amitkgupta84

I'm not sure how this article would be any different if Culdesac had written their own "journalistic" article about itself and paid The Guardian to publish it.

If our current scientific understanding of cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology, etc. doesn't fill you with awe and humility, I don't know what will.

If it doesn't fill you with gratitude that we have even the slightest ability to exist, and to experience and understand any of this, I don't know what will.

There are many dimensions by which to compare healthcare systems (e.g. availability of care, cost, quality, speed) and different samples and statistics to consider (means, medians, 10th-percentiles, different demographic groups e.g. different races, different worker groups e.g. tech workers).

It's complex, but overall the US system is better than Canada's. It's not as clear cut comparing the US to some European countries, but with Canada it's mostly clear cut. And it's especially clear cut for tech workers. If you work in tech, you're highly likely to have very good coverage through your employer, you will almost surely experience much better availability and speed of care, probably better quality, and the extra out-of-pocket costs are absolutely dwarfed by the superior pay in the US.

This was too dumb.

First, the intro with the dog analogy. If you remotely see your relationship with your employer as you being the beloved family dog, you're the problem.

Second, the author quotes a paper on downsizing in a journal and afterwards says, "[i]n all my searching I wasn't able to find any hard data which suggests layoffs either enable a company to better compete or improve earnings in the long term." However the conclusion of the very paper he references says, "[t]he findings of this field study indicate that downsizing can improve an organization's financial performance but not in the near-term.... [R]esearch strongly suggests that it likely will take three or more years for organizations to be able to truly see the financial benefits of downsizing." If you look at all the graphs in the Results section of the paper, it shows that companies who downsize started out being weaker performers than those who weren't downsizing, but a few years after downsizing they were largely able to close that underperformance gap.

The content producers (NHL) and publishers (Rogers) neither own nor operate the content distribution networks (ISPs). However they make commercial terms with each other to give one party exclusive rights to distribute the other party’s content via the ISPs, implying a restriction on how any other party (eg ordinary citizens) can use the ISPs. Since they don’t actually control the ISPs, they’re having the government enforce the terms of their commercial agreements against parties that weren’t part of them.

Doesn’t seem like this should be the role of government, but not surprising for Canada. On the spectrum of irrational distrust of government to irrational trust of government, any population is going to have a distribution. Canada skews towards greater trust of government, with more broad and intense irrational trust in government in the last few years than I’d ever noticed in the decades prior.

Discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist. It’s sad today that many people (racists and sexists) staunchly believe the opposite of the above when discrimination is going against the race or sex who “deserve” it, going so far as to call this kind of racism “anti-racism”. Worse, though, is that many others lack the moral clarity or courage to admit that they understand that discriminating based on race/sex is racist/sexist, and thereby allow this kind of racism/sexism to perpetuate.

That’s right, you nailed it.

I mean more like, you can generally eat food from grocery stores and restaurants and trust it'll be pretty safe. You can get medical operations and pharmaceuticals, and generally trust them. There are actually extremely large problems here, e.g. Purdue and fentanyl, but even there Purdue has been fined to death by the government. Still, there are huge problems for sure. The problems need to be addressed, but I think if you look to narrowly at some of the problems, you think the whole system needs to be overthrown. Sure that sentiment is increasing, but more pushed by well-off elites than a genuine grassroots uprising. This is one of the biggest problems we face today IMO.

I don't think DeFi helps with most of the problems you're talking about. Supply chain issues, COVID-related business restrictions, health care prices and the role of insurance providers, none of these are caused by centralized financial systems.

> The most important takeaway is to avoid new tokens that haven’t undergone a code audit. Code audits are a process by which a third-party firm analyzes the code of the smart contract behind a new token or other DeFi project, and publicly confirms that the contract’s governance rules are iron clad and contain no mechanisms that would allow for the developers to make off with investors’ funds.

But how do you know which third party auditors to trust?

What DeFi projects are laying bare is that it’s an absolute marvel that we have functional societies at the scale we do today (USA, EU). Most people can live their lives intuitively knowing which instructions to trust (financial, groceries, restaurants, medical, you name it). All of it is ultimately backed by laws, systems, real people who can be held accountable, and government monopoly of force. Furthermore we rarely have to see that stuff for the system to work and that monopoly on force is rarely abused.

It could be a meaningful technological shift if a lot of the financial infrastructure goes decentralized, digitized/programmatic, and open source. But I’m dubious the mainstream person’s day to day experience will change much, the stability and peace of mind afforded by the structures of our current society are pretty amazing and I don’t see them being replicated in a purely digital and decentralized form.

1. The data I’m referring to is in the link I was referring to. See how far left on the spectrum SF is. Take also your figures on registered voters in each party. I suspect SF is many standards deviations from the national mean split.

Can we agree on any possible intersubjective standard for too extreme? If not, fine, we revert to solipsism.

If either of the data mentioned in the first paragraph is a possible metric, how many standard deviations is too many?

If not this standard/metric, will you propose another? I challenge anyone to propose a metric or set of metrics that reasonable people will entertain as a standard of measuring a cities extremes, plus a set of thresholds that reasonable people will entertain as determining too extreme/not too extreme, and then coming to the conclusion under these metrics that SF is not too extreme. In other words, any way you want to slice it, SF is too extreme, unless you refuse to “slice it”.

2. National political duopoly is problematic, but we live in a democracy. Every citizen is free to have their own positions, vote for whoever they want, and run for office if they don’t like who’s running. Your perspective is not your skin color, you can change it and update it as you participate in the real world. Citizens of SF simply cannot blame the national duopoly for their choices. It’s completely possible to foster, appreciate, and embody diversity and non-partisanship of thought. It’s possible to foster a culture of balance and diversity, which in turn could encourage the partisan competition you mention.

SF even has ranked choice voting which should weaken the duopoly’s death grip, in theory.

The national structural problems you mention are true for every city. There’s nothing in the water or Karl the Fog that uniquely prevents people in SF from doing what I mentioned above. But they don’t, that’s their choice, that’s SF culture, and that’s the problem.

Both problems may be present, but I think one of them is the bottom line/root cause. It’s a numbers game. I don’t think there are enough who are in touch with reality to influence election results.