jaredklewis

Right. Just like it makes no sense to suggest the Palestians be moved somewhere else, it makes no sense to suggest the Israelis be moved, for the simple reason that is is not possible.

I feel like people get caught up with notions of what would satisfy their sense of cosmic, historical justice without paying any attention to what can actually be done in reality.

I am aware of that.

I responding to a comment suggesting that Israelis (not settlers, but Israelis in general) should move to another place, but the comment did not specify where they should move to. Where is this place that the Israelis can go?

I was replying to a comment which stated that they didn't support "Israel's right to exist" and suggested that Israelis move. I interpreted the comment as saying "we can solve this problem by moving the Israelis out of Israel." But this is dumb. It's not like anyone can just go move to another country because they feel like it. You generally need a spouse, a job, or some other wedge to get into that country. And there are no countries volunteering to make a special exception and take in Israeli's, even at "only" a hundred thousand per year.

Of course, they also might also not feel like it. I was born and raised in the US. I strongly oppose almost everything President Trump does. I don't see why that means I should have to move.

Fair enough, so make it 4 or 5 million or whatever number seems reasonable, but I would still like to know which countries are going to accept these millions of people.

Palestine? That's not moving; they are there now.

I get that this is a hot take, but where are the "normal" people of Israel going to move to exactly? Remind me which group of countries are offering to take in 10 million immigrants?

I'm probably losing it, but just based on OpenAI's behavior and public communications, it seems to me they want to be taken over by the government?

Maybe Sam Altman is getting worried that they've raised more than $150 billion and still have net losses and thinks of it as the only exit? I don't know, but someone else provide an alternative explanation as to why a company would work so hard to turn the public against AI.

Yea, I don't disagree with any of that.

I think wealth distribution should be allowed to freely float within a large range, but at extremes it may have bad effects. You don't want a communist regime that tries to enforce complete equality, nor do you want a Russian style oligarchy where a few control almost all the wealth. US is heading towards the latter.

This is why it's not productive to discuss issues using vague, undefined terms like "the economy."

Wealth inequality is a well defined economic measure and I see no reason why one couldn't use it as a yardstick when evaluating an economy, same as we use the unemployment, inflation, GDP, median household income, and so on. And indeed many economists do use it, and there are many well regarded books and papers that examine wealth distribution.

Sure, but I don't think I claimed that economic factors are the only thing that can be considered when evaluating policy. Maybe it came off that way because my comment was focused on the jobs issue being discussed.

I guess I did not express it well, but I wanted to highlight that "the economy" and "the people" are not in opposition. "The economy" is a vague term that usually approximates something like "the material well being of everyone in aggregate." There are lots of other things one might value besides material well being, but "the people" and the "the economy" and not opposed forces.

I don't know what a "numbers only view" means. But I lived in Tokyo for a long time and I basically think it is an ideal city, and obviously there are lots of factors, but I think the single biggest factor is the abundance of housing. They have way more of it and it leads to so many wonderful things, like mass transit or an endless supply of little hole-in-the-wall restaurants, bars, and cafes in walking distance.

Look at how people vote with their wallets: there is an enormous demand for housing in places like Brooklyn. That doesn't mean we need to turn the whole nation into Brooklyn, but I think (given the massive demand) why shouldn't we have a few more places like Brooklyn, i.e. dense urban areas?

Most places in the US have a remarkably low population density; we can definitely greatly expand the housing supply with a little infill and still have lots of suburbs.

What past regulations would have forced OpenAI to go public sooner?

The engineer does marginally increase housing demand. They also increase local and federal tax revenue to support education, healthcare and other services. And the engineer will spend a large portion of their salary in the local economy, helping to support all the other business in Seattle. So there are also positive externalities.

What are some of the other "many negative externalities" you mention?

I feel like we could have the best of everything if you we just built more housing to keep up with demand.

"The economy" is often just another way of saying "everyone in aggregate."

Of course "the economy" is a vague, undefined term. But it's easy to think of various specific measures like median household income or the unemployment rate that capture this dynamic.

So regarding your final sentiment, I think that often "the economy" and "the people" are the same thing. If something raises the unemployment rate, that will bad for "the economy" and also "the people."

I don't feel we are asking too much of police and lawyers here: yes, you can use technology and tools (such as Flock) to help you do your job more efficiently, but that doesn't mean you can turn your brain off.

Perhaps more facts will come out, but if we take the article at face value, the cops are at this woman's house, looking at her car and can see with their own eyes that the car right in front of them has obviously not been in an accident. All that is required is for these cops to rub two brain cells together and they will reach the conclusion that Flock misread a license plate.

It's also worth emphasizing that this wasn't for a parking ticket. The extremely low level of care with which these public servants are conducting a manslaughter investigation is somewhat alarming.