followed tags: 32
followed domains: 0
badges given: 1 of 3
member for: 990 days
That's a horribly-smart move.
I'm constantly surprised by the willingness of an entity/person to survive and thrive in their business against what would theorically be good for society at large.
From the report :
- France ranked second in worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2015 with $15.3 billion in such global agreements or 19.16%.
That's a lot of money.
I firmly believe that climate change is the biggest challenge we are facing down the road and the position of Trump and his team scares me.
Sure, creating fossil fuels-related jobs is going to help some people in the short term and offer cheap energy sources while providing jobs, but it's disastrous in the long term. Then again, I'm young and should be able to find a job easily when I will have my degree. If I put myself in the position of the people who lost their jobs due to the global economy and who have a chance of having a future and provide for their family, thanks to new regulations which will provide new jobs, would I sacrifice myself for the long term benefits of the human species ? I doubt it.
I also believe that the rise in inequality are driving us in this terrible situation. When the basic needs of the people are met, they will think about the environment, but if they are in a constant struggle to make ends-meet, they will focus on what's impacting them now. In addition to an absolute gain in value of what life has to offer, we must not diverge too much in terms of relative value from one another, otherwise we are putting everything at risk. It's a strange and difficult balance to find, but I think it's necessary if we hope to live in a world which provides to everyone. In this regard, social networks and the fake aggregators of our best moments drive us apart rather than connect us.
In China, there is obviously a direct causation between climate change and health and the people are feeling a basic need to act on that. In the US, it's more like a systemic causation and it's more complex. And that's why it's not on the ballot for most people. George Lakoff spoke about this & understanding Trump : https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/
- Direct vs. Systemic Causation
Direct causation is dealing with a problem via direct action. Systemic causation recognizes that many problems arise from the system they are in and must be dealt with via systemic causation. Systemic causation has four versions: A chain of direct causes. Interacting direct causes (or chains of direct causes). Feedback loops. And probabilistic causes. Systemic causation in global warming explains why global warming over the Pacific can produce huge snowstorms in Washington DC: masses of highly energized water molecules evaporate over the Pacific, blow to the Northeast and over the North Pole and come down in winter over the East coast and parts of the Midwest as masses of snow. Systemic causation has chains of direct causes, interacting causes, feedback loops, and probabilistic causes — often combined.
Direct causation is easy to understand, and appears to be represented in the grammars of all languages around the world. Systemic causation is more complex and is not represented in the grammar of any language. It just has to be learned.
Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation. The reason is thought to be that, in the strict father model, the father expects the child or spouse to respond directly to an order and that refusal should be punished as swiftly and directly as possible.
Many of Trump’s policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.
Immigrants are flooding in from Mexico — build a wall to stop them. For all the immigrants who have entered illegally, just deport them — even if there are 11 million of them working throughout the economy and living throughout the country. The cure for gun violence is to have a gun ready to directly shoot the shooter. To stop jobs from going to Asia where labor costs are lower and cheaper goods flood the market here, the solution is direct: put a huge tariff on those goods so they are more expensive than goods made here. To save money on pharmaceuticals, have the largest consumer — the government — take bids for the lowest prices. If Isis is making money on Iraqi oil, send US troops to Iraq to take control of the oil. Threaten Isis leaders by assassinating their family members (even if this is a war crime). To get information from terrorist suspects, use water-boarding, or even worse torture methods. If a few terrorists might be coming with Muslim refugees, just stop allowing all Muslims into the country. All this makes sense to direct causation thinkers, but not those who see the immense difficulties and dire consequences of such actions due to the complexities of systemic causation.
There was a great discussion about this article on HackerNews : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12379809
Sarkozy didn't planned to :
- Accelerate the development of shale gas, oil, and other destructive fossil fuels
- Downgrading Social Security (which is very high in France and benefits to everyone, for free)
- I'm not 100% sure about this one, but I don't think he made a claim about bringing back manufacturing jobs to France in the same manner as Trump. He was elected in 2007 and had to deal with the 2008 crisis, I didn't vote for him, he wasn't great, but he handled it not so badly.
I can understand that ooli doesn't like him. I don't either. But we can't compare it to Trump. Sarkozy is the embodiment of the establishment in France, it's the opposite for Trump. Hand-picking some unrelated facts and making it seem like there are similarities between the two is wrong.
Just finished it. That scene was intense, the photography is incredible.
It's an exceptional episode. I find it incredible how they are able to shoot so close and with such details how the animals live in their natural habitat.
Also, the score by Hans Zimmer adds to the overall pleasure.
I definitely have less experience and why I find what you have to say on the subject interesting.
- That's another assertion that the goal of "safety" must not be put ahead of the goal of "innovation" and that further, "innovation" is not possible without compromising "safety" in some way.
Yep. I guess sometimes I should read with my finger.
I hear you, but I don't have a strong stance like you seem to have.
- "Don't make me prove it's safe, children are dying everywhere all day long! Get those infernal drivers away from the wheel!"
He never said that.
You have three scenarios :
1. Human driver
2. Robocars which outperforms human driver who doesn't take into account specific Trolley problems
3. Robocars which takes into account everything
From step 1 to step 2, you are saving x lives per day. From step 2 to 3, you are saving y lives per day.
Should you go from step 1 to step 3 and waiting z more years, or should you go from step 1 to step 2 ? And then enhance the cars every year.
I think it's a valid question, as step 2 proves the technology is safe (way safer than humans, but not foolproof). Waiting for your input.