Israeli foreign minister says arms embargoes will lead to 'second Holocaust' and end of Israel
jsomae @ jsomae @lemmy.ml Posts 14Comments 1,389Joined 1 yr. ago
jsomae @ jsomae @lemmy.ml
Posts
14
Comments
1,389
Joined
1 yr. ago
(Sorry for the wall of text!)
Yes, printing more money for hospitals would liquefy the whole economy into jello. We can't solve our problems by printing more money. Inflation is very bad, in particular it's bad for the working class who don't have the luxury of having non-monetary assets.
"Why fund this and not that"
This is the very thing I raised as an argument against TPOASIWID. If a hospital isn't saving enough cancer patients, it's because it doesn't have enough money. Now, money doesn't explain everything of course -- perhaps there are some racially-linked diseases that are underfunded, and here "TPOASIWID" serves an explanation, but a rather bad one because it doesn't actually explain anything. A better explanation might be "it's due to institutional racism," or "it's simply an oversight," or "the technology to cure this disease doesn't exist yet" -- and then you might look at why it doesn't exist and you'll be looking at something other than the hospital. "The purpose of the hospital is to have institutional racism" doesn't make sense at all -- it's the purpose of institutional racism to infect the hospital, and the purpose of leftists to purge institutional racism.
"why do we collect taxes instead of letting inflation do the exact same thing?"
This presents the best case for TPOASIWID in my opinion. That's an interesting question too. (I suppose the answer is that taxes benefit the working class of course, whereas inflation benefits the wealthy, who hardly have any money when compared to their investments.) But I don't see how saying "The purpose of taxes is what they do" leads one to querying about inflation. I'm not an expert about the economy, but taxes seem to me like they more or less do the thing they're supposed to be doing so TPOASIWID does seem to match here, at least when compared to "why not just use inflation for taxation." (Neither of these methods will touch tax-averse autocrats of course.)
Does it match because TPOASIWID is good at prediction? No -- it simply discounts the possibility that a system could be failing, so of course it looks accurate when a system is apparently not failing. It's a brazen assertion that whoever is running the world is doing things exactly right and simply can't fail. This seems insane to me because things are hard. Take the USA's "War on Drugs" -- in my view and probably that of most people, it was a spectacular failure in retrospect. What was the purpose of the war on drugs? Well to answer that we should look at who wanted it to happen and why. In my opinion, it was spurred on by many people who just really wanted to eradicate drugs, and didn't have ulterior motives. But TPOASIWID just leads one to conspiracy theories: since the War on Drugs basically just got a lot of black people thrown in jail, then surely all those people who claim to hate drugs must actually just hate black people, and not drugs at all! After all, if they actually hated drugs, then WoD would have been successful.
But I'll admit that if you don't know the purpose of a system, figuring out what it does is a good place to start.
What Israel has a right to do is not relevant. America has the right to become part of Canada. Israel remaining as it is is the problem -- and more to the point, the problem is that people don't see that as the problem.
The government can actually fund everything and just print more dollars to make up the difference.
That is simply not true. The government may print arbitrarily much money, but due to inflation that will not necessarily fund everything. Who would accept worthless money in exchange for services?
If "TPOASIWID" actually raised further questions, that would be very useful! But it does not raise further questions. When I see somebody say that phrase, I assume they have no interest in learning more about the system as they already have the only answer they ever need. Who would say "TPOASIWID" and then go on to do a cost-benefit analysis? It is not the first basic step toward a critique -- it's the last.
That's absurd, the AI is not more costly than a human worker, it's just not as capable. The energy cost of a human alone is greater than that of any AI agent that would take its place. If you really think that AI costs that much energy, you just don't have a sense of scale. The server-farm costing a lot overall does not at all mean that an individual API call is expensive.
Good point. Still, "not having the right to exist" sounds to me -- and more importantly, to those undecided on the issue -- like it's encouraging the destruction of the things that are in Israel, not the entity of Israel itself. Which is obviously not a take that's likely to attract support.
