1. The Drumhead

2. Tapestry

3. The Inner Light

4. Chain of Command

5. Darmok

I know a lot of people would put "Family" on that list, I just can't say I enjoy that one too much. I also like his dialogue in "Yesterday's Enterprise", but I wouldn't call it a Picard-focused one.

Everyone thinks they know better than others, and that's why their group and way of thinking should lead. Because of this, reasonable people ought to feel the need to present results, or at least make credible and compelling arguments, for why their way should prevail. All I'm seeing here is hackneyed, and very strained, WW2 analogies. And weepy moralization.

The only thing exceptional here is the gall you're showing, in suggesting that these tired, middling arguments are reasons why actually "the voting booth is wrong and I'm right, even though I (presumably) value democracy"

In the age of LLMs, it's pure negligence to let your perspective be this uninformed and low-resolution. And it's violence against the attentions of others to share it with them, to be hyperbolic.

If this is your honest, best faith rendering why 50% of the country votes differently than you, then I recommend you leave politics alone. If you won't try and understand why people are the way they are, and instead are going with "they're all too stupid to know they're being fooled, unlike me" then yes, this is an unhealthy worldview which can damage your sanity.

Even if you're inclined to believe the conclusions, this should recognizably be a silly rant and I don't want to live in a world where we justify sloppy arguments if we agree with the conclusions. If it triggers your defenses to the point where you can't see that this is a poor rant, it could be instructive to copy/paste it into an LLM and ask for an analysis or some counterarguments.

> Trump actually isn’t corrupt? Or Biden was actually secretly as corrupt as Trump is?

Incredible to me that you could think this is anywhere implied. Maybe you understand something better than I do, but I submit that it's brainrot to think my comment was somehow "Trump is not corrupt and/or Biden is equally corrupt".

However, the question of whose corruption rises to the level where a person is morally suspect if they don't speak out, is one that certainly cuts conveniently, isn't it?

Since 2024, Democrats went from being the most trusting (57%) to the most skeptical (91%), bringing all groups to within 10 points of each other on the question.

This is not a "both sides" situation: Republicans dropped from 87% to 83% after their guy was elected, whereas Democrats nearly 1.5x'd their number of skeptics. There is no universal implication here IMO, this is just Democrats joining the 80-percenters, i.e. everyone

My fundamental observation is that there are a lot of people who are not particularly suited for knowledge work, but are funneled/attracted to it because it's the only viable path to a reasonable effort:outcome lifestyle ratio. Therefore, my fundamental hope is that yes, I want there to be fewer knowledge workers. In place, I want AI that enables people of various competencies to succeed. I'd much rather see AI make my carpenter friend, who made an awesome desk for me, be empowered to compete as a solo/SMB against big retailers: perhaps by automating his marketing, streamlining his ops, participating in design, and so on.

Uncharitably, is your complaint "a lot of people will have to labor with their bodies and minds differently, and it's easier to sit down"? I'd ask you: is butt flattening really all that "must preserve knowledge work" has to recommend it? Because your comment doesn't hinge on anything else except that construction work is back breaking. Well, construction is a diverse field, and it can benefit from the inclusion of intelligent and motivated people, just like many others.

in other words, if you see behavior in others that doesn't seem reasonable, there's two possibilities:

1. it makes sense to the subject, using the axioms they're reasoning from, which they've chosen because they have a stake in the outcome

2. an uninvolved, anonymous commenter on the internet knows -- better than the subject -- what's best for them

It's not always the case that (1) is correct, but it's the better prior than (2). And this fact being a downvote magnet here doesn't change that.

Agreed, and this sucks, but what should be done about this? Some NGO called "We Stop Bad Guys" approaches your company with its hand out. You have two choices:

1. kick down some money, get great headlines

2. don't, and then have it known that you don't support stopping Bad Guys -- then maybe write ten thousand never-to-be-read words about how your position is actually quite principled

I hate it, but the first is obviously rational?

> And you think that's worth a 30 year sentence?

this claim was never argued.

I'm sorry, do you believe it's legal to meet someone for coffee and credibly plan the commission of a crime, which you then go on to commit?

(I'm admiring this, not mocking it)

You're arguing about something else, using the form "given we know that racism is happening, and furthermore we know where and how it is happening, why shouldn't we just do these Totally Cost Free and Obviously Good Things that are just like fighting money laundering"

Well, I just don't think any of these things are as evident as you seem to assume they are. Also fwiw I grew up in the US, where I was called all sorts of slurs -- like, the real ones you probably censor in your internal monologue when you see them written -- throughout K-12 education. I still don't believe in the existence of pervasive and oppressive racism the way you seem to assume it.

Prior to the beginning of your excerpt is the word "You", meaning the comment's author is the subject, not "companies". I'm saying the commenter is appealing to black letter law for the answer to the question "what happens when..." but we have observational evidence to answer the question.

There is a large body of literature concerning the question "does disparate-impact enforcement cause employers to alter hiring behavior in ways unrelated to actual productivity or discrimination?" and the answer is largely "yes". As you suggested elsewhere in this discussion, Google may be useful.

This doctrine is the basis for much of employment law. It is a significant reason why employers don't administer IQ tests (or equivalents) to screen candidates since ~the 90s.

A common objection to the doctrine is that it leads to unfalsifiable discrimination claims, which is why it seems nonsensical to you.