> You can't expel people for 'working like they do in the real world'.
You totally can, though. In the real world if I can't remember something, I might look it up in a textbook. Closed-book tests have historically been a totally accepted practice, though, and getting caught bringing notecards with textbook info secretly into a closed-book test would absolutely bring about disciplinary action.
Evolution of small things like algae and the krill which feed on it and feed the whale is quite fast. Single celled organisms reproduce on the scale of 20 minutes and hold immense amounts of genetic diversity in their populations to facilitate the success of a better adapted line almost immediately. Additionally, they are adept at horizontal gene transfer from other well-adapted organisms.
This would be great news if the whale literally only required krill to survive, but complex megafauna have complex needs, so the ability of krill and other small creatures to evolve is largely irrelevant in a discussion regarding the ability of megafauna to survive. This is especially true if you read TFA and see that the whales already adapt to eat different things as necessary.
My point is, for instance, that they need appropriate temperatures in the water. Again, nothing survives PURELY based on caloric intake. It does not matter much at all if krill evolve.
Algae are the bottom of the ocean food chain. Everything interacts with it. But algae's happy to grow in a bowl of water left in the sun.
Lots of things eat krill and small fish. They're near the bottom of the foodchain too. In addition to algae, krill are opportunistic omnivores who often consume detritus. But their primary diet is algae. Small fish tend to be pretty similar.
It's not that other things don't interact with algae or krill or small fish, it's that those groups are the foundation bedrock of the ocean ecology. And single celled organisms like algae are tough as nails in aggregate. Couldn't kill them all if we tried. Pool owners will be familiar with the struggle.
But it's not a bottom up interaction. If whales are killed off from climate change, then those other things can get out of control. Too much algae, and then you have hypoxic environments.
A perfect example of this is when sea otters were nearly hunted to extinction which caused sea urchins to flourish which caused the death of coral and coastal environments which started to affect the larger things that depended on those environments.
My point is that any change to the careful balance can have non-linear effects.
I think we're coming at this from different directions. The OP I responded to originally said: "Warming will kill off most of the systems these animals depend on within 30 years." which isn't what you're talking about. A top-down extinction looks like whaling in the 1800s and we already had that. Now they're on the mend.
Right, this is my point. Looking at krill is looking at one PIECE of the stack. Other things support and interact with that stack. The stack is the whale. The point is that it doesn’t matter if this one single piece of the stack can evolve, it’s not nearly enough.
It could easily become this fast or even faster, if we would just stop worrying so much about "playing god" and focus instead on getting good at this job. We don't have much time for this either, as AI is on the trajectory to take over that mantle in the next decade or three, whether we like it or not.
But seriously, we may not have much choice. Natural evolution stopped being able to adapt to environmental changes after it created us; genetic engineering is essentially the only way to make biology adaptable enough again.
The next question is which traits to do you choose and the next question is which traits are better, because choices will imply ordering, and then you open a big can of worms that last time killed millions of people. So maybe there's other ways to avoid doom that didn't create doom last time we went down the path.
Unpopular opinion for obvious reasons, but probably the only realistic one apart from just witnessing one extinction after another. Pollution and climate change aint going anywhere until we elevate whole world to the level of say western Europe.
But since we humans are pretty arrogant with our wisdom and lack long term patience, I can see many ways where well-intended meddling can end up in catastrophe overall.
It would, yes. There's large worker/union pressure in many of these fields to not take away overtime by reducing hours, though, since it is such a huge part of total compensation.
It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.
We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world.
It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.
100%. Even beyond the direct incarceration costs and the opportunity cost of their lost contributions, there is also the cost of the whole apparatus for arresting and charging folks with crimes and trying them. The police department alone is more than 1/3 of our budget in Austin. Add courts and forensics and it’s 40%. And that’s still just the money part, to say nothing of the moral impact and humanity we throw away.
50k is a pittance compared to the amount of suffering the average criminal causes. I'd pay $1 million /year to incarcerate more people so long as we got the right people. I'd pay any amount. The cost of being a victim is monstrously high it doesn't matter
That depends on the crime, now doesn't it. When I got my car stolen the first time, the kid who stole it went on a joy ride, dumped the car, got caught. I got my car back, and the whole experience was largely an inconvenience. Most painful part was paying the impound lot. Dude ended up spending over a year behind bars.
Now, what did society gain from locking that kid up? Not $50,000 worth, that's for sure. Definitely not a million dollars' worth. No, it just fucked up some dude's life, and made some jackass at the tow yard $600 richer. If anybody had asked me, my idea of justice would be a few weekends community service, maybe a small fine, and a molotov through the tow-yard office's window.
Don't get me wrong, there are crimes worth the societal cost to punish. Violent crimes, crimes that cause serious emotional or financial damages. Abuses of power. But that isn't most criminals. In my book, if a victim wouldn't seriously consider killing the perpetrator, we probably shouldn't be in the business of incarcerating them.
Because incarceration basically carries the message of "We the people want to fuck your life up, but don't have the stomach to kill you".
Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.
There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it.
As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs.
Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.
You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.
I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.
Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs
This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.
Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
> The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect.
This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
> This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale.
If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.
> It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached.
Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
> If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
> It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
> I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.
> I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me.
It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.
Fair enough. I would concede that universal programs with progressive taxation is probably the best solution if we ignore the deadweight loss.
Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.
Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.
But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?
Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).
But maybe society will be nicer.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.
I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.
Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.
I don't think the parent is even saying that, their point is pretty reasonable: having some objective measure for before and after in any study is more reliable than self-reporting, especially when the subject might be incentivized to lie.
The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.
This seems to have the positive effect that patching applications on your own device (a la Revanced patching Spotify) appears blessed, since government prosecution would need to demonstrate a public interest case, if I'm reading this correctly.
In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need!
In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.
In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.
> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?
Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
You totally can, though. In the real world if I can't remember something, I might look it up in a textbook. Closed-book tests have historically been a totally accepted practice, though, and getting caught bringing notecards with textbook info secretly into a closed-book test would absolutely bring about disciplinary action.
reply