesn't explain why they don't come up with an agreement in your model where all the grocers sell 1 litre pepsi drinks for $5 and the fast food restaurants sell them for $15, instead of what we have currently where grocers sell them for $1 and fast food places sell them for $3.
the scheme inflated the price of bread by at least $1.50
I am trying to look for a smart libertarian economist's opinion on the incident, and I can't yet find one. If I can find anything convincing, I'll let you know. But my default opinion, and I think the standard economist's response, would be that collusion can happen. Monopoly can let a single seller unfairly raise prices, and collusion can let competitors act like a monopoly. This was in an area with only seven big retail sellers, and two big bread wholesalers, that were all selling basically equivalent bread, so it was a relatively easy area for collusion. And even so, they didn't always act in sync, there was an incident in 2012 where they didn't increase prices and argued between themselves about it. And it was caught eventually, and they're getting punished for it. That sort of collusion is not common.
I promise you, if grocers can negotiate price increases amongst themselves over a period of 15 years in secrecy, they can surely decide not to lower prices unless their competitor does so (guaranteeing rarely-lowering prices). So you need a place like CostCo whose entire shtick is an ugly experience for lower prices. Even then, CostCo makes 30 billion in profit.
I agree that it's easier to coordinate not to lower prices. It's fortunate in that way we experience inflation and that it's quite rare that a fast food place manages any sort of improvement so dramatic that lowering their prices, even if their competitors didn't, would be a good idea for them.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
That wasn’t in the reply I replied to. You are asking me why my explanation for X does not reply to the non-existent question Y. In fact, you asked Y three posts up, and to that I replied
You never properly answered it so I asked again.
Now clearly this answers your question as to why all fast food locations can’t arbitrarily raise their prices to infinity. They compete with grocery stores, which have more competition over prices due to the variety of bulk retail outlets, online grocery orders, and so on, and which the consumer plans trips to in advance. This is different from having a limited number of expedient food options near your work.
This is a proper answer. However, it contradicts with what you said earlier,
It’s an entrenched mythology of capitalism that companies lower prices based on competition.
I don't see why McDonald's needs to lower prices to compete with grocery stores and bulk retail outlets, but not to compete with Wendy's.
I'll grant you that apparently I'm wrong and haven't travelled enough, or at least haven't documented enough McDonald's prices. But there's still nothing showing McDonald's locations lower their prices to shut down competitors then raise them again.
We have to ask, (1) should the developer of Ozempic make as much money as possible, or (2) should the developer of Ozempic make approximately the amount of money that a reasonable developer would consider justifies his research. My position is the second one. (If this is too many words of commas let me know and I can rephrase). Imagine how evil it would be if the scientist who discovered penicillin tried to maximize profit.
I think cases where IP is involved is complex. I agree that stumbling onto the right formula shouldn't be a license to print massive amounts of money for all eternity. I think people should get a few years to be very wealthy, then it should be simple for anyone else to use the same formula to join the open market. Probably shorter than what we currently have and definitely it should be simpler to get permission from the FDA to compete. But in the meantime before IP expires, the developers should get to make as much money as they want. That's how you properly incentivize people to search for amazing drugs instead of just good drugs, since if either way they'd just get enough money to incentivize looking, no one would look for harder but better drugs.
I'd like you to address nvidia too, since while they have a lot of IP I'm sure, a big part of why they make so much money is that no other company can make chips as good as them, even if they didn't have IP. If you limit their profit, they'd have no incentive to open another factory or research team, since they'd already have maxed out on money they can make.
Replying to a comment you make further down:
look no further than Stanley Cups, why should one company make so much profit on cups just because they have the funds to psychologically manipulate the public’s desires
They aren't simply "psychologically manipulating" the public. The public can think for themselves. The public likes being expensive things to show off how hip(and wealthy) they are, they do it all the time. Diamond rings, luxury cars and watches and clothes, meals at pricey restaurants, art, wine. All those things might be better in some small ways than their budget competitors, but the vast majority of the price differential comes from people wanting to show off their wealth and taste. And if they want to show off their wealth and taste, someone will inevitably sell them the opportunity to do so.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
I missed your reply originally and was just going over my old comments.
Anyways, I very much hope you wouldn't spend much time writing 3 paragraphs to clarify the position you already thought over in great detail, enough to write 3234 words(including quotes) in just your previous response. My whole point is I want something short, about 250 words max, that I can actually understand.
I don't know why you comment on this site. I do it because I enjoy being able to think through my thoughts, have others point out any mistakes I make or facts I miss, to convince others of my positions, and to get upvotes. You writing out what's basically a 12 page essay that I can't understand the thesis or conclusion of doesn't accomplish much of that, and I don't know what it did accomplish
Yet no one put together the theory of natural selection. People also knew objects fell when you dropped them, but it took millennia for people to really start formalizing it.
Or 4., linked to another trait that is beneficial, such that the two traits are passed down together.
Darwin's theory let him make predictions about nature. Before him, people weren't making predictions about nature, about how different environments would lead to different traits being more prevalent.
More options
Context Copy link