We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
wasoxygen's comments
wasoxygen  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

I am doing my level best but don't follow your side. The patronizing tone doesn't help; can we focus on the subject instead of my rhetorical skills?

When Piketty writes "The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past" I think a typical reader would get the impression that the material welfare of the poor has not improved.

But I agree with you, based on my reading of that chapter Piketty is not measuring material welfare. He is interested in share of total wealth. And he uses a moving yardstick, comparing the poor of the past to the rich of that era, and today's poor with today's rich.

The article points out that, despite this description of static share of wealth (which I do not see disputed) there are good reasons to celebrate improvement in material welfare, like highways and ambulances and A/C and penicillin, and also cable TV and Facebook.

rd95 summed up this list as merely "convenience in entertainment and leisure," in my view, a clear instance of straw man. I didn't want to irritate him by citing logical fallacies; bringing "ad hominem" and the rest never helps a discussion. But, regrettably, he seems disgruntled anyway. I would love to investigate all the issues he mentions, "privacy, clean water, working plumbing and electricity, fair rent rates, safe neighborhoods, and on and on and on" and see what the data show the trends are. We might start with the photo in the article depicting the family of 13 living in a converted chicken coop. I expect that the trends are generally positive and beneficial to people at all income levels.

Piketty might agree with all this, I don't know. If it's true that many poor are materially better off now than before, by absolute measures, I think we should celebrate that and look for ways to continue and expand the trend, and not worry so much about relative measures.

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I won't patronize if you make a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting. The quote:

    In short, convenience in entertainment and leisure do not necessarily mean widespread economic security.

Your arguments:

    How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work?

Set aside for the moment the fact that air conditioning primarily changed the lifestyles of the south and southwest such that they were habitable and people could work. Air conditioning doesn't keep a roof over your head, nor does it put food on your family.

    The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems?

Set aside for the moment the fact that penicillin and ambulances don't keep a roof over your head nor put food on your family. Neither of these are available to you if you're poor. You think they are, but what happens is you get sick, you go to the hospital, you get treatment, you can't pay, and they garnish your wages. Assuming you have wages. There is a powerful financial disincentive against the consumption of healthcare that the middle class and upper class do not experience. Not only that, but you miss a couple days at Dunder Mifflin, you take it out of sick leave. You miss a couple days at the gas'n'sip, you ain't gettin' paid and you might be on your ass.

    The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well.

Set aside for a moment...

A movie ticket in 1913 was seven cents. That's the equivalent of a $1.72 today. Meanwhile, movies cost between $8 and $15 depending on where you live. In 1929, you could see the Yankees play for a dollar, or the equivalent of $14. The average now is $34. On the other hand, first class on the Titanic was $4350, or the equivalent of $107k. And although Cunard is sold out of first class transatlantic voyages this year, midships is under a grand. So although your argument isn't quite "let them eat cake" it shares some traits.

But none of this gets to the matter at hand: does static wealth inequality matter? Piketty, at least, addresses the issue as a reason to not address the issue. The article you linked essentially says "never mind all that, the poor have refrigerators now." rd95 is arguing that having a refrigerator does not guarantee your ass won't be sleeping on a park bench a month from now and you said "how about air conditioning?"

HERE is a libertarian argument:

- If the poor today have experienced an equivalent boost to quality of life over yesterday's poor that the rich today have experienced over yesterday's rich, then the fact that today's poor are just as poor as yesterday's poor doesn't matter.

But you didn't make that argument, Piketty didn't make that argument and the author didn't make that argument. You want to focus on thirteen immigrants living in a chicken coop. If you're going to do that, we could drag stuff like this out:

...and I'll point out that the 3 bedroom house next to my old apartment that had fifteen illegal Chinese immigrants in it.

The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

flagamuffin  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting

    The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

Perhaps rd95 should post somewhere more relevant.

bfv  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  
wasoxygen  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

I haven't read Piketty, but Google Books allowed me to read a few pages to make sure that quote wasn't taken out of context.

So I agree that "None of this is false," but I question the value of measuring welfare by asking what percentage of the total someone holds, rather than more direct measures of life quality, like food, shelter, and health.

I also agree that wealth naturally accumulates unless checked by policy. That is precisely why "The target of reducing extreme poverty rates by half was met five years ahead of the 2015 deadline."

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You should read Piketty.

