esarbe

83 ms·

901.
by esarbe 6y ago
Sometimes things "can't be explained" with the current theories. We need new theories before we can explain things. So, in this sense, I'd say it's correct to say that "things can't be explained". I w
902.
by esarbe 6y ago
I actually managed to finish it. It was a chore. There's barely any interesting development to the main character. Strike that. To any of the characters. It's as if the novel follows an emotionless robots without any real social c
903.
by esarbe 6y ago
It was actually my conception that you were trying to derail the conversation. I'm terribly sorry if that wasn't the case. See my response to ksk below with regards to the topic of American prison labor. In short; it's inexcu
904.
by esarbe 6y ago
I'm quite willing to bash the U.S. too, believe me. The massive corruption in their political system, the systemic militarization of their police, the wasteful social inequality are just the tip of the iceberg of internal issues. Probl
905.
by esarbe 6y ago
This is fun! Apple is a U.S. Company Lots of U.S. companies take advantage of (domestic) prison labour. Domestic prison labour is responsible for mental health problems. Mental health problems are treated by psychiatrists. How are psychiatr
906.
by esarbe 6y ago
That's true. It got rich by selling weapons to war criminals and hidden bank accounts to tax evaders. That and chocolate and pharmaceuticals. It would still be nice for them to make a first step.
907.
by esarbe 6y ago
hehe
908.
by esarbe 6y ago
It's a shame that a country as rich as Switzerland is unwilling to do that first step. I think that would have been a good way to start making corporations take responsibility.
909.
by esarbe 6y ago
I think that there's an issue in how industrial nations abuse the lack of protection for workers in developing nations and how this usually results in profit extraction and massive human rights violations. It would be nice to be able t
910.
by esarbe 6y ago
> Which is also true of Australia [...] No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not
911.
by esarbe 6y ago
Since I don't live in the U.S. either, I don't see why we should include the U.S. in this discussion. I'll happily comment about the prison-industrial-complex or legalized corruption or about the dangers of militarized police
912.
by esarbe 6y ago
Let's see. Canada currently has 338 MPs and over 80% (!) of those (278) belong to one of two majority parties. So yes, in theory Canada has a multi party system. In practice this multi party system is severely damaged by the effects of
913.
by esarbe 6y ago
Yeah, you won't see me grandstanding for the U.S. The U.S. has plenty of issues. But we were talking about China, not the U.S. By the way, why the U.S.? Why not Lichtenstein or Denmark?
914.
by esarbe 6y ago
Yeah, well... I think the U.S. has some massive problems, but that's on another page and although I'd love to talk about these problems, let's stick with China for now. That a big enough pig.
915.
by esarbe 6y ago
Thanks for the effort, but I think I really would like to stick with 'tyrannical dictatorship'. For me, it just fits better.
916.
by esarbe 6y ago
I'm not sure it's a deeper structural issue. The issue is actually pretty simple; first-past-the-post voting. This automatically leads to a two-party system.
917.
by esarbe 6y ago
> Why is this ethical responsibility somehow always offloaded to the consumer? Because without consumer, there would be no incentive for either China and Apple to behave amorally. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. As long as it'
918.
by esarbe 6y ago
Don't you need some kind of a cultural awakening to force politicians to introduce legislation?
919.
by esarbe 6y ago
Thanks for the response. > Most of the comments I'm seeing down voted seem to me to be somewhat extreme invective lacking in significant useful or interesting content. Yeah, that's what's been confusing me. Some of the com
920.
by esarbe 6y ago
They used to, it was the reason I'm exclusively on HN..
921.
by esarbe 6y ago
I'm used to having good and productive exchanges on HN. This development makes me sad.
922.
by esarbe 6y ago
Why do we need the infrastructure of cities to survive? Because we are too many people to live off the land like our ancestors were able to do. Also, we lack the knowledge to be self-sustaining. Why are pre-industrial cities not a good mode
923.
by esarbe 6y ago
No, it wouldn't. Nothing but a miraculous fabricator that can power and fabricate itself would obliterate the need for infrastructure. Let's just take one example; VR. For VR, you need VR googles. These need to be produced somewhe
924.
by esarbe 6y ago
No, they don't. China and Apple have their reputation to protect, so they have a very high stake in the game. The Tech Transparency Project's goal is to uncover misconduct and malfeasance in public life. They don't have to &#
925.
by esarbe 6y ago
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that there have to be two parties. And even if there was; make an amendment. It the case of the U.S., nobody is to blame but the U.S. voters.
926.
by esarbe 6y ago
The most important factor in keeping people alive nowadays is infrastructure. We're not self-sufficient anymore and it's pretty delusional to think that we'll be able to move back to some kind of pre-industrial pastoral idyll
927.
by esarbe 6y ago
Absolutely! I think it would be fine to go back to 1 billion, although the transition to a less extensive infrastructure will probably be quite rough. It's good that we already started concentrating most of the population in cities. Th
928.
by esarbe 6y ago
It's not even that space is too big. Time's too big. There's no reason to assume that the lifetime of technological civilization is more than a few hundred years. By then they will have destroyed their own habitat and - despi
929.
by esarbe 6y ago
Less tolerance across the board and strong tendencies towards a theocracy?
930.
by esarbe 6y ago
Yeah, no. There's no equilibrium. What we are currently doing is predatory ecosystem exploitation where we destroy our own life support system for the short gain. All that loss of habitats and of biodiversity? That's going come ba

More ›