It takes at least 10 years after high school to get to the frontier of economic research, or to the frontier of medical research. Except for a few kooks, most people, smartly, do not try to engage and question medical researchers. Unfortunately, this is not true for economics. Many too many self-appointed experts, including among politicians.
The real story of Hitler's rise is mostly a history of contingency - bad choices by specific influential politicians first wrecked the German economy and then handed power to Hitler.
All too often, politicians are turning their back on the most beneficial policies because they lack the political courage or the political skill to introduce them.
To my mind, if progressive policy hopes to engage with such voters at all - and it is open question whether it should - it must address not just the material realities of relative economic disadvantage, but above all the "outsider" credentials of the AfD.
Worse, U.S. officials now openly support and encourage politicians from far-right anti-European political parties, partly because they are ideologically aligned, but partly because Americans now want to weaken the European Union so that U.S. tech companies can evade any regulation, or even taxation.
And that's why we say motivation is 90% of the problem or the solution because you have to be able to motivate the person to engage with these personalized lessons to learn it.
Rather, the way that AI companies engage with communities-forcing NDAs, dangling billion-dollar promises, pushing environmental externalities far away from AI's wealthy user base-resembles a classic story about dark money in politics.
The fossil fuel industry's great political achievement is not that it has persuaded every Republican that climate change is a hoax. It is that it has made the truth unspeakable among Republican politicians-even when their constituents are choking on it.
the increasing unreasonableness of an electorate that wants all its groceries in one bag and also doesn't want the bag to be heavy is a primary driver behind permanently low approval of politicians in both parties
What's interesting with balance is it's very trainable. And so, you know, there's parts of balance that involve visual inner ear, but if you engage in some training, and it can be as simple as standing on one leg or doing yoga or taichi, you can improve your balance considerably within a month or two.
99% of people who you'd want to read your essay probably don't know you exist, or don't give a fuck, or wouldn't be bothered to engage even if they read it.
Why would we lock ourselves into someone else's proprietary binary? Control over our data, and control over how we view and engage with it, feels like it will be utterly non-negotiable going forward.
So premium is one source of our revenue. We also have ads, but they're context-based, not targeted. Of course, we leave probably 80% of value on the table because we're not ready to engage in all this practices, exploiting personal data.
I believe this is the right answer. We're often being manipulated by politicians, by corporate leaders to make a choice from two suboptimal options. And then when we are forced to make this choice and we make this choice, it's almost as if it's something that we have to assume responsibility for. I don't think we should be buying into that.
Almost all discussions of it center on “data”, but it’s actually a fight about payments, and whether banks have a right to monopolize and charge for all economic activity their users engage in, irrespective of whether the bank operates the payment method.
It's a lot easier for someone to engage with an argument if they generated the key steps themselves by answering my questions - if imposed by me, it sparks contrarianism and defensiveness
So even though women’s economic advancement did displace some men, and triggered some private hostility, it was never actually catapulted into social antagonism. This is primarily because it was never leveraged by political entrepreneurs!
Whatever founder mode consists of, it's pretty clear that it's going to break the principle that the CEO should engage with the company only via his or her direct reports.
So the counterintuitive thing here, I think that the thing that I think should be done, even though it’s very difficult, is that I would recommend that Israel engage in the most conspicuous acts of kindness possible
It just predicts what you are likely to re-Tweet and like, and linger on. That’s what all these algorithms do. It’s what Tik-Tok does, it’s what all these recommendation engines do. And it turns out that the thing that you are most likely to interact with is outrage. And that’s a quirk of the human condition.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.