He wasn't measuring welfare by any stretch of the imagination - he was measuring capital flows and the function of owned capital in wealth generation. Fact of the matter is, he basically points to the massive redistribution of wealth during WWII as the engine driving the post-war economic expansion without once saying the words "jew" "holocaust" "crystallnacht" or "ghetto"; I'm guessing because it would have opened up exactly this sort of bullshit argument.

More than that, "extreme poverty" isn't even vaguely a focus of the work. It's entirely about the top two deciles and how they compare to the middle six deciles historically and why. He even burns a few pages about how historically, the poor aren't even counted so it's difficult to find any metrics about them. He focuses on the middle class and the wealthy because that's where the data is.

Yet in your linked article, it forms the justification for some dude in a suit to go "look - it's not so bad as it was during the dust bowl." NO SHIT. How offensive is that? "Could be worse, you could have cholera." Fuckin' A - if we're taking "a reasonable expectation that the advances of modern science will raise the quality of life for all participants in society" off the table I'ma start gettin' strident.

flagamuffin  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

(you shouldn't read piketty)

edit - maybe first and last chapters

wasoxygen  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Piketty’s Crumbs

How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work? The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems? The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well. More options, and more affordable options, benefit everyone.

If the poorer half today do in fact hold "5 percent of total wealth" and this is the same percentage as 1910, they are not "as poor today" as then, they are far wealthier because total wealth has grown. But "the rich get richer, the poor get richer" doesn't sell as many books.

rd95  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So, I’ll tell you what. I’ve had this argument so many times over the past decade because it’s something that hits uncomfortably close to home, both for me individually as well as for so many people I know. So I’m just gonna make my statement and leave the conversation, because in all honesty, I'm not going to let myself have an aneurysm over this.

The problems that affect the poor today are the same problems that affected the poor yesterday. Unaffordable housing, unaffordable health care, unaffordable childcare, sub par educational opportunities, subpar job opportunities, subpar legal representation, tenants rights, labor rights, and on and on and on. To say that the poor are “better off” because now they can afford a single time purchase of an X-Box here or an I-Phone there is to go beyond trivializing the challenge they face due to poverty. It’s a a bait and switch.

You bring up air conditioning. That’s awesome. What about other living conditions such as privacy, clean water, working plumbing and electricity, fair rent rates, safe neighborhoods, and on and on and on? Just because cheaper air conditioning is available, that doesn’t mean good, affordable housing is available. You bring up penicillin and ambulatory services? Awesome. Penicillin is just one small part of the picture when it comes to healthcare. What about pre-natal and post-natal care? What about diseases like mental health, diabetes, etc.? What good is an ambulance when health insurance is beyond affordable for so many people, even with shit laws like Obamacare, and a single visit to the doctor’s office is unaffordable and an emergency room visit or a necessary surgery is all that’s needed to throw a family into crippling debt?

You can’t say “Oh, people have more options available now so obviously things are better” if so many of those options for people are still out of reach. You can’t say “Oh, these cherry picked items are affordable now” when said cherry picked items have very little to do with the big picture.

The argument framed as it is, is bullshit. Plain and simple. To even pretend otherwise is so disingenuous it really brings into question the credibility of people who want to use it.

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

This is a straw-man argument well beneath your rhetorical skills. Maybe it isn't your fault - the article you link deliberately mischaracterizes an argument in order to launch on its own wild flight of strawmannery - but there's a world of difference between "economic security" and "well-being."

The poor who worked in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle had, by Piketty's estimation, about the same level of "economic security" as the poor who worked in Molly Ivin's Foster Farms investigation. However, Ivins' crew mostly worked hard at a shitty job. They didn't face imminent mutilation like Sinclair's did. Piketty didn't even make an argument that inequality had stayed the same - he made the argument that the top and bottom deciles hadn't changed much from a quantity standpoint. And he made the argument as evidence for the fact that they'd gone up towards WWII and had come back down. The argument was not that things stayed the same, it's that policies prior to the '70s had improved the standard of living of the poor and policies that began in the '70s were putting it in steady decline.

wasoxygen  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I am doing my level best but don't follow your side. The patronizing tone doesn't help; can we focus on the subject instead of my rhetorical skills?

When Piketty writes "The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past" I think a typical reader would get the impression that the material welfare of the poor has not improved.

