= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The problem with a city question is that it allows you to look up the results of individual people quite easily.
This can be solved by only using it in aggregate (ie not releasing it in the final CSV)
In response to
This year's biggest scientific achievements
I reckon you should include touchable voxels (3D holograms made in thin air):
In response to
This year's biggest scientific achievements
it'd be great to have links for all these - so we know what we're looking at - also so we can go look up more info.
In response to
This year's biggest scientific achievements
Nice collection but still somewhat unstructured and mixes large and small thing (which is not a bad thing) as well as some things that are not strictly in this year (though you might mean specific things). Example: "quantum computing", "cube sats". I most liked "Autonomous rocket landing pointy end up". And I didn't get some references ("twitch").
Re: quantum computing, I think it might be referring to this: http://www.gizmag.com/silicon-quantum-computer/39711/
"Quantum computing breakthrough: Qubits made from standard silicon transistors"
I consider this not to be a fair situation, and I'd rather my tax-dollars went to helping this person live a bit longer, than go to the next unnecessary-war (drummed up to keep the current pollies in power).
I think this shows the underlying problem. You would also rather have all your tax money go to give a cute little puppy more food than it will ever need, simply because war is a terrible alternative.
But that doesn't mean it's the best thing you can do with your money, or even anywhere near that standard. And neither is, one could argue, giving money to an obsolete person in a country where the cost of living is very high comparative to other countries in the world.
If I were magically put in charge of distributing the next year's federal budget - I would still allocate resources to domestic welfare (supporting others that, through no fault of their own, have fallen on times of hardship), even though a larger portion went to foreign aid.
It's a lot of resources from the perspective of a single person, but I was thinking at a slightly larger scale. By "easy", I mean that manageable groups of people can do it repeatedly and be confident of success. Really, the fact that sentient minds can be valued in terms of resources at all is sufficient for my argument. (That value can then be ignored when assessing productivity, as it's a sunk cost.)
You seem to be looking in the wrong place with your "that people ought to earn every resource themselves" example - my opinion is that the people who have resources should not give those resources to people who won't make good use of them. That the people who lack resources will then have to earn them if they're to survive is an unavoidable consequence of that (and is my real goal here), but those aren't the people that I think ought to be changing things.
As for what strategies people actually follow, I think most people do what I'm saying they should do, on an individual level. Most people protect their resources, and share them only with those who they expect to be able to return the favor. On the group level, though, people lose track of how much things actually cost, and support things like welfare that help people regardless of whether they're worth the cost of keeping alive.
"whether they're worth the cost of keeping alive." and this highlights the differences in our views.
our point of difference is in this whole basis of using practical "worth" as The way of deciding whether or not a person should live/die.
I can get trying to minimise the birth of new people that are net-negative contributors to the world... but from my perspective, once they are born - it's worth putting some effort into supporting them.
Why? because it's not their fault they were born the way they are, and they should not be punished because of that. They need help to get along.
Sometimes - the situation that put them in their needy state occurred after they were born - and again is still not their fault.
Another example to point out why I feel your view is unfair to people: Imagine somebody who has worked all their lives in an industry that has given amazing amounts of benefit to the world.. but has only just now become obsolete. That person is now unemployed and, due to being near retirement age, unemployable. It's an industry in which they were never really paid very well, and their savings don't add up to enough to cover their ongoing living costs for very long.
Eventually, there will come a time when the savings run out and this person dies of starvation without our help.
I consider this not to be a fair situation, and I'd rather my tax-dollars went to helping this person live a bit longer, than go to the next unnecessary-war (drummed up to keep the current pollies in power).
At least in some cases, yes. I don't agree with the "every sentient mind has value" view that's so common around here; sentient minds are remarkably easy to create, using the reproduction method. Dividing a share of resources to every human according to their needs rewards producing as many children of possible, and not caring if they're a net drain on resources. I would prefer to reward a K-selection strategy, rather than an r-selection strategy.
The various advantages you list aren't simply a matter of chance; they're things I have because my parents earned the right to have children who live.
"sentient minds are remarkably easy to create"
I'm not sure I agree with this. It takes quite a lot of resources (time, energy etc) to create sentient minds at present... certainly to bring them to any reasonable state of maturity. After which, the people that put that time and effort in quite often get very attached to that new sentient mind - even if that mind is not a net-productive citizen.
The strategy that you choose to follow in how to divide up resources to sentient minds may be based on what you perceive to be their net-productivity... and maybe you feel a strong need to push your ideas on others as "oughts" that you think they should follow (eg that people ought to earn every resource themselves)... but it's pretty clear that other people are following other strategies than your preferred one.
as a counter-example, a very large number of people (not including myself here) follow that old adage of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" which is just about the exact opposite of your own.
Diabetics pay for their insulin. If someone needs more resources than others do, they need to earn those extra resources in some way.
I'd lay a high likelihood that you have quite a few more advantages than the kind of person I'm thinking of. You probably have your fair number of disadvantages too, but you've (through being lucky enough to have good health, intelligence, time and/or money for education and maybe good friends/family for support) been able to overcome those "on your own" (except for the aforementioned support)... which means you are categorically not the kind of person I'm thinking of when I am talking about people that need more support than others.
Some people need extra, and those people do try to pay for their extra.. but even so... some of them will still not be able to, due to circumstances that isn't their fault.
Do you condemn to death?
In this case, I think google is your friend. "Defensive driving" is the codename for driving safety courses in Australia
Defensive driving often means 'safety lecture' in America too. Certain types of traffic offenses can be forgiven if you take a review course on traffic laws and anger management. I had to take one of these, and it was worthless. Which isn't to say that there aren't good courses, but I agree that research is very much in order.
Yeah - I'm pretty sure defensive driving course in Australia are all hands-on, not just a safety lecture. I could be mistaken in that, but when I went looking, that is what I found - courses that get you actually driving in different conditions. Of course, there could also be dud courses out there in Aus too, and I happened not to find them because they don't tend to drift upwards in google searches... ;)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Given the diction of the post of the scammer I doubt he's capable of averaging 89% positive karma out of 150 the way rosyatrandom did.
I thought it was a deliberate technique on the part of scammers to use bad grammar/spelling in order that their marks self-select for people that are less intelligent/educated etc It is plausible that the scammer actually has excellent diction.