You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.
You may want to read up on the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" first.
> You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.
I don't know what else you would call threatening people with deadly force unless they give the threatener money, other than 'robbery.'
You'll note that I didn't say that taxes aren't necessary: they are. They are, in fact, almost the textbook definition of a necessary evil: we must have them, and they are evil. We don't live in a perfect world.
What concerns me is that we have already raised the economic footprint of the State far beyond what is necessary, and that it is in fact deadweight holding us all back — to include the poor, whose ultimate interests are served not by dragging down the rich, but by being lifted up.
You walk into a store, take an apple and walk out of the door without paying. The police stop you and threaten you to forcefully deprive you of your freedom, unless you give money to the shop owner.
Would you call this robbery too? It seems to fit your definition.
> our human intelligence performs far more sophisticated operations than are possible given the number of neurons that exist in our brains
This only holds if you presume those operations are being performed in the same way as a computer, rather than the incredibly imprecise rule-of-thumb heuristics they actually use.
I wear an Outback Trading Co. oilskin River Guide hat [0].
I don't care if it looks cool, because it keeps my glasses dry in the rain, and the sun out of my face the rest of the time. If I want to be fashionable, I can wear something else, but mostly I just want to be comfortable.
That looks fit for a different purpose. One of the reasons I wear a full-brimmed hat is to replace both sunglasses and umbrella, and the mesh portion of the Tilley that you linked allows rain to pass through the crown. The Wanderer [0] is likely closest to what I would wear.
It's a bit more expensive than what I already have, but it looks like they have a lifetime replacement guarantee and a 2-year insurance policy against loss. All other things being equal, I'd rather pay less up front and take greater care with what I bought.
>Keyboard doesn't feel like a keyboard, trackpad is fake, speed is that of a tablet, and has almost no ports.
All valid points, bar the trackpad. The force touch trackpad is a pleasure to use and I much prefer it to previous Apple trackpads (which are still excellent).
Disagree, I use one of these machines on a daily basis (as well as one of the newer bluetooth keyboards with the same keys), and they are fantastic keyboards once you get used to them. The trackpad is fantastic as well
Right now the display port and the two USB ports for the Air feel just about right for me, and it seems like the ideal "minimalist" laptop.
Performance wise I hear that both are comparable and you'll get similar battery life on both, but for me the Macbook_Raw barely crosses the line of "too minimalist". Though honestly, even a second USBC port would probably change my mind on it.
I also really like the feel of the 13" screen - it seems just right, but I suppose I could get used to the 12". Also don't really wanna go back to a Bluetooth Mouse again, but this is ultimately a minor quibble that I could get over pretty easily.
Cheaper? Not at all. While I agree that the MacBook 12" is the new Air and the better purchase, it's rather expensive and currently the sole purpose of the original MacBook Air is covering the price range around 1000 €. Until the MacBook gets there.
i'd be on board with two ports, i think, but one is a hard sell. i regularly want to plug things into my laptop while charging it. it's a shame, because they've almost sold me on the thing.
I've noticed that having no choice in the matter makes it significantly more likely to be the case. After making the switch, I do feel that my experience is nicer for it.
Expansion lives on the outside, tailored to the environment in which it resides, and the battery lasts long enough that I can spend most of my day without the power adapter connected.
I'm not a computer; I'm a human being, and I apply heuristics all the time. Maybe you're not. Anyway, data can be forged, and has been forged numerous times driven by corporate and political interest.
What I do works for me, and works well - I look for fluoride-free products - you can stick with using agricultural waste in your water supply, but I stay off it!
Interesting point but In its natural environment they do so much more. Search for the food, avoid weather, avoid predators etc. I think perhaps when those stresses are taken away it goes counter to their instincts and "wiring" causing problems.
I wouldn't say "strife" but perhaps "challenges". I think things like a wander-year, self-initiated long-term projects, like starting a business, writing a program, building something architecturally, making a short film, etc.
There's plenty of "strife" in day to day life, some other jerks on the road, to your co-workers, to your friends and family. Or just working on your long term goals and dreams in the face of the demands of every day life.
I don't think human conflict or violence is necessary for flourishing.
There are examples of great creative people who had come from backgrounds of violence or abuse, but I don't think that means much. If they were exposed to more violence, would they have been even more genius? What is the right amount of violence to expose people to to have genius blossom?
I think there's also something patronizing in promoting the inflictment of violence on beings to make geniuses out of them. Would the promoter like the same treatment?
Kind of like the human who makes the rat park and complains the rats are not happy?
Perhaps we will be happy in environments we choose to make for ourselves, not some that others have arbitrarily decided we should be happy in. I would say there's something inherently corrupt in an environment you do not control.
You'd probably be interested in the Unabomber manifesto. Most people think he was crazy, but he talked a lot about this stuff, especially his sections on "the power process," which is basically what you just described.
James Q Wilson, the guy who came up with "broken windows theory," said the manifesto was "a carefully reasoned, artfully written paper… If it is the work of a madman, then the writings of many political philosophers — Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tom Paine, Karl Marx — are scarcely more sane."
Reminds me of Dark Enlightenment. Unfortunately, in both cases, the promoters seem to need to antagonize rather large swaths of people, making it hard to sympathize with them in general, even if some of the arguments are interesting or reasonable.
There's some overlap with "dark enlightenment" stuff. Unfortunately that always tends to take on racial connotations because of the groups it originated in. Whereas the anti-modern conservatism I and others who generally agree with those kinds of arguments believe in rejects race as a modern concept made to suit modern purposes, not a basis to reject modernity.
And yeah, I used to write TK and he's hard to get along with. But I think a lot of his "antagonism" isn't personal so much as it is an attempt to stir up popular antagonisms, a propaganda of sorts. I can't ever be sure though. Guy's a mystery to me in a lot of ways. Super interesting though.
>I wonder what that could mean for us as humans. Is some degree of "strife" necessary in society for people to be happier?
>Perhaps our work to eliminate many of the more primal issues that affect us (the need to hunt, survive in the wild, etc) are only making us worse off?
this is why we have "strife" of science and exploration, and this is why need to go to Mars - to avoid civilization implosion into always connected-status-updated one big Palantirized Facebook graph of well-fed humans. The key choice of our civilization today - between Thiel and Musk.
Makes me think of theories of allergies and runaway immune responses attacking the body because there hasn't been enough exposure to 'stuff to attack'.
This is untrue for rats: they are very curious, intelligent creatures and need intellectual "stimulation" such as areas to explore, toys to play with, etc.
The initial population seemed to have plenty of space though. Eventually any growing population will run into a space limitation. It just happens sooner the smaller the space is.
Humans seem to breed a lot less in more developed countries, so I think that conclusion is questionable. I don't think it would be all that hard to freeze population growth in developed places.
My high school was an interesting experience. It was a poor area and they expected few of the students to go to further education - but rather than use that as an excuse to treat the students like losers, the school tried to include some of the spread of college and vocational-school classes. I ended up taking lessons on archery, welding, video editing, and Latin, among other things.
You may want to read up on the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" first.