But I agree with you, based on my reading of that chapter Piketty is not measuring material welfare. He is interested in share of total wealth. And he uses a moving yardstick, comparing the poor of the past to the rich of that era, and today's poor with today's rich.

The article points out that, despite this description of static share of wealth (which I do not see disputed) there are good reasons to celebrate improvement in material welfare, like highways and ambulances and A/C and penicillin, and also cable TV and Facebook.

rd95 summed up this list as merely "convenience in entertainment and leisure," in my view, a clear instance of straw man. I didn't want to irritate him by citing logical fallacies; bringing "ad hominem" and the rest never helps a discussion. But, regrettably, he seems disgruntled anyway. I would love to investigate all the issues he mentions, "privacy, clean water, working plumbing and electricity, fair rent rates, safe neighborhoods, and on and on and on" and see what the data show the trends are. We might start with the photo in the article depicting the family of 13 living in a converted chicken coop. I expect that the trends are generally positive and beneficial to people at all income levels.

Piketty might agree with all this, I don't know. If it's true that many poor are materially better off now than before, by absolute measures, I think we should celebrate that and look for ways to continue and expand the trend, and not worry so much about relative measures.

kleinbl00  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I won't patronize if you make a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting. The quote:

    In short, convenience in entertainment and leisure do not necessarily mean widespread economic security.

Your arguments:

    How about the air conditioning, that helps us sleep well and be alert at work?

Set aside for the moment the fact that air conditioning primarily changed the lifestyles of the south and southwest such that they were habitable and people could work. Air conditioning doesn't keep a roof over your head, nor does it put food on your family.

    The penicillin and ambulance services, which reduce the consequences of health problems?

Set aside for the moment the fact that penicillin and ambulances don't keep a roof over your head nor put food on your family. Neither of these are available to you if you're poor. You think they are, but what happens is you get sick, you go to the hospital, you get treatment, you can't pay, and they garnish your wages. Assuming you have wages. There is a powerful financial disincentive against the consumption of healthcare that the middle class and upper class do not experience. Not only that, but you miss a couple days at Dunder Mifflin, you take it out of sick leave. You miss a couple days at the gas'n'sip, you ain't gettin' paid and you might be on your ass.

    The poor spend money on entertainment and leisure as well.

Set aside for a moment...

A movie ticket in 1913 was seven cents. That's the equivalent of a $1.72 today. Meanwhile, movies cost between $8 and $15 depending on where you live. In 1929, you could see the Yankees play for a dollar, or the equivalent of $14. The average now is $34. On the other hand, first class on the Titanic was $4350, or the equivalent of $107k. And although Cunard is sold out of first class transatlantic voyages this year, midships is under a grand. So although your argument isn't quite "let them eat cake" it shares some traits.

But none of this gets to the matter at hand: does static wealth inequality matter? Piketty, at least, addresses the issue as a reason to not address the issue. The article you linked essentially says "never mind all that, the poor have refrigerators now." rd95 is arguing that having a refrigerator does not guarantee your ass won't be sleeping on a park bench a month from now and you said "how about air conditioning?"

HERE is a libertarian argument:

- If the poor today have experienced an equivalent boost to quality of life over yesterday's poor that the rich today have experienced over yesterday's rich, then the fact that today's poor are just as poor as yesterday's poor doesn't matter.

But you didn't make that argument, Piketty didn't make that argument and the author didn't make that argument. You want to focus on thirteen immigrants living in a chicken coop. If you're going to do that, we could drag stuff like this out:

...and I'll point out that the 3 bedroom house next to my old apartment that had fifteen illegal Chinese immigrants in it.

The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

flagamuffin  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    a good-faith effort to address the question at hand rather than deflecting

    The question is not "are the poor materially better off now than before." That's an obvious yes. The question is "are the poor comparatively better off now than they were before" and Commentary magazine don't give a fuck. rd95 does.

Perhaps rd95 should post somewhere more relevant.

bfv  ·  1 day ago  ·  link  ·  
wasoxygen  ·  3 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: "Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing"

From my perspective, Hubski is a dynamic hotbed of provocative discussion. But for several months, this has happened almost entirely in personal correspondence and not in public.

I would prefer to be more open, but a tiny number of vocal users tend to spice their intellectual disagreement with doses of condescension, mockery, and name-calling. While I recognize that these aspects do not diminish the strength of their ideas, it is sufficiently annoying that I prefer to keep out of public discussions.

