Can we just take a moment to appreciate that a sites legitimacy is questioned because the site isn't crippled by ads to the point of being nearly unusable? That's a really unfortunate state of affairs. Especially since I don't think small sites trying to build an audience can afford to cripple themselves to the same degree with ads as bigger sites can.
One reason I can think of for increased Republican content is because of outrage economics. They tend to generate more clicks. It's also something that isn't catered to by the big news networks. Smaller sites I'm regularly visiting for over ten years have also shifted in this direction and those type of articles always generate more comments than other ones, so the tactic seemingly works.
Post-scarcity doesn't solve the fundamental problem of earth being unable to sustain infinite humans. Even with infinite resources, there will still be finite space.
Historically, human populations that did grow beyond sustainable had to starve to death back to sustainable. If you prevent this by giving everyone free food, that's not really a good thing.
I do not think such a world is desirable. It would just distort markets. Everyone will charge more for everything, starting with rent.
If you cover the basic needs of "everyone", the number of everyone will just go up and up and up until you can't cover the basic needs anymore. Do you think earth can sustain infinite people? There has to be a mechanism preventing people to increase their number to unsustainable levels. The current world already does a really bad job at that, I don't think we have to make this worse.
I think the most desirable world is one with a build-in pruning process, where only the most adapted people survive, thus preventing the number of humans to reach unsustainable levels, while still progressing to greater heights. After all, if you just put a cap on the number of children people are allowed to have you're just going to stagnate. It's better to have a large pool to select the fittest and prune the rest, resulting in the same number at the end, only with much better quality. Historically, war was such a pruning process. But I don't think it was an especially good one.
Working 40h weeks for an extra $500 isn't a good deal. As long as I can sustain life without working, not working at all will always beat getting some scraps. If there aren't repercussions for not working, than why bother?
The idea is that you'd be able to sustain if you lived _very_ frugally. Generally, people don't enjoy that. They like to eat the nice food, go to places, buy things, all of which wouldn't be covered by the UBI.
I lived my entire live frugally. I enjoy that. Working 40h weeks on the other hand isn't all that fun, even though now I have thousands of dollars to blow every month. If I had the choice I'd live frugally and not work.
I'm eating the same thing everyday, like to stay at home and hate to buy things. I'm working because I know it's necessary.
Money is a representation of wealth, if you print more of it, the money loses it's value to match the wealth. We call this inflation. You cannot give away wealth that you do not have.
If we truly had a free market, we'd have none of these issues, since wealth aggregation wouldn't be prevented through regulations.
For example, you can already get free education of mostly everything from the Internet, but without getting a piece of paper at the end with the stamp of some university. It's a form of regulation, since without that piece of paper you'll have a hard time selling your services. Similarly, you can get all the information you need to lead a healthy life style, making it less likely for you to even need health care. But still lots of people just eat till obesity ruining their own bodies. In Japan there's a system where your company does yearly health checks and if you gain weight, you have to pay more in taxes or some such scheme. Curiously nearly nobody in Japan is obese.
... so you know... obesity isn’t usually from eating to excess because you can. It’s from eating high calorie low nutrition foods. Poor people in the US aren’t obese because they have excess it’s because it is cheapest to buy high calorie foods. Obviously I’m not talking 400lbs, that still takes effort and money, but 250lbs is easy to hit when poor.
If I read the manual for everything I've ever used, I'm not sure I'd have time to actually accomplish anything in the end.
Sure, let me spend a day reading through the lists of keyboard/mouse shortcuts for every piece of software I use just to see if there's anything useful in there? No thanks...
Good UX would pop up a balloon informing me of the feature after the first time I held down my left-arrow key for more than, say, keypresses.
CLIs are like that. On the bright side, things rarely change. So the stuff you read in the manual 30 years ago still likely works. I prefer it over relearning GUIs with every update.
Of course, you might as well disregard the manual and discover things on your own as you need them. Nevertheless, it helps to go at this with a mindset of "this feature surely already exists" lest you're compelled to develop a worse version of the feature yourself.
While technically true, I tend to forget what I read after some time, especially tips and tricks that did not seem that
useful when I first read them. So RTFM is not the silver bullet unless you somehow have a system that reminds you to re-read every manual every x months.
I think it's a lighthearted reference to studies which have demonstrated possible, albeit minor, psychological and physiological effects on humans after infection with the Toxoplasma gondii parasite [1].
In rodent models, infection appears to exert effects which make the rodent more likely to be killed and eaten by felines in order to complete the infection cycle of the parasite in the digestive tract of the feline.
The suggestion being that similar effects might be occurring in humans, particularly cat owners who are likely to be carriers of the parasite, manifesting in increased positive behaviours towards the cat.
If the cure is worse than the illness, why take the cure? Who are you going to save the planet for? I don't particularly mind humanity ending a few years after I've died of old age.
This strikes me as Luddite thinking, at best; 'I like things the way they are, so why change' type of thing. At worst, this comes across as short-sighted, selfish, and hateful.
Please explain yourself, so I can understand what you're saying.
Luddites were people that went out destroying the machines that replaced them in the workforce. Obviously their efforts were futile. Please explain how this applies to my thinking.
I'm not opposed to technology, I welcome technology. Isn't it very much like the Luddites to advocate for "scaling back" with our "pollution"? The motives are different, but the objective seems identical.
You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't.
One reason I can think of for increased Republican content is because of outrage economics. They tend to generate more clicks. It's also something that isn't catered to by the big news networks. Smaller sites I'm regularly visiting for over ten years have also shifted in this direction and those type of articles always generate more comments than other ones, so the tactic seemingly works.