Due to an autoinflammatory condition, I've taken ~1800mg daily for periods of 6 months several times.
I don't like the idea of going on opioids for longer that a couple weeks, but maybe I need to switch.
>People don’t like being told they can’t drive wherever they want, but Lores says that while people claim it as a right, in fact what they want are privileges.
Modern discourse about "rights" has become twisted. Some day we need to realize that one person's right is another person's prohibition. A society needs to choose its rights wisely lest the unintended consequences result in less overall freedom.
In a healthy civil society legally enshrined rights are less important because you can trust that everybody's freedom will be maximized, at least to a first-order approximation. In unhealthy societies legal rights are often cold comfort.
IMO as we accumulated more and more "rights", the concept became diluted. We went from the bedrock negative rights of freedom of speech, travel, etc, then to positive rights, and then people started applying the concept of "rights" to what I would consider "entitlements".
It's all the same debate, really. After all is said and done, rights function to entitle you to things or acts. The blurry line that I believe you might be talking about has a very specific name, but recent social and public discourse make a lot of people nowadays automatically cringe at it's sight (wrongly, IMO) without seriously hearing out or considering it's merits. I'm talking about the word "privilege".
>Some day we need to realize that one person's right is another person's prohibition.
I take slight issue with that - for example, what prohibition on males was there when women were given the right to vote? I suppose one could argue the male vote was diluted but realistically no pain would be felt.
I say this because oftentimes for social services arguments, conservatives will ask me "well who's gonna pay for it," which I can often answer with "literally nobody. You are generating property value for yourself by housing homeless / increasing the value of your currency by educating disenfranchised youth / whatever."
Granting the right to private property ultimately deprives people of access to necessary resources. Private property is what forces people to have to pay ever-increasing rent, or work more hours for less pay. It's an inherently unstable social system because those with more property can more easily increase their ownership and thereby make it harder for those with no property from ever getting any.
> Some day we need to realize that one person's right is another person's prohibition.
In college a professor told us "You can't grant a right without taking one away." In recent decades, the US trend seems to have been toward more individual rights and fewer community/state rights.
Indeed and I think a further manifestation of this "privilege" is the constant honking of the horn by drivers at the slightest reduction in their speed or movement.
Not only do they want to drive wherever they want but they seem to feel entitled to take out their frustration on anyone they want. The noise pollution that invariably accompanies traffic seems to really only penalize pedestrians, the very people who aren't contributing to the traffic problems.
There are no lenses which are transparent at 13.5. This means you have to use mirrors instead, and even that's a challenge. 13.5nm was selected because it can be reflected by special Molybdenum/Silicon mirrors, but even these mirrors only reflect about 70% of the light. This means that for every two mirrors you add to the system, you have to double the brightness of your energy source.
As I understand it, the EUV light is produced by dropping little drops of tin in front of a laser, which turns it into a plasma that emits 13.5nm light. However, tin particles scatter everywhere and eventually damage the collector mirror, so it's hard to make these machines robust.
I also imagine with these high energies and 30% absorption, you have to cool all the mirrors to keep them from deforming, but I'm no expert.
>However, markets are socially constructed because they depend on property rights that are socially constructed, and there are many different ways that markets and property rights can be constructed, some of which are unexplored and potentially far better than what we have today.
This would be an interesting hypothesis to explore with swarm reinforcement learning. It seems to me that rights have a lot to do with optimal/stable cooperation strategies in certain types of games, and maybe RL can uncover better strategies, or maybe not.
The simplest well-studied problem of this sort is the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The strategies we have today are remarkably similar to the Axelrod's original strategies three decades ago.
I can put together a customized, good looking and genuine cover letter within 5 minutes + another 5 minutes of research that was already happening to determine if I wanted to apply.
You should always send a cover letter because it can't hurt, can only help, and therefore game theory or some shit.
Started looking a couple of weeks ago and it's hard to not get some emotional investment (if that's the right phrase) after putting some effort into a cover letter. That's even with the knowledge that one is likely to be rejected for most applications - so it feels like I'm draining some capital for each of them.
I totally understand your feelings. This was the #1 killer of post-boot camp students. Some undefinable capital was exhausted.
Because we've yet to define what that "tank" is, and because assigning a graduates likelihood to become employed to the depth of their "tank" was unacceptable, it was always taught to instead remove yourself as much as possible from every application.
Remind yourself for every one that a rejection will happen for any reason that has nothing to do with you. A lost resume. A position closed. You'll never know. Therefore, any emotional investment is wasted.
I guarantee you that there exist (or will exist) highly profitable consultancies which specialize in faking evidence. Just think about how easy it would be to launder a million here, a million there, disguised as legal fees in some of these large cases.
We're approaching the limits of the traditional legal system with human juries. I don't how to solve this in the long term. I'll speculate that the solution will involve blockchains and a new, more minimal, totally decentralized legal system.
I was thinking blockchain as well, but as a source of truth.
Imagine if all information on the web was spidered and added to a blockchain, then as new details emerge, those would be appended to the original data. So when someone fakes a video, the original video could/would get appended to the fake, along with the source of the fake, its financial connections to propagandists, etc etc etc. The problem will eventually become sifting signal from noise, because the "proof" will be everywhere.
I still believe that in the light of full information, most people will come to see the truth. That depends on a lot of things though, like being educated, like having the time away from work and family commitments to ponder the deeper questions of life, like understanding the difference between deductive reasoning and dogma, etc. These are all things that authoritarians work tirelessly to take away.
I guess what I'm saying is that the problem will become political, not technological.
I'm reminded of that $2M bathroom at a public park in NYC.
This is the video. There's some libertarian editorialization, but the facts themselves are solid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfAE5emMCs8