thegrimmest

12 ms·

91.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
I don't think so, civilization has progressed basically unidirectionally for all of history. We've never gone "back to the stone age" or regressed in any meaningful capacity, despite catastrophes of various scales.
92.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
New fertile areas will become available, Siberia and northern Canada for instance. Do you have a serious scientific source that projects the loss of agricultural capacity to the degree you're suggesting?
93.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> slow creeping existential threat I struggle to see how even the worst predicted outcomes of climate change are an existential threat to the human species or our civilization. In the worst case a few billion people die or are displace
94.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
OK so innovators have to provide an option where: benefit > switching cost + network cost This has repeatedly been demonstrated as large networks have been disrupted. Folks switched away from MSN Messenger and MySpace didn't they?
95.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
Doesn't this just mean that the vast majority of users don't care enough about these sorts of things? Doesn't that mean that the market is working ? If switching cost > perceived benefit why should we expect anything othe
96.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> Augusto Pinochet Pinochet may have implemented neoliberal economic policy, but he did not support individual rights. The atrocities themselves are evidence of that. Violent suppression of your critics is hardly liberal. Also Chile wa
97.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> I'd say it's very bad at preventing atrocities Not every event that results in a lot of death is an atrocity. An earthquake is not an atrocity. Your ideology already has resulted in atrocities. Who was the last libertaria
98.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> What is the benefit? A sense of self-righteousness? The benefit is adhering to a set of principles that guard against committing atrocities that have already cost countless millions of lives. Unprincipled people driven by utilitarian
99.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> anti-authoritarians are also anti-liberal The words are overloaded, but liberal and authoritarian are on opposite ends of the same axis on the political compass. Classical liberalism stands on the ideas of individualism and laissez-
100.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
> You're just as entitled to kill me as I am to kill you This is exactly it. Your freedom is a function of your relationship to those who can use legitimate force against you - of how much power is held over you. If you can be kil
101.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
If all data sources indicate that domestic culture is the single biggest differentiator to educational attainment, who are you suggesting we blame besides the stewards of said domestic culture? Go to school, get good grades, don't bo
102.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
Liberalism as an ideology can be derived from two axioms: 1) All people are moral equals 2) There is no moral oracle It follows from these that no person has a source of moral authority to impose their views on another. What gives you or an
103.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
Because it's unambiguous, already a core liberal value, and because the enforcement mechanisms for violating the law are invariably physical (arrest, imprisonment). "Free" means "Free from the threat of illegitimate viol
104.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
People have the right to be and to raise bullies as long as their behaviour is nonviolent. As tasteless as it is, there is no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.
105.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
Hard disagree with utilitarian interventionism. It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. Economic and social outcom
106.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
As I said, I'm sorry about your brother, truly. That doesn't take away from the fact that all our curses and all our blessings are fundamentally ours to bear. I'm not doling out any consequences, just advocating for individua
107.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
So it sounds like you're saying that modern life is too complex to effectively navigate? There are many examples of rather simple people from humble beginnings navigating it successfully. Your straightforward example consists of someon
108.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
> what such a person would think about this? I'm sure opinions of people in any category vary widely. I'm simply pointing out that the curse of knowledge/competence exists . If you're an unusually capable anything
109.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
> that the typical person is dumb The typical person is typical, and from the perspective of an atypically smart person that's dumb(er). I'm not saying I am such a person, only that they inevitably exist. > is that the ty
110.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
Can't this be rewritten in plain English as "unsophisticated (dumb) people don't know how to use credit cards in their own interest?". Isn't that just the free in free market ? Why is a principled objection to a
111.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
If you found a company that depends on Google APIs or products, that's a risk your company carries. I don't see why we need legislative intervention to mitigate such risks. If I founded a company that specializes in manufacturing
112.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
> freedom of speech .. is nowhere near a universal moral value It depends on the basis form which you derive your (universal) moral values. Maximalist liberty as a universal moral value can be derived from the dual axioms of universal
113.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
I couldn't disagree more strongly that disinformation, incitement, or propaganda maim and kill people. People kill other people. Don't give killers an avenue to abdicate responsibility for their actions. Propaganda doesn't ca
114.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
How do you calculate that? Constraining variety automatically narrows the market.
115.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
It does narrow it, from a market of all kinds of devices to a market of only devices that are repairable in compliance with legislation.
116.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
It's not "Autonomy, Efficiency, and the pursuit of Happiness" is it though?
117.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
You can modify it however you want, but Apple should be under no obligation to facilitate that in their product strategy, design, or manufacturing process. It's entirely on you. If serviceability is important to you, why not buy a Pi
118.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
The phone still carries Apple's brand, and the secondary market significantly impacts brand perception. Toyota is a classic example. Apple should be able to exert whatever control over its products that it can to shape this perception.
119.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
I think we have rather different opinions on what laws are for. I think they're to facilitate a liberal ecosystem - one in which violence is delegitimized and disputes are resolved via due process. They should explicitly not try to i
120.
by thegrimmest 3y ago
It does not promote market competition, but narrows it only to devices which have interchangeable, user-replaceable parts. This is mathematically narrower than "all types of devices". The market here is "mobile phones"

More ›