Among the thousands of words I have excreted into public dialog, I hope very few of them were antagonistic toward another person, unsparing as I may have been in criticizing their ideas. I keep in touch with a couple of other former users, both scrupulously polite, who have quit the site after encountering needless hostility toward their non-Hubski-mainstream views. And I find myself always wishing that my favorite non-conforming users would expand more, rather than keeping to short, throwaway comments.

I don't think moderation can fix this, though I am still partial to my proposal. There is a kind of Gresham's Law in any open forum by which the bad (vitriol) drives out the good (civility). Nevertheless, Hubski is the best public discussion forum ever conceived.

thenewgreen  ·  2 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Among the thousands of words I have excreted into public dialog, I hope very few of them were antagonistic toward another person, unsparing as I may have been in criticizing their ideas.

I don't think I've ever seen you be antagonistic towards a person, however you're pretty good at being a provocateur. Which, by the way, is something I admire about you. Please, do it out in the open. I promise, I won't make fun of you. I'll leave that for PM.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

    And that's just the costs, not counting the social good of a lot fewer sick people.

I don't get the impression that EPA shortchanged themselves counting savings. Table 13.1 shows 184,000 annual deaths avoided thanks to particulate matter reduction, each one valued at $4.8 million. That's a social good (a big one!) and over 21 years adds up to $18 trillion, the majority of the central estimate of savings if my math is correct.

The EPA report includes dollar estimates for improvements in IQ points in children, missed work days, restricted activity days, shortness of breath in children, "household soiling damage," visibility impairment, and agricultural yields.

I haven't gotten the feeling that they are exaggerating these (necessarily highly theoretical) numbers, but I do feel that they are counting whatever they can.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

    The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).

The Clean Water Act, you recall, figured in our conversation about phosphorus.

    Summing up:

    Late 1960's: Eutrophication is perceived as a significant environmental concern.

    1964-1970: Detergent manufacturers recognize the need to remove phosphorus from detergents and spend considerable resources developing NTA, a safe alternative.

    1970: The government tells detergent manufacturers to stop using NTA.

    1972: The Clean Water Act and local laws restrict the use of phosphorus in detergent.

    1980: The government says NTA is okay after all.

    Is it obvious that the government even did more good than harm by getting involved with this issue?

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

Thanks, that does sound like a good candidate. My expectation after reading the Atlantic article is that I'll largely agree that it is cost-effective legislation. But I have had such positive expectations dashed before.

It's a bit suspect that the source for this good news is the EPA itself. We all know what to think about research performed by Philip Morris.

I also note that the act is a factor in the addition of ethanol to gasoline, which I think is bad policy overall. I have doubts that the EPA counts such secondary effects as "costs." It's not an easy calculation.

    The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive.
wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

I am inclined to agree. We should throw out the dirty water and keep the beautiful healthy babies.

Can you cite an example of regulation done well that I could look into? I have only researched a few narrow areas carefully, and it's likely that they haven't been representative.

b_b  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Can you cite an example of regulation done well that I could look into?

Well the Cuyahoga River hasn't set on fire in some years.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).

The Clean Water Act, you recall, figured in our conversation about phosphorus.

    Summing up:

    Late 1960's: Eutrophication is perceived as a significant environmental concern.

    1964-1970: Detergent manufacturers recognize the need to remove phosphorus from detergents and spend considerable resources developing NTA, a safe alternative.

    1970: The government tells detergent manufacturers to stop using NTA.

    1972: The Clean Water Act and local laws restrict the use of phosphorus in detergent.

    1980: The government says NTA is okay after all.

    Is it obvious that the government even did more good than harm by getting involved with this issue?

johnnyFive  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The Clean Air Act is a pretty good one. One estimate is that it saved $22 trillion in healthcare costs. And that's just the costs, not counting the social good of a lot fewer sick people. And the reduction in global warming.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    And that's just the costs, not counting the social good of a lot fewer sick people.

I don't get the impression that EPA shortchanged themselves counting savings. Table 13.1 shows 184,000 annual deaths avoided thanks to particulate matter reduction, each one valued at $4.8 million. That's a social good (a big one!) and over 21 years adds up to $18 trillion, the majority of the central estimate of savings if my math is correct.

The EPA report includes dollar estimates for improvements in IQ points in children, missed work days, restricted activity days, shortness of breath in children, "household soiling damage," visibility impairment, and agricultural yields.

