> Part of the issue is not systematically using a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds.
We don't do this for gasoline (in most countries), even though it is also vital for life. And yet people can still drive, afford to eat food grown with fertilizers, use plastic, and so on.
Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone (as is the case with water today!!) you get some weird shit.
Gasoline is absolutely rationed when it becomes scarce after having been plentiful.
When hurricanes come to South Florida, the well off migrate North to wait out the storm while the poor suffer the dangerous conditions. Part of this is due to the price spikes of gasoline in the local market as supplies dwindle due to fewer truck shipments and refineries shutting down for the storm.
Water is similar. Both water rights and water utilities are gamed by people who have resources. The people that are hurt are usually poor utilities bill payers, rural residents who are the first to lose service when wells dry up, and anyone who thinks they have water rights until an upstream user exhausts their expected supply.
The “markets work” heuristic is frequently wrong if you don’t glaze over the very many counterexamples.
Yeah but that response is stupid, irrational, makes shortages more likely and discourages people from taking action when they need to do something different right now. In an emergency situation, people who can provide more of something that is in desperately short supply should be paid more. People consistently adopt a strategy of trying to not pay them more and it's one of those really annoying cases where people's instincts are primed to make them band together and do something predictably foolish.
Rationing is an inevitable response. But to say that is like saying witch hunts are inevitable - they are. They're still bad ideas. People who can maintain access to their higher reasoning should resist them.
> Gasoline is absolutely rationed when it becomes scarce after having been plentiful.
Sure, but OP is advocating that we should "systematically [use] a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds." They're not arguing that this is something to be applied only in emergencies.
Similarly in your post, you use the need to ration gas after a hurricane to argue that we should ration water all the time. This does not follow.
> Both water rights and water utilities are gamed by people who have resources. The people that are hurt are usually poor utilities bill payers, rural residents who are the first to lose service when wells dry up, and anyone who thinks they have water rights until an upstream user exhausts their expected supply.
The logical extension of your argument here is that the world would be better if we subsidized gasoline for "poor utilities bill payers" and "rural residents".
But why gasoline and water specifically? Why not also healthcare, food, childcare, and other necessities?
Then consider, if we have a budget of $X per family to subsidize necessities, surely the government is not best suited to decide how to split up those dollars between water, gas, healthcare, food, and childcare? There's no right answer universally, some people need food more than they need gas, and vice versa. Surely an individual family would be better equipped to decide for themselves?
We have now invented "giving money to poor people instead of subsidizing demand", which I wholeheartedly support.
200 miles will easily get you out of the path of a hurricane. 200 back home. 400 miles at 20mpg is 20 gallons of gas. Even if gas doubles from $4 to $8, that’s only an extra $80, likely less than the cost of that one night of motel, and certainly less than the economic costs of actually being hit by a hurricane.
As with many things, markets do work, but people don’t make rational choices for their well-being.
No, but commercial trucks use diesel, which carries about 25% higher taxes per gallon. And vehicle registration on semi-trailer trucks is significantly higher as well. They pay, on average, between $25,000 and $30,000 in taxes and fees each year.
> Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone.
No, they aren't. They're ridiculously bad when you leave them alone because someone captures the market, ramps up anti-competitive practices, and immediately begins rent-seeking as hard as possible.
Free markets are pretty good at finding good prices. Markets that are left alone do not remain free. That lauded "self-interest" encourages businesses that have reached nearly 100% market share to increase profit in other ways.
That's a bad argument. There are gasoline trucks with a GVWR of ~20,000 pounds and diesel cars that weigh less than a Honda Accord. If you actually wanted to do that then you'd instead do something like tax based on axle weight and miles traveled, e.g. by reading the odometer during inspections.
The better argument is that diesel is worse for air quality and then it's a pigouvian tax in proportion to how much you burn.
