Shouldn't the burden of proof belong to those that claim that regulation isn't the cost, when it is so extremely obvious to anybody who has ever had to build anything that it is?
Just look at building costs in California vs Texas. Both are nominally constituents of the same "advanced economy".
If you're proposing a change, shouldn't the change be specifiable? Why is the burden of proof on those asking "what change?" to demonstrate that no change is possible? That's a complete inversion of responsibility.
I have a whole host of clearly specifiable changes to California building law that will make it cheaper, and am actively working on them both locally and at the state level! This is clear!
As somebody who is very interested in making Calforina housing cheaper, and in particular housing construction cheaper, it is my duty to say what should change, why, and convince others of it.
If I go out and advocate for "change" without being able to specify a single change, I would get jack shit done. It doesn't work that way.
Every single nuclear advocate that I have ever met that says "regulations should change" can still not yet specify how those regulations should change. That's the minimal bar for holding an opinion.
Reading the DoE LPO report on how nuclear can scale up and get cheaper, it wasn't regulations doing the work. It was learning how to build.
Can we pause and admire the sheer contagiousness of the debate? We are now extending it to the meta-realm, discussing the possible mental states that led to one or more of the original participants adopting certain lines of reasoning...
Speaking of the meta-realm, I've always wondered how messages in forum flamewars always seemed to gravitate toward a very specific pattern:
<personal insult>
<the point>
<bait to continue flaming>
You see this pattern all over the Internet. For example, from that bodybuilding.com thread:
Are you retarded? [personal insult]
Maybe you should look at a calander, I didn't double count sunday, my two weeks started and ended on sunday, exactly 14 days. [the point]
What don't you understand? [bait to continue flaming]
There's a related, more polite version of "are you retarded" which is not uncommon even here on HN. It is "I'm confused". I don't know whether it's a phrase that I'm over analysing, but it always comes across as disingenuous to me.
The responder is never actually confused, they have a question that they should just ask.
Yeah I definitely do that too. I've never really thought about why I use that language, but thinking about it, it feels like a short hand and slightly politer way of saying
> I think you're wrong
> Here's why I think you're wrong
> Please correct me if I've misunderstood something
Uh... I use "I'm confused" a lot. Because often I am confused! Someone said something that didn't make sense given what I know.
It divides fairly evenly (I think, being generous to myself here) between:
Yep, something I thought was true was not true.
Something they said was wrong, or they omitted something without which their meaning was ambiguous.
Maybe a smattering of "I/they misparsed what was said" too. But really. Often I'm just confused. When I use it I definitely don't mean they're an idiot I just worry that they'll think I'm an idiot... (...and that they might be right.)
There is no better way to destroy the ability to communicate than by assuming there is evil lurking around every corner and all you have to do is uncover it!
Thinking that every conversation you have is high stakes, that the fate of the world hangs in the balance to be decided by your ability to conquer your conversational opponents, is a really insidious form of mind rot that is prevalent across the web and seems to know no ideological bounds.
Maybe it's just what happens when narcissists get online. The inability to acknowledge that the argument doesn't matter and so you can chill out and let retards be retards is fundamentally a failure in humility.
"I really don't understand why people would think X"
is another example but I think there may be some expression of non-understanding. "So retarted it doesnt make sense."
Similar, "are you a n*zi" never seen here but as a simple but clever "Could you elaborate?" often as a reply to a polite but ambiguous comment. It's basically bait for the ambiguous commenter to confirm or deny the morality of their comment.
"Genuinely curious" or "honest question" are the internet equivalent of "don't shoot, I'm coming out with my hands up". The disclaimer people feel the need to put so they don't catch a bullet for no good reason, when most internet forums are filled to the brim with trigger happy people with itchy fingers and immunity from consequences (barring a few reputation points).
Could be similar to "I'm not trying to be offensive but ${offensive statement}" Its a kind of disclaimer but more often found in speech than on websites.
I like playing with this sometimes by saying something like "I'm not trying to be racist but have you noticed that the weather is a bit cold today"... "that wasn't racist?!" ... "yes, I said it wasn't"
Something I’ve noticed (and which is present among all people, but seems particularly common with younger people today) is a sort of unconsidered, unobserved sense of authority over social matters.
I know this was a thing when I was a kid, but something is different now. I watch my kids do it and part of me gets it, but another part of me wonders if it’s heavily influenced by something modern like social media.
It leads to this sort of attitude, like thinking you can tell people to make it make sense. It offloads a lot of cognitive burden onto others while assuming a position of authority.