I think you're describing an heuristic for predicting how the hospital behaves as part of a larger dynamic system. For instance, the Canadian government makes the trade-off on where to reduce funding; it can pull tax dollars from hospitals and put it towards something else if it appears that doing so would increase the likelihood of re-election. So I assume you're saying, the hospital saves just enough lives that it doesn't create outrage that we're not funding the hospital enough. (Or, perhaps, that the expected marginal cost:outrage tradeoff is not lower than any other place the government can sink tax dollars.) I think we ought at least agree here.
What I don't get is why you describe this as "the purpose of the hospital." I would say it like this: it's the purpose of the government to identify the pareto frontier of where to put tax dollars (this may benefit some members of society more than others, and you could perhaps even convince me that's its purpose); but it's the purpose of the hospital to provide the best reduction in public outrage per dollar tax money received as possible -- or in other words, to save as many lives as it can.
After the revolution, should we really tear down the hospital because it can't meet our new government's demands? Or is the hospital perfunctory and the system that it's part of to blame? This is what is muddled, IMO, by "the purpose of the system is what it does."
Generally I'm not interested in what Israel as the right to become. I would rather "Israel doesn't have the right to not be Palestine" (phrased better, perhaps?)
In that case, we should encourage google to go all-in on climate change, racism, and war; they should back the conservative party as well. Then 90% of those will fail.
AI is not needed to automate the control of the human race. I feel like it's already essentially automated from the rich's perspective.
I wonder if we can find a new way of describing the notion of "Israel existing." It seems opponents believe we mean killing the occupants of Israel or (somehow removing the area entirely) rather than reforging the state itself. It's not like we don't want the geographical region to continue existing.
assuming holocaust=genocide, then this is not the second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides
the UN doesn't have the ability to. If only it had more power.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says "isn't that eugenics?" Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.
Wow! An easy answer to every problem. I think you might actually have a semantic stop-sign; an answer to everything that suppresses curiosity. Why isn't the hospital curing more patients? "That's not its purpose!"
The purpose of the hospital is to cure patients as cost-effectively as it can. We don't have enough doctors in Canada, not because that is by design, but because we are failing as a country and could do better.
The internet was obviously not created with that intention, but social media may have that purpose.
Anyway, what I love about this phrase, the purpose of a system is what it does, is that it implies there's no point in trying to fix anything. There's no point in even checking if there is anything that can be fixed or improved; there is no point in separating the good stuff from the bad when we burn everything down; the only way to improve anything is revolution. That's different of course from my perspective -- revolution can fix the worst problems but there still exist other problems that can be solved without such a dicy method.
Seems fatalist to me. Take your preferred system of government, introduce on flaw, and critics will say the flaw is intentional rather than proposing ways to fix it. Also, the purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients.
When you say 'right' it sounds like it's a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I'm talking about, or that it's somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
To be clear, you're saying that asian women typically having smaller hands is dubious? I have to double-check because I'm astonished anyone doubts this.
The use of "race science" in this headline has been bugging me and I only just realized why. Questionable race science would be claiming that e.g. asian women think in some particularly useful way, or any other specific claim about race that is hard to prove. But it's actually quite easy to show asian women have small hands, I assume -- at least, it seems to me like asian women do tend to have much smaller hands than men of other races. This is not the dubious claim. The dubious claim is whether those smaller hands are useful or not.
I am not really sure what to make of this, I'm still grappling with this one. Just thought I'd share my scattered thoughts.
Fair enough about America and Canada. Still, I think the Israeli are perfectly aware that they could become part of Palestine. They just don't seem to want that. Honestly, trying to convince the Israeli people to go for this option seems rather Liberal-minded to me -- liberal democracy! Just vote!
RttS is a prediction, or a call to action. It is a slogan used by both sides, to mean freedom in one case or manifest destiny in the other.