The realpolitik argument is that fewer people have diesel vehicles and democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. But taxing commercial trucks is also a pretty sneaky way of taxing ~everything while pretending to not, so it's also the principal/agent problem. Legislators want to spend money while pretending not to take it from you.
> diesel cars that weigh less than a Honda Accord.
It is taxed less than gas in lots of Europe where that is more common. You also need to factor in mpg vs gas, where it is higher, so more road-wear pCO2 was part of the debate in Europe, even though it is longer carbon chain so worse co2 ratio per calorie, the engines are more efficient. Diesel is worse for local air, better for long term co2.
There are a mixture of factors and lobbying behind the differencs, road wear is one. Farm fuel with no road wear isn't taxed much at all in lots of places and is more often diesel.
In theory diesel hybrids would be even more efficient but diesel engines and hybrid transmissions both add up-front cost and further efficiency improvements have diminishing returns because reducing a $100 fuel cost by 30% isn't as much money as reducing a $70 fuel cost by 30%.
> There are a mixture of factors and lobbying behind the differencs, road wear is one.
Road wear is the irrelevant one in terms of fuel. Because of the fourth power law, essentially all road wear is from full-size buses and semi trucks. The contribution from passenger cars and even the likes of diesel pickup trucks rounds to zero. Meanwhile the largest vehicles use a minority of the fuel because there are several times more passenger cars than semi trucks.
"Someone captures the market" is the thing that happens when the government micromanages them. Laws that charge more per unit to high users aren't anti-trust laws. A farm doesn't have higher market share in food than Google has in a tech market just because it uses more water.
I am not saying that there should be no regulations on monopolies. We are discussing a very specific market intervention, namely the proposal to
> systematically [use] a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds.
This is what I'm arguing is a bad idea, by using gasoline as an example.
If you want to argue that imposing this pricing structure systematically is good because it would help prevent a bad monopoly like Standard Oil, you'd need to explain (a) how this market intervention would prevent monopolies and (b) how it's a "better" way (according to however we decide to measure "better") to prevent monopolies than the alternatives. I don't see how this is true, though.
> Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone (as is the case with water today!!) you get some weird shit.
excuse me? leave the markets alone? to do what? continue screwing people over with the cost of living? at some point the government needs to step in when greed outstrips the ability of the consumer to meet the demand. capitalism on it’s own will demand ever increasing profits and that is simply unsustainable for any civilisation
> having a Waymo dropping off clear of the bike lane sounds good, until the exiting passenger accidentally doors a cyclist who isn’t prepared for that possibility.
Note that Waymos will alert you if a cyclist is approaching so you don't door them. Not saying it's perfect, you can still open the door if you want, but they are very consistent about this.
Yes, that's why, unless it is a parent-child duo, almost every cyclists duo I see everyday keeps riding side by side and now I can't even legally overtake even when I go (as I should) fully to other lane as I am supposed to keep 2M distance from them.
Look, I have a bicycle that I love riding. I have nothing against bicycles. But (primary transport) bicyclists are, in general, AHs.
Given the sheer amount of cyclist who think that cars should be banned with no consideration for anything else, I think that this is a common observation.
Where I live, the pro-cyclist mayor (whose husband owns a bike rental shop, by pure coincidence) closed a road for cars without consultation, now the firemen along with residents are protesting because emergency and delivery vehicles can't access a large part of the city (car parked can't get out!). This is the average behavior you can expect from militant cyclists, from my experience.
Riga. Of course, all of the cyclist absolutely LOVE it, and now want to remove cobblestones, which could lead to a removal of the city from the UNESCO World Heritage list. But they don't care.
Based on the photo, it looks like it’s pretty easily rectified by emergency bollards that can be lifted / lowered by emergency crews, though those may be expensive to procure.
In the tool I wrote, you have a single branch with linear history. PRs in the chain are demarcated via commit messages. You then don't need any special rebase / sync commands -- you can use regular `git rebase -i` to reorder commits or edit a commit in the middle of a stack. Literally the only special command I need is "push this branch to github as multiple PRs".
