octaveguin

Politicizing science will make science less scientific and more political. It will not work the other way.

The Expanse also has UBI on earth. With it, most people still lack opportunity and live a rather destitute, powerless life.

Seems like a pretty good perdition of our future, really. UBI recipients with no labor of value to offer won't have power to change their government for long.

It's unfortunate that the authoritarian future of Star Trek probably wouldn't lead to paradise. Or at least, that's how our culture's view of the future has changed.

Both fictions are a product of their time. I still wish we had the optimism of Star Trek now.

How are you getting rapamycin?

I'm interested in it's benefits for autoimmune diseases but it seems quite expensive (in the US).

That's not true.

Many people can self-learn. Those same people often cannot perform well in school because school is rigid and authoritarian.

I'm definitely one of them and my career refutes your idea quite heavily. I'm absolutely not the only one.

Doubling down on debt and the system with another advanced degree is dangerous advice.

If you cannot self-learn, you find out relatively fast and with little cost. Not true for the above advice.

I agree. That's a problem, too.

The reason it became so pronounced is that social media got very good at it and then taught the lesson to traditional media. They, too, now use metrics of engagement to choose what they show.

It is true also that it is a weakness of people. But there are other weaknesses that we regulate in the interest of a healthy society.

I'm not a fan of regulation but a general awareness of the core issue would go a long way towards a solution.

Right now, the talk about the issue seems misdirected. I can only see the proposed solutions putting immense power of controlling narrative in a few hands.

This problem was created by social media by choosing which articles to show in your news feed based on engagement. That is, how much you'll emotionally react to it.

The solution is not to add another layer of "fact checking". That's super dubious.

Get rid of what got us here.

News feeds organized by engagement are evil. Dismantling them would solve both the production and consumption of emotion driven information.

I don't want to go down this rabbit hole but a lot of people believe that terrorism isn't a large problem. The outsized response to it has been.

Neither position is an absurd one to take.

Isn't that horribly patronizing?

I'd feel offended if someone treated me with kid gloves based on my skin color.

Please explain because every bank in the world needs to report to the US about their American account holders.

If you own a holding company in another country, you need to declare that and be taxed on it in addition to that country's tax.

I know this because I own a business and wish to live abroad so I really would like to leave but I can't.

There is no reason to believe telegram is in bed with the FSB.

The company does not have servers in Russia, the software wasn't developed in Russia, etc.

The only reason one could make the connection is that it was developed by a Russian. A Russian that gave up a lot specifically not to cooperate with the Russian government.

So the most reasonable explanation is that Pavel is in a conspiracy with the Russian government and is living in exile as a cover huh?

Sounds pretty complicated when a simpler answer would also exist.