I think something is more complex the more rules it has. For example, if every instance of "is", "am", "are" is turned into "be", English would be less complex because there would be less rules. e.g. "I be happy. You be sad. He be bored". I believe this is how mandarin does it.
Each of those conjugations has a different subject. By standardising them all into the same word, it's possible that you make it more efficient for the producer (speaker or writer), but the receiver (listener or reader) has to put more effort into understanding.
This is why languages evolve. If something is pointless, it tends to disappear from the language over time. And it's why artificially produced languages just don't seem to work - they are perhaps more efficient at communicating across boundaries, but less efficient in the primary use case of communicating within a boundary.
There is a very great portion of the American left that cares about economic status. I do believe that admissions should factor in socioeconomic status rather than just race, gender, etc., but believing this does not require me to generalize a very wide reaching political stance.
It isn't generalizing a political stance, but summarizing the dominant narrative given to us by the media and what I call the new American left.
If the narrative was mostly about economic status, we would hear more about that and about universal programs. Rather than disparities and identity politics.
I thought Warren backed away from full Universal for all Health insurance. From my outside look, it didn’t appear as if Warren was actually that progressive. One random example — endorsing Biden (and Hillary which possibly is about identity politics) were both political moves not seeming to be of someone close to a progressive like Bernie.
—
Many poorer people already get Medicaid which is quite good. If that was expanded a bit more to slightly higher incomes and [conservatives] states couldn’t deny so many people who should get it. That would be many times cheaper than Medicare for all. It would help the most marginalized.
Millions of people on good Medicaid right now could actually see their health insurance worsen under some universal health measures.
> I thought Warren backed away from full Universal for all Health insurance.
Her exact proposal was to phase-in full universal by starting with a subsidized public option and then spending more time building out a full universal plan, i believe.
You can argue this is a cop-out but i'd say it's more of a technocratic play - offering full universal would be a massive undertaking and not something that can just pop up overnight, but offering a subsidized insurance plan in the existing system is comparatively easier and could be implemented easily in a president's first year in office (with a cooperative congress, anyways)
This whole comment basically says, "it is how it is, so you can't criticize it." It is like saying, "racism will exist. Humans are just racist. Should businesses be publicly shamed for being racist if it is what their users want?"
Now as for how we should treat businesses that treat people better based on their looks is not something I have a strong opinion about, but my two cents is that looks should not be a factor of how people get treated because it is possible that representation of "ugly" people in media could make many diverse looking people "attractive" to younger generations. This would be beneficial because it means that talent would have more priority over looks than before.
> I'm the one who best knows how to effectively allocate those resources in my life.
Some people do not get good enough education and do not know how to effectively allocate resources.
> There are some social services that are necessary and beneficial but these should be built on top of a UBI foundation for maximum effectiveness.
Do you mean the other way around? Necessary social services should be the foundation with UBI built on top of it. Social services can do some things better than UBI can even when assuming everyone uses their UBI completely rationally.
As the person who you're replying to said, it was for verification. Milo does not work at Buzzfeed, but Milo claims to work at Buzzfeed on twitter. This resulted in the loss of the checkmark because Milo working at Buzzfeed is unverified.
> Aren't you doing exactly that right now? "speaking out" on Hacker News against people you disagree with?
>> If you want to improve the system you first understand how the system works, then work hard and do things that will improve the system.
>> Criticising is only useful when it actually influences something.
The trick is to achieve system understanding first. On Hacker News, the system is set up to reward intellectually stimulating arguments, e.g. taking a systemic view of social phenomena. Since there are at least some open-minded people here, that kind of criticism may actually influence something.
To effectively "speak out" on China, you need an entirely different skillset, including being able to reference a large corpus of shared knowledge that most people on HN are probably unaware of.
Since China does not yet allow criticism to be very influential, it is likely that the effort invested into criticism would be better spent, for now, on increasing the likelihood that future criticism will be influential. There are many possible ways to do that; it appears the person you're replying to has settled on a particular one I don't quite understand yet.
Having your tuition paid for does not equal getting the best education. Lots of dummies graduate from the world's top schools simply because of pedigree.