Anyway I hope that alongside the branch-based you've built tool in `gh` that there will be an API that I can target.
> Ideally, a professional will prescribe them as a necessary helper to becoming (more) mentally healthy whilst tackling the root cause.
I wish people would stop saying this.
Our understanding of the brain is not sufficiently sophisticated to allow us to identify the "root cause" (whatever that means) of depression in most people. Indeed we have no reason to believe that there even is a root cause to most people's depression.
If you take antidepressants, go to therapy (or meditate or exercise or whatever), then go off them and still feel good, that's great.
And if you take antidepressants indefinitely because doing so improves your life, that's also great! Your life is improved! This isn't an "abuse" of the drugs.
No psychiatrist is making you do anything. They're advising you based on their clinical judgement and experience, but ultimately it's your decision to take the pills or not. If your goal is to go on antidepressants temporarily, any decent psychiatrist will support you in that (because, again, they understand that they can't make you take the pills one day longer than you want to).
I've been on Lexapro and done evidence-based therapy for years. They both have been helpful, but if I had to pick one, I'd immediately pick Lexapro. For me it is a miracle drug. And the miracle is, I can choose how I feel.
(I also added a small dose of Buspar to help with the sexual side-effects.)
If you're on the fence about trying an antidepressant, I really encourage you to talk to a psychiatrist. If you try it and hate it, then you can stop. But a lot of people try it and love it. And I think a lot more people would be willing to try it if the notion that this is somehow "wrong" were gone.
For further reading I recommend https://lorienpsych.com/2021/06/05/depression/. I don't agree with everything Scott Alexander says, but his writing about mental health specifically has been useful to me.
I was diagnosed a while back with a chronic neurological disorder. One that has a heavy effect on my mood and can conversely be triggered by my mood. The underlying cause is scientifically proven to be physiological. I lack a specific neurotransmitter due to inactive cells in my hypothalamus.
For a long time I wrote off my symptoms as being all in my head. And after a formal diagnosis, I am 100% certain they are all in my head because that's where my brain is. Symptoms are also unequivocally psychosomatic. What I'm feeling can influence my physical symptoms and rather abruptly at that. It's right in the definition of the illness. None of this means that disease is imaginary or not real or I can talk myself out of it. It's as physically irreversible as losing an arm. There are some very good treatments, but I will never ever be cured (barring a miraculous breakthrough).
While the causes of mood or personality disorders are less well understood, it seems entirely plausible that they can be just a physically inevitable. Every thought, feeling, sensory input and motor output is a physical process originating in your brain and your brain can malfunction if it's ill. And we can treat illness with medicine.
> Zolpidem (“Ambien”) has effect size around 0.39 for getting you to sleep faster. Ibuprofen (“Advil”, “Motrin”) has effect sizes between from about 0.20 (for surgical pain) to 0.42 (for arthritis). All of these are around the 0.30 effect size of antidepressants.
...
> Some of our favorite medications, including statins, anticholinergics, and bisphosphonates, don’t reach the 0.50 level. And many more, including triptans, benzodiazepines (!), and Ritalin (!!) don’t reach 0.875.
As for why, read his essay I guess. But I wouldn't take at face value the interpretation of effect sizes in the original article.
(I also couldn't say why the effect size of vit D and Omega-3's is so large, although per Scott Alexander's article if fewer people drop out of the treatment group, that should increase the effect size, so maybe the relative tolerability of the treatments is part of the story?)
The machine is risking not only his life but the life of every other person on the road. Meanwhile, the machine has no feelings and has no life to lose. It feels no pain. It has no memory nor identity.
We don't do this for gasoline (in most countries), even though it is also vital for life. And yet people can still drive, afford to eat food grown with fertilizers, use plastic, and so on.
Turns out markets are pretty good when you leave them alone. But when they're not left alone (as is the case with water today!!) you get some weird shit.
reply