By any reasonable account, criminals were already de-emphasized.
A woman was burned alive on the subway by an illegal immigrant. That only happens when law enforcement has been categorically denied the opportunity to punish law breakers of all stripes.
This is so incredibly naive I have a hard time believing you're serious. I guess you're right, it wouldn't be immigrants committing crimes. It'd just be regular, everyday Americans, who also commit a shit ton of crimes & violence.
I've had to actually diagnose myself a couple times after seeing a string of doctors and even specialists. It's baffling how bad my experience has been and it's not just one specialty, and I have good insurance too.
It's exactly how you describe, short appointments that are hard to come by and a general skepticism and aloofness from my doctors.
This happened continuously during the Biden administration when they formed an entire network of public-private censorship and liberals told us “freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach.” You can also reference the entire saga of Russiagate, and litany of lawfare against Trump that was looking for every and any way to jail him and his family.
Is it really subjective, at this point? I could understand someone arguing this in 2015, but now?
The Trump administration drastically cut the budget of basically every govt agency that does or supports scientific research and decimated staffing. Is that not an objective fact? Is there some alternative one?
Across the board budget cuts say nothing about supporting the scientific method. These university could easily fund their projects out of their massive multi-billion dollar endowments. We should ask why they aren't.
> Across the board budget cuts say nothing about supporting the scientific method.
Semantic nihilism. It’s a basic fact of political science that governments enact policies in order to achieve outcomes. Or if you prefer cybernetics, there’s always Stafford Beer: “The purpose of a system is what is does.”
Docs are the face of the broken system and take the brunt of patient frustration over many flaws they have no control over. Try telehealth to get the access and responsiveness you need if your local medical facilities don't attract enough docs and nurses.
Such a great observation. I find this broadly applies to every aspect of humanity but especially government, more so than corporations could ever manage. Corporations at least have SOME competitive pressure, much less scope, many more constraints and far less power.
Governments are actually less nefarious by this metric because they don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse. If a government wants more money out of you, it just raises taxes. If a corporation wants more money out of you, it needs to induce demand, which at the limit means actively working to make the product worse. Our modern world is proof that relying on competition isn't enough to save us from the enshittification.
> Governments [...] don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse.
I hate to break this to you, but in the USA, this has happened multiple times: for instance, allowing Govt to shutdown due to spending limits, to push some extra pain + score political points, and then paint oneself as a savior when the shutdown is eventually lifted.
You could argue that they're not making things worse for the folks that actually matter (and you'd be right), but there is immense hardship and pain inflicted on ordinary people routinely (esp. of late), so I didn't want to leave your comment unchallenged.
The political gamesmanship in the US is beyond shameful, but that's different in an important way. When the government passively denies you a service by shutting down, that's negligence. When the government actively makes a service worse, that's cruelty for the sake of cruelty, and rightfully gets called out. But when a company actively makes a service worse to induce demand, that's a fat bonus for a PM, where instead we should be calling it out for the cruelty that it is.
Or to put it another way, for a government, cruelty is done for its own sake. In a corporation, cruelty is economically incentivized.
I can also see a "unifying mental model" -- whatever increases the "health" is pursued.
A corporation needs to "feed" on money, so its actions reflect this (e.g. PMs worsening services intentionally, in order to be able to charge more and thereby boost revenue).
A party in power needs to "feed" on support from its "base", so its actions reflect this (you said it best: "for the sake of cruelty")
Enshitification is not something that happens to customers. Free software is not free to the advertisers, and as such, the companies will go to great lengths to meet their needs. And this makes sense. Why would a company do anything for you if you aren't paying?
If people preferred a good paid solution over a shitty free one then Kagi would be a trillion dollar company and nobody would ever have heard of Google. But that's not what people want. They want shitty but free. This is the market working as it should. Enshitification is not something done to us. It's something we do to ourselves.
I wonder how much glycerol they use, the article is scant on data.
You'll often see somewhere around 10g of glycerol in a protein bar, bodybuilders take quite a bit too in order to increase water in muscles and it's safe [0].
Glycerin is also used for baking, used for stuff like fondant.
