31337

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

I think that article is inaccurate. I've always seen communism described as a state-less society.

The arguments I hear most around this kind of stuff is something along the lines of, "the innovators have a right to charge however much the market will bear" and, "if we take away the incentive to innovate, these drugs will not exist."

My thoughts against these lines is that patents cause monopolies, so they are not "free markets," and there would still be an incentive to innovate because of things like the first-mover advantage, and that reducing costs is also a form of innovation.

My thoughts against "punishment" arguments, are that punishment just for punishment's sake is cruel, useless, and often counter-productive. I don't think people have as much agency as we'd like to think. In the case of type-2 diabetes, insulin is part of the rehabilitation.

I guess I could've been considered "black-pilled," back when I was going through similar stuff. I don't think the "incel" community existed back then. Anyways, most of my problems were caused by severe depression and anxiety, and a year or two of Lexapro helped immensely. Either the anti-depressants helped permanently change my brain chemistry, or I aged-out of my most severe symptoms.

Yep. There's a whole propaganda industry that rails against it (Prager U, Daily Wire, Red pillers, etc), and right-wing states are banning Universities from engaging in it, and banning investment of state funds in companies that take DEI into account (even though it's pretty much just corporate lip-service).

Tipping pizza delivery drivers is customary, and has been ever since I've been alive. They make around as much as wait staff in base-pay (minimum wage or less, depending on the state), and have to pay for their own car, gas, maintenance, etc. So, they depend on tips to survive. It's stupid and exploitative, but that's the way she goes.

I just ask ChatGPT to review pull requests.

The media and people in general ignore non-disruptive protest. When protesting pollution, bringing motor vehicles to a halt is arguably a pretty good choice compared to, say, the stone henge (which I don't have a problem with either). Whether the optics are good is debatable. The media is mostly corporate owned, and they'll try to make any protest that goes against their interests look bad anyways. Which is probably why they only cover disruptive protests.

I don't think there's a reason to try to get rid of Trump. I imagine he's easily controllable since he has no apparent ideology, and is just a greedy narcissist. So, money and praise should be enough.

I wonder if such a system could be designed to be privacy-preserving.

Doesn't sound much more complicated than invitation-only services. Most people wouldn't even really need to know the details of how it works.

I would if the hardware was powerful enough to do interesting or useful things, and there was software that did interesting or useful things. Like, I'd rather run an AI model to remove backgrounds from images or upscale locally, than to send images to Adobe servers (this is just an example, I don't use Adobe products and don't know if this is what Adobe does). I'd also rather do OCR locally and quickly than send it to a server. Same with translations. There are a lot of use-cases for "AI" models.

It appears the doctor that co-wrote that book was a quack or grifter that associated himself with other grifters like Dr Oz and The Doctors, and advocated for "alternate health practices" that have no evidence of being helpful (and that sound absurd): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sinatra

For stuff like this, I usually try to find the most recent meta-analysis that looks reputable. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316578/

If I understand it correctly, it says people with total cholesterol above reference levels have a 27% increase in risk of cardiovascular mortality, people with high LDL have a 21% increase, and people with high HDL have 40% decrease in risk.