I see this parroted a lot, but it's more of a moral assertion that is completely ignorant of how economics works. This claim is easily debunked in a microeconomics 101 class. A business that can’t pay an arbitrary “living wage” disappearing doesn’t guarantee its workers get better jobs. In fact, it's often quite the opposite (less hours, automation, etc.). Not everyone's circumstances are the same, and not every job need to pay some arbitrary amount per hour.
> The whole point of civilization is to help people
Sorry, what? I mean, helping people is nice, but that's a very sweeping hippie sort of claim. I suppose you could say trade helps people, but that is a side effect of trade, not necessarily the point. Also, minimum wages often 'hurt' the very people they were designed to help.
> Without persuading other people of the “truths” that you discover, there is no real mathematics.
Why? If I sat around and studied math by myself and discovered something true yet not yet known but didn't share it, it's still true. Are you saying I didn't "do math" because I didn't share the result? Math exists on another plane and it has 'truths' that we haven't discovered, yet are still 'true', no?
No, they're saying that what is true in mathematics is contingent, not absolute. It all depends on which set of axioms use, what assumptions you make.
The area of a triangle doesn't have 1 unique formula, it has many, depending on the system you use. A triangle in plane geometry has a different area than a triangle in spherical geometry, and different again in hyperbolic geometry.
When you get to studying the geometry of manifolds, you realize the area of a triangle can be any damn thing you want, depending on how you construct the manifold you embed it in.
Ah I see now. Maybe my brain translated the question implicitly to "Are mums poisonous to cats?". I'm tempted to say it's a minor quibble, but on the other hand, there are probably a good deal of people who may stop reading after "Yes"
> If you think technology delivers improvements in living standards rather than all working people demanding better conditions you’re living in an absolute fantasy
Demanding better conditions does not just manufacture the technology, infrastructure, and productivity needed to provide the improvement in the standard of living. I think you're in the fantasy realm, my friend.
Which period of the last 2000 years was good for the vast majority rather than the ultra wealthy? And are these periods aligned with technology progress?
Living standards for ordinary people only started to improve in any meaningful way after the industrial revolution, a fact which is immediately obvious if you compare across generations. Technological progress gave us all of the things that distinguish the lives of 21st century Americans from the lives of medieval peasants. Central heating, indoor plumbing, electric lighting, general anaesthesia, antibiotics, automobiles, aircraft, limitless entertainment, food so abundant that poor people are obese. If you think that technological progress is intrinsically bad because it hasn't brought about a utopia of perfect equality, then I really don't know what to say to you.
No, you’re totally misunderstanding me, I don’t think technology progress is correlated with progress for humans at all. The point is only the post war period when taxes were 90%+ for the wealthy aligned with a growing middle class and a welfare state I.e. hospitals and housing for the poorest.
Interesting roasting process with high heat 2x for 1 minute. Quite different than say kilning pilsner malt at low heat for a much longer time. Sure speeds up production, I bet!
During the covid period, the price of hand sanitizer, which is thickened alcohol, rose to exceed the price of drinkable alcohol.
Several beverage factories proposed to rework themselves to produce sanitizer instead, which would have been good for everyone.
But they couldn't, because federal law would have required them to poison the sanitizer, which would have contaminated their machinery so badly that they would have been unable to switch back to producing drinkable alcohol afterwards.
So - even if we ignore the idea that intentionally poisoning people is wrong - there was a serious cost to the legal regime, one that still exists.
This is false. Several breweries and distilleries started producing sanitizer basically overnight [0]. The requirement to add denaturing components to alcohol was suspended during the pandemic specifically to allow it [1].
Can't you just tell your AI tool of choice to just port it? One thing I like about AI is that now I can easily roll my own or take an open-source project and customize it really fast with very little commitment on my end. Instead of everyone having to use the exact same tools, now we can customize it to our liking--at least for now
Unfortunately, political violence seems to be en-vogue these days. I even hear people in "real life" casually discussing their support for it. What can we do? I think the only thing we can do is push back on it, even though it doesn't seem fair. What's a favourable alternative? You do a great job here giving individual feedback, which I know some people listen to and take in. I hope it's some kind of comfort to know that you can change people's minds, or at least give them some pause. In today's algorithm-driven world, pushing back seems more important now than any time I can think of. We need cool, level-heads running things.