I haven't gotten the feeling that they are exaggerating these (necessarily highly theoretical) numbers, but I do feel that they are counting whatever they can.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Thanks, that does sound like a good candidate. My expectation after reading the Atlantic article is that I'll largely agree that it is cost-effective legislation. But I have had such positive expectations dashed before.

It's a bit suspect that the source for this good news is the EPA itself. We all know what to think about research performed by Philip Morris.

I also note that the act is a factor in the addition of ethanol to gasoline, which I think is bad policy overall. I have doubts that the EPA counts such secondary effects as "costs." It's not an easy calculation.

    The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive.
b_b  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

And let's not forget that this example and mine both fall under the auspices of the EPA, an organization that was created by Richard Nixon (and later bolstered by Reagan and Bush I). Oh for the days when environmental protection wasn't a partisan issue.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

On second thought, I'll add that the money quote would be even more persuasive if it were true.

Bangladesh life expectancy: 70.3 years (as of 2012)

First hit for "Appalachia life expectancy" is a page that cites the Washington Post. On that 2011 interactive map I find a few counties that give life expectancy for men below 70 years, but the women's number pushes the average over 70.

The source is "Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington" where I find a gloomy article with this worst-case-scenario:

    Five counties in Mississippi have the lowest life expectancies for women, all below 74.5 years, putting them behind nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Peru. Four of those counties, along with Humphreys County, MS, have the lowest life expectancies for men, all below 67 years, meaning they are behind Brazil, Latvia, and the Philippines.

If "below 74.5" means 74, and "below 67" means 66.5, and these numbers both apply to a single county like Humphreys (population 18,538), then the average is 70.25, about the same as Bangladesh as a whole.

But who cares about facts?

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is It Better to Be Poor in Bangladesh or the Mississippi Delta?

Well put. And that money quote would be more persuasive if it read

    And life expectancy in much of Appalachia is below life expectancy in the poorest regions of Bangladesh.
yellowoftops  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yeah. One of the concepts I had trouble with in the title comparison is that I can't choose to create clean drinking water from scratch because I don't have the technical know-how (or maybe I could, but I also have the benefit of years and years of education). But just about everyone here knows that getting hooked on Oxy is possible and dangerous enough that it's hard for me to feel as if a life with clean and easily available drinking water is equivalently as treacherous as a life without easy access to OxyContin.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

On second thought, I'll add that the money quote would be even more persuasive if it were true.

Bangladesh life expectancy: 70.3 years (as of 2012)

First hit for "Appalachia life expectancy" is a page that cites the Washington Post. On that 2011 interactive map I find a few counties that give life expectancy for men below 70 years, but the women's number pushes the average over 70.

The source is "Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington" where I find a gloomy article with this worst-case-scenario:

    Five counties in Mississippi have the lowest life expectancies for women, all below 74.5 years, putting them behind nations such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Peru. Four of those counties, along with Humphreys County, MS, have the lowest life expectancies for men, all below 67 years, meaning they are behind Brazil, Latvia, and the Philippines.

If "below 74.5" means 74, and "below 67" means 66.5, and these numbers both apply to a single county like Humphreys (population 18,538), then the average is 70.25, about the same as Bangladesh as a whole.

But who cares about facts?

Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: You must be logged in to view this post.

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

If it is only spamming, how about a probation period before new accounts can post? No further hurdles than that. The most recent post is from 40 minutes ago, posted by a 42-minute-old account.

For a spammer, having to create an account with a password and store those credentials and come back a week later to post is far more troublesome than the current instant gratification.

keifermiller  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Some of the spammers do just that, though, to get around the "filter users less than 2 days old" setting. I've got that checked and I still filter a ton of accounts every week.

ThatFanficGuy  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Surprising we don't have that yet.

If we add this - which sounds like a great idea - there should be a landing page for the newcomers saying something like this:

    Hey, look, nobody likes spammers, so we added a waiting period. You can still browse, just not post or comment for this long. After that, you're welcome to introduce yourself to the hubskifolk! Just use #newtohubski as one of your tags!
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The EPA’s Science Office Removed “Science” From Its Mission Statement

At first I made the mistake of trying to figure out what all the fuss was about by reading the article, and then by following the links in the article. When it finally occurred to me to simply go to the source, it took less than ten minutes to confirm the change.

Facts matter!