One day they'll fly to a drone factory, eliminate all the personnel, then start gently shooting at the machinery to create more weaponized drones and then it's all over before you know it!
IMO, the problem is that you must learn what "research" actually entails before attempting it, so that you don't fall into the trap of that fallacy.
Most people… eh. I don't know about the rest of the world, and my experience was in the 90s, but for me GCSE triple science was a list of facts to regurgitate in exams, and although we did also have practical sessions those weren't scored by how well we did Popperian falsification (a thing I didn't even learn about it until my entirely optional chosen-for-fun A-level in Philosophy; I don't know if A-level sciences teaches that).
> Some people are profoundly broken – usually from life's harsh trials. Give yourself permission to remove them from your orbit. Their healing requires years of professional help, more than well-meaning friends and family can achieve.
If you give up on those people and cut them out, you're pretty much condemning them to continuing being broken.
This conflicts with the earlier advice of trying to be kind.
Don't let them control you but don't cut them out. Give them some of your time and some kindness. You never know how much time a "profoundly broken" person has left.
It's definitely a balancing act. I have a friend with whom I try gently help him fix his spiraling life. That would let me help him if he's open to it. But for my own sanity and the health of my family, I can't make it a year-long repeated ask.
Keep in mind the idea that "Some people are profoundly broken." There are those you can help. There are also those who you will never be able to help. Know your limit. Know when to say enough and let them live with their choices. You can't fix everyone even if you wish you could.
I think perhaps the author's 35th lesson¹ is that brevity can lose nuance.
I interpreted this one to be in the context where having them in your orbit is causing you (or others) harm, and it ain't something you can fix.
¹ Actually it would be the 50th lesson. For some reason tacking on fifteen "bonus" lessons annoyed me. Felt like having your alliteration and eating it too. 51st lesson: math.
> (From my viewpoint as a millennial. Gen Z might think the golden years were during Obama, or just pre-COVID. To some extent every generation has a point in time that they see with rose tinted lenses.)
Of course they do. It's the formative years & youth. Roughly from the time you form a mature consciousness (12-14 yo) to roughly your late 20s or maybe early 30s when all your tastes, preferences etc. are formed.
Oh that is definitely part of it. But new generations also don’t have a point of reference. I certainly don’t know if the 70s or the 80s were truly that great. Outside economic and social indicators (income, life expectancy — all of which should arguably carry more weight anywa) it’s difficult to argue against something if you never experienced it.
For Americans the 1970s were pretty terrible all around when compared to the other decades in the latter half of the 20th century. The 1980s are broadly viewed as a positive decade, albeit not an impactful decade, but the context for that perspective is coming out of a terrible 1970s.
The Trump reign is a direct consequence of 1980s Social and Economic policy.
Although the libertarian hellscape vision of the 1980s would reject state ownership of (for instance) Intel, it might embrace the Chevron ownership of the state.
Like most words, capitalism has multiple definitions. Among the popular ones, the one that is about capital doesn't concern itself with markets, only capital, so you are quite right that any kind of market goes. It could even be centrally planned! But another popular definition is about the "invisible hand". Rent seeking is absolutely considered to be at odds with the "invisible hand". This is most likely what the parent is talking about.
And no doubt there are a bunch of other definitions that aren't so popular, so the parent commenter could even be using one of those. It might even be his own pet definition that he just made up on the spot right now. The author always gets to choose what a word means, so if something seems off "It isn't" isn't a logical retort. You first need to clarify what the author intended the word to mean.
> And no doubt there are a bunch of other definitions that aren't so popular, so the parent commenter could even be using one of those. It might even be his own pet definition that he just made up on the spot right now.
This is an absolutely insane take if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation. Making up definitions on the spot and "getting to choose what a word means" is deliberately acting in bad faith.
Rule #1 of logical debate is to agree on definitions, otherwise you're just yelling past each other.
> Making up definitions on the spot and "getting to choose what a word means" is deliberately acting in bad faith.
Not quite. Not taking the time to understand what someone means when they use a word is acting in bad faith. Using a word as you understand it, even if that does not match how others understand it, before the word is contextually defined cannot be in bad faith. Nobody can read minds. It is impossible for one to predict how the reader thinks the word is defined. You can only work with what you know. Fundamentally, the onus must be on the reader to ensure that they have full knowledge of the author's intent.
> Rule #1 of logical debate is to agree on definitions
Agreed. The bad faith actor with the username antisthenes that I replied to earlier failed to do that, putting in absolutely no effort to find the necessary common ground. He assumed the definition and then came up with a ridiculous comment built up around that false assumption. Hence why I called him out on his bullshit.
I'm not sure what definition of capitalism you're running with, but as early as Adam Smith, the importance of competition free from monopoly and rent seeking was central to the mainstream definition.
It's not resources (this time), it's the US' sinking relative standing in the world that is causing this. Any self-respecting empire facing the end of its global domination wants to self-destruct violently instead of slowly disappearing. Hence WW1&2 and now whatever will this be.
Most people don't even have the reading level for full comprehension of a wiki article, let alone being able to discern the nuance of some aspects of the topic.
> Yeah perfect is the enemy of the good but imperfect is still imperfect.
This assumes perfection is attainable. I'd like to see your idea of a "perfect" book or article on some topic.
I think you’re assuming I’m calling for perfection and suggesting people abstain from something less than perfect, we live in reality most things aren’t perfect.
Even if Wikipedia was the least worse resource people would still do themselves a disservice in ignoring issues with it. Acknowledging issues isn’t the same as dismissing it entirely.
How is this elitist? These other resources are more accessible than ever, no gate keepers are keeping anyone from looking at them. I’m also not making any judgments about anyone who uses Wikipedia either.
Don't make me enter the number or click the button every time.
Just give me a slider for both incomes and show me the result right away.
reply