I think the framing that "individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective" is wrong here. In my opinion, what GP is saying is more along the line of "powerful actors must be regulated for the good of the collective powerless people".
When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on the whole world.
Those are exactly the same framing and the most likely outcome is left politicians saying, "why do you allow this 'sideloading' at all Google? I have a constitutent who got scammed, why did you allow it? Are you one of those awful libertarians? You should be more like Apple and review all software, otherwise you clearly aren't caring about consumer protection as much as Tim Cook does, up your standards or else we'll regulate you".
That's a common point of view, but when your disability is never someone else's problem, it becomes waaaaaay harder to manage. You should display more empathy to people that don't follow the norm.
Except in this case, there is no information to the other party that someone has a disability. So the default that we assume someone has a disability is what most people take umbrage with.
I try to be generous as much as is reasonable. I generally assume the person who cuts me off in traffic may have an urgent need, but vaulting every misdeed to an assumption that it's due to some unknown disability crosses into unreasonable territory, if for nothing else than it's probabilistically a bad assumption. Taken to the extreme, it becomes enabling for everyone who does not have a disability but gets away with bad behavior.
Then maybe the easy solution is to make sure anyone showing up late doesn't disrupt anything? That accommodates everyone, is flexible, and does not unfairly punish anyone.
Isn't it reasonable that we try to disrupt each other as much as possible as a default? It seems odd to force that responsibility onto another party. (ie it's weird to assume the professor is responsible for making sure another adult isn't disruptive)
It really shows that you know nothing about sleep-related disabilities. I know someone suffering from idiopathic hypersomnia[1]. You can't just "choose" to go to bed earlier to wake up earlier in the morning. Sometimes it might work, most of the time it doesn't.
You think it's the disabled person's responsibility to never put a burden on others when others' expectations puts an unreasonable amount of burdens.
And we're talking about this specific kind of disability, but as someone else said in a sibling comment, it could be anything. Imagine you really have to go to the bathroom for some reason (pregnancy, diarrhea, ...). That can happen to a lot of people. Should all of them be prevented from being accepted into class ?
That's why we speak about "empathy, tolerance, flexibility". Empathy towards the weaker few, not empathy towards the "normal" many.
FWIW I agree but I think it’s worth communicating a devils advocate position.
I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing that those with a disability should be protected. The distinction is that many don’t go so far as to assume someone has a disability when their behavior is maladaptive. In game theory, systems break down when they are too many people abusing the system. Giving everyone a break on all instances just in case they have a disability sets the table for creating an unstable system ripe for abuse.
You point out the specific case of sleep disorders. But the numbers of medical disorders is functionally infinite. If we apply the same rule across the board, we would be creating a world where nobody is held accountable because they might just have some obscure illness they aren’t aware of.
I think there are better approaches that don’t devolve like that. As another congener said, you can create a system where late-comers can quietly come in the back.
You do realise this system is unsustainable, though ? We just cannot grow infinitely just because .end of life care costs money.
We are way too many, and the #1 source of global warming is human activity. At one point we'll have to stop growing, so the system of how we pay for elderly care has to change.
We don't have to grow infinitely. Population collapse comes with a huge host of problems though.
The problem of elder care isn't purely financial. It's not the model of paying that's the problem. At the end of the day, (kinda oversimplified) money represents a fractional value of the work output of a population. The output of the population depends on the number of people working in productive roles. The value of the currency is related to the consistent output of services and confidence in the existence of your country.
Shifting over an increasing fraction of your population to elder-care is non productive. It has a tension with both stability of currency and value of currency.
> the thing so many of people with these views have in a common is they feel no shame about the harm they are causing.
> If in your own opinion you did something wrong, you should absolutley feel shame
It implies that the list of people you don't like think they did something wrong but refuse to feel shame about it.
To me, all those people are not shameless - in the sense that they don't feel shame _at all_ -, but don't feel shame because they don't feel like they did something wrong (how can you think you're wrong when you don't _believe_ in climate change ?).
I didn't say I don't like those people, I said i believe they feel guilt yet avoid shame by using flawed reasoning and self deception. Those were just examples i thought would help sell my point to the HN crowd.
I think there is a huge difference between making something illegal for business (here: gambling in games) so that huge companies can't profit off of that legally, and making something illegal for people (war on drugs).
Like many people, I think the war on drugs was a terrible idea. But preventing huge pharmaceuticals companies from selling drugs isn't.
Mihoyo started as a 3-man company a decade ago. It's not exactly a huge business. Ultimately any bans are going to come down to making it illegal for the player, because they're the ones impacted the most by it.
Even stringent requirements to access these types of games are going to impact the player the most.
And why should we maintain the population ? Have we reached the perfect amount of people on earth ?
We could be a lot less humans on earth, it would be amazing for the environment, and I think we'd be as happy.
The only downside I see is economic (in the sense that everything is built with the expectation of growth). But it is to me an economic problem, and not a reproduction problem.
> > And why should we maintain the population ? Have we reached the perfect amount of people on earth ?
Because when people are happy they fuck on impetuous and fucking on impetuous generates children (modulo vasectomy and morning after pill)
It’s not about the outcome , it’s about the happiness on the way there, whatever outcome it might be.
Also when people are happy they wind up perishing by fucking around in the real world due to excessive confidence doing dangerous activities such as drinking and driving, jetski accidents, drug overdoses etc
You have to substitute these people somehow and not only that, Nature installed a mechanism inside their brain so that the more they engage in dangerous activities the more they tend to have unprotected sex.
So to summarize we want to have a world above replacement rate because having a world above replacement rate is correlated with having a good time, wheras realities such as Japan represent a dystopian world where everybody live to 100 but they are miserable throughout their lives
A little nitpick : you seem to imply that buying a book is having an influence on parenting skills. I'd argue that's its correlated but does not have a direct influence.
As you said, if you're buying a book it means you're ready for self-reflection, which is what has an impact on parenting.
I'm fairly sure they are referring to a Freakonomics episode (or book). The researchers found "successful" parents, then found various statistics around them.
One of the conclusions was that they "type" of people that would go out of their way to buy a parenting book were already the type of people to do the "right thing" when parenting and the book itself offered no additional support.
> You know, your way of thinking will eventually lead to understanding that interviewing is inherently discriminatory against everyone but the best candidate
That's not discrimination. The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.
A lot of people have used your way of thinking to justify discrimination. "Obviously foreign people are less educated. I'm just looking for the best candidate so I should not interview someone with a foreign name".
How can you be sure that _you_ are not discriminating ?
> I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.
So you don't agree that your job is to hire the best person without discrimination ? Or you don't agree that giving people the proper tools allow them to be the best version of themselves ?
> The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.
I assume that someone who can't throw up a few lines of text about himself is not worth even considering for an interview for a job that ultimately requires producing text, in a form of computer code, documentation and communication with co-workers. Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm discriminating against mentally handicapped and illiterate people. That's the intent.
When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on the whole world.