whendoyoushrink

You just skipped down the levels of abstractions in a way that does not address the OP's point.

> you see someone say something you find deeply objectionable, like "I support affirmative action in college admissions"

I have no idea why that person thinks that, and can form no opinions about them. Even more specifically, outside a US context they are meaningless.

Contrast that to the OP example:

> "Constantly ask yourself why are you working so hard on this damn thing. If the answer is: 'so I can get ahead,' remind yourself that it’s a treadmill and you’ll always stay at the same place, no matter how fast you run."

This is not a statement of opinion about a thing. This is not a "policy is X is good" statement. This is the framework for how this person forms ALL their opinions. This statement could be made by almost any human anywhere in the world.

There are, without doubt, things people can say that give you "a pretty good bead on someone's worldview from even a short excerpt". These are NOT "I support the right to bear arms." They are vey much "I am a strict and devoted Mormon and follow all the churches teachings", or "hard work is all that matters" or "no matter how hard you try, life is out to get you".

If someone can't deduce things about a person from those sorts of first principle short sentences, that is a bit of a worry to me.

And they were right for 35 of those years. Will they be right or wrong in the next 35?

Wealth is a headwind against bad policy. Rich nations can survive many, many bad policies simply because they are rich. The policies it takes to get rich, stay rich, and continue to grow into the future all vary, and the transition is difficult to manage.

I think the relevant question is: are China's current policies pushing the country in the right direction? I don't see how they are.

Jack Ma shows how dangerous it is to be truly successful, so the next generation will at best be more conservative in what they pursue, and at worst won't even try. Given Western money won't be investing any more - the ability to realise capital gains is growing more difficult - and the CCP steals the wealth of potential investors, not being able to pursue big bests is probably inevitable anyway.

China has AWFUL demographics that are getting worse - their population is projected to be 650M by 2100 - and worse it is aging fast, with > 50% post retirement age in the next decade to 3.

On top of that, the CCP has re-emerged as the only force in China. CCP officials see stealing the wealth of other's as their right - a twist on the old joke to "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's fortunes to steal".

Minimal foreign investment, killing internal investment by stealing the wealth of anyone rich, rising wages, awful demographics and a polity determined to remain isolationist (with few to any friends) and knock down the high achievers sounds like a recipe for imminent (in the decades sense) collapse to me. Not to levels of Sub-Saharan Africa, but even just with their population decline, China's GDP is going to fall in absolute terms, even if their GDP PPP per capita can be improved.

The scary thing is a Nuclear China in decline is likely to become increasingly erratic. Hopefully, the war in Ukraine gave China some pause, but having gone from starvation to world's largest economy in a generation, I'm not sure China is equipped for stagnation, let alone decline. I feel bad rooting for a likely vicious and brutal CCP internal crackdown over invasions of their neighbours, but that seems to me the lesser of two possible evils.

Can you clarify what is "the market"? The stock market? The economy?

While that sounds tough, that's not a smart negotiation plan at all.

The negotiation will be more beneficial with a scale, based on traded info, that more resembles:

"Your life is over"

"Your life is over until you are retirement age"

"Your life is over until after you go through menopause"

"Your life can restart before you're 30"

Or, you know, just hang tough and get no dirt.

Standard TOS contract anyone can use, and any variations need individual sign off and consent per point.

Sites would then need to decide how many variations to enact, knowing full well every extra one reduces signups.

I wish we'd move away from "truth" and uses "facts" and "conclusions" instead.

Most really bad ideas take incorrect facts, and use them to draw tenuous conclusions. The examples in the blog are precisely that, the puberty blockers and the Maori traditional knowledge.

The elegance of stating "truths" is that the definition of "truth" has always been wishy-washy, to the point it is the vast majority of most philosophy 101 classes.

You can have whatever "truth" you like, but you can't choose your facts, and if your conclusions are predicated on bad or simply false facts, your conclusion can be ignored.

"Doing good better" was the book title, and I think better defines the goal well. Not perfect, better.

The choices that people make with giving often have no framework for deciding good, let alone better. The moral question is not is X better than Y, but what of all the choices I am going to make can I make better?

If everyone made better choices, not perfect just better, there is a LOT we could improve.

Strange the site is still up and running - does that mean it this is less voluntary? Or that they staff work in an inconvenient timezone?