OpieCunningham

I saw it in mid April. Walked right in at the scheduled time. But I did feel that was anomalous. Both d’Orsay and Louvre should really be capping daily entrants - it’s becoming a significant waste to go when you’re 5-10 meters away with a crowd between you and most works of art.

Am I supposed to be more concerned with leave no trace than I am with people slipping through the cracks of society? Because I’m not.

Le Corbusier, a pioneer of YIMBYism.

To be fair, housing costs in Paris would be much more reasonable, both due to such a glut of housing and the subsequent decreased interest in living there.

“They say the smog is the reason we have such beautiful sunsets.”

Nice.

> I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. > Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels.

There is one person who controls all the constraints: Zuckerberg. He even went so far as to enforce that through his stock classifications. It’s entirely understandable and acceptable to have empathy for those working at FB who are attempting to solve the problems. But Zuckerberg made the decision to be the single source of the constraints that bind everyone below. And his constraints are: profit over all else. He should face consequences for setting those constraints, just as anyone should who set a constraint of “address climate change without adversely effecting GDP”.

Separately, and as the “revelations” of Zuckerberg’s immoral behavior continues year after year, those who work for him but are attempting to solve the problems, should recognize at some point in the future, now, or in the past that the problems are insurmountable within the confines of the constraints. As that knowledge spreads, then the question becomes whether those idealistically earnest individuals are justifiably ignorant of the reality: that all their best intentions are moot in the face of the constraints as were determined by Zuckerberg. And when or if they are no longer justifiably ignorant, they become culpable.

Life span is increasing very marginally. You are probably referring to life expectancy, which has been increasing.

Life span is how old a human is capable of living. This number has not changed much in hundreds or thousands of years. Life expectancy is how many humans reach any specific age. Life expectancy increases are primarily driven by decreases in infant deaths (which bring down the averages), and secondarily by better diagnosis and treatments of disease in older humans.

In any case, the existence of better medicine is not predicated on the development or consumption of ultra processed foods. There is no “same package”.

Put it this way: if you’re lucky and work hard, you could be like Messi. If you’re very very lucky and don’t work hard, you may still be like Messi. If you’re unlucky and work hard, you won’t ever be like Messi.

Just ask Babe Ruth, he didn’t work hard like Messi. He was very very lucky to be born with phenomenal talent.

Luck is the critical factor, hard work is secondary, though beneficial in that it decreases (but can never eliminate) the required amount of luck.

I just watched the scene in For All Mankind with the astronauts/lunar surface/duct tape and it seemed to match this article. Which aspects of For All Mankind are you referencing that got it wrong?

Asked and answered.

Ignoring context is a thing I guess. But can you imagine if being an asshole was a protected class? The world would be a terrible place if the loudest, most obnoxious people never faced consequences.

Maybe their reputations weren’t all that impressive to begin with. In any case, “allowing” is doing some heavy lifting there. No one is allowing anything. This is just how a society with mostly free expression works. Are people not supposed to express their dissatisfaction with other people? If I don’t like something, and enough other people don’t like it, such that an organization responds in a way to appease us, should there be a law to prevent that? What are you suggesting exactly, that no one should complain about another person? That organizations shouldn’t appease people? Or should they just appease you when you disagree with a “mob”?