thelamest

Florida, 2020: 63,217 domestic violence arrests

The British arrest stats subsume DV harassment cases, and the original Times reporting quoted a police officer stating that they are the bulk of these numbers. I haven’t found an apples-to-apples comparison in the US, but the FL number gives a point of reference.

Addressing the hypothetical person you’re describing: car infrastructure may solve some needs, but it is in direct conflict with other needs. Give every adult a guaranteed parking space just at home and at work, and the physical space required for that alone is an unbelievable double-digit percentage of the city area. Cities are so valuable because they pack a lot of amenities and markets (including your family’s schools and workplaces) in a compact area. Place everything significantly further apart, add more concrete and noise, and you’ve lost on all fronts: safety, charm and efficiency.

(Maybe I’m reading too much of a narrative into what you wrote, but–) I don’t think it’s causal like that; it doesn’t have to be. In particular, “wealthy, modern urban cores” tend to be self-sustaining economic force multipliers rather than parasitic resource sinks or vanity projects. Each specific megaproject might be one of the latter, of course. In general, however, I’d be careful about mixing up different public choice failures. How easy it is to: (agree on a fair way to) collect public money, identify and agree on some kind of public benefit, allocate resources to further that interest, execute projects without snags – etc.

AI CoT may work the same extremely flawed way that human introspection does, and that’s fine, the reason we may want to hold them to a higher standard is because someone proposed to use CoTs to monitor ethics and alignment.

It does not come about magically from monetary or even fiscal policy. The demand for housing (and other construction) was and is real. People find use for, and like having much space, while being close together. What was and is lacking is supply.

>This makes me think that our formal [definitions] of "intelligence" […] and what we intuitively look out for, are really two different things.

Just two? You can name so many more terms in this concept cloud, e.g.: personhood, moral agency, consciousness, self-awareness, processing power, wit, autonomy, feeling-and-experiencing capacity, and so on… We don’t seem to agree on what’s separate from what, and yes, it would be useful.

“Transparency” as leaks from abuse is very, very different from transparency as a policy of easy access – and neither makes you necessarily better informed. In short, a biased selection of information can leave you worse off than having no information.

For one, finance is a macro force multiplier; it can make or break entire other industries. There’s also a bit of selection (global top) and survivorship (plenty of less visible non-success stories) in the wild money stories you can see out there.

To expand just a bit more, the map is very blurry. Nation states tap into some real and old sentiments, but are not just a translation of those to a modern political language. They are their own new political projects, with a shape that is a result of historical happenstance and personal ambitions of specific people. It is surprisingly malleable – depending on what common enemies appear, what leaders and writers become popular, etc.

Mars is on (or above) a wiped out Earth level of difficulty already

It’s not a closed system or a zero sum game. The average loan has positive expected value in terms of new, real goods and services being created – so it can be accompanied with an increase in nominal amount of money. The casino analogy falters here, because gambling is associated with, at best, only intangible entertainment value creation, and at worst, value destruction. Banks are somewhat free to create money, because they enable making new real value, and carry much of the risk for bad calls.

Yes. If the (overall) nominal money flows decrease but (overall) real economy size stays the same – to the extent that it’s going to change prices for no “real” reason – people and central banks are likely to notice and may react.

Central banks are tasked with stabilizing price levels. (Why? Predictability helps people make decisions and plans, and get rewarded for them. Caveat: price changes that originate in changes to real economy convey valuable information about real scarcities and surpluses. This one, kinda, doesn’t.) Prices are closely related to the ways money circulates in the economy – so CBs keep a close eye on these stats. (Why? In short, it’s a big factor in the simple monetary formula, MV=PQ, that is: overall amount of money * money velocity = price level * quantity of real consumption.) The fact you froze or burned a lot may influence how that looks, in turn possibly influencing CB decisions to put the finger on this or that scale.

Of course, the CB doesn’t know what you did exactly, it’s playing an aggregate game. Right now it would appreciate that you counteracted inflation – made everything a bit cheaper by not spending or loaning your billions for others to spend.