I don’t want this to sound like “kids these days!”, because I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Perhaps it’s most obvious in kids because the attitude is most well-imprinted in them, but it’s absolutely present elsewhere in older people as well. Yet I didn’t see it so prevalent when I was younger.
It’s very common in political debates. Part of what exemplifies it best is a reluctance or outright refusal to do the mental labour of explaining one’s position on a matter. That is, without fail, someone else’s job. You’ve already got it figured out. It’s their fault that they don’t get it.
Like, you don’t get why Some Idea is correct and all Other Ideas are stupid? Your loss. Make it make sense.
I’m missing a lot here. Fundamentally it’s an unwillingness and a failure to actually engage, participate in having and defending ideas, and being accountable to held beliefs. I have to constantly tell my kids to own their beliefs and understand them, because they’re remarkably comfortable adopting and espousing ideas and beliefs without examination and intentionality.
I’m not claiming it’s a problem with youth though. I think it’s a problem with the dispersal and sheer density of information these days. People are overwhelmed. More than ever we go with vibes over actual considered interpretations of what we encounter. The default in the vibe based information economy is to assume a confident position and refuse to engage in good faith discussions, because you’re not even sure how you got where you are. People’s belief systems are like a social media Plinko machine.
I don’t mean that condescendingly. There’s so much information, so much to process, so many complex matters, etc. We’re all maxed out. Make it make sense.
Good post, and I believe indeed it is caused by social media and newer generations molded by it.
Go find some controversial discussion from 80-something years ago on Youtube, say, about homosexuality. Even as an older Millennial it feels the ability to entertain and politely discuss ideas we do not own nor approve of has completely disappeared. Now it’s literally just black and white, right or wrong, with or against us, with no nuance or possibility for one’s opinion to move towards compromise. It’s two camps making hateful memes about the other.
We are not made for this style of socialization and discourse, and no one is taking this problem seriously. It worries me a lot.
That's basically the opposite of /s - "I know it's hard to tell whether something is sarcasm or not through text, so I want to emphasise that I am not".
Of course, people will inevitably use it sarcastically.
Actually the brain is part of the body, so it doesn’t extend into the meta realm, the debate is still about dates and body building just with a different organ.
There was nothing to do back then. And if there was, it was crazy and/or reserved for the feudal lords. The primary income of the state was through alcohol taxes. Countries thought it was okay to invade other countries just to make themselves bigger/stronger countries. Nationalism, racism, sexism were the norm. Most people can't read/write. Information is scant and passed on by word of mouth.
Thanks for the insight, but how it is different from today?
- Countries now thought it IS okay to invade other countries just to make themselves bigger/stronger countries: There are currently many examples in the news.
- Nationalism, racism, sexism are the norm: Nationalism is obviously on the rise. Racism never disappeared, even being tattooed is seen as an excuse to deport people.
(Re-reading what I wrote above, I'd like to clarify that all the stuff I wrote above (except perhaps the alcohol tax one?) is of course not specific to Japan.)
In ~150 years someone will pick some photos taken today and post them and someone will probably wonder the same thing. Go out and do some sightseeing - a lot of the sights in these photos still exist, but also, you look at these photos with different eyes than the people that grew up there do; changing how you look at your own environment or places of interest will probably also help.
These photos are, ah, not representative (most historical artefacts of this type aren’t; part of why people tend to have an impression of Victorian London as basically hell on earth is that, unusually, photos _were_ taken of the nasty bits, but really it was no worse than anywhere else at the time).
You’d certainly prefer to live in Japan in 2025 than in 1860.
Interesting, my reaction to these photos was "no thank you". It's fun to have a glimpse at the past, but I have no desire to live back then.
In particular I'm happy to live in a modern, well-insulated home with climate control. Transportation is also a lot more convenient with cars, trains, and airplanes. And clothing and fashion of the day also looks very uncomfortable to me.
Some of the nature scenes look lovely. But there are still plenty of places in Japan where you can experience the same sense of natural beauty and solitude.
I'm sorry, but the article seems to obscure a key fact, which is that she travelled to the US AFTER her initial visa was revoked.
It seems dumb to travel to a country that has explicitly revoked your visa without being granted a new one!
Nobody stopped her from getting on a plane because nobody checks if Canadians have a visa or not since they don't need one for short visits or stays. In this case her visa was revoked, so she was probably flagged in the system as temporarily not allowed in.
This is speculation, but maybe somebody here can weigh on the technicalities of the situation.
This is not to excuse the inhumane treatment, which if true is disgusting. Dealing with the CBP is always negative, even as a citizen (when returning from abroad).
Edit:
This really stretches credulity:
> I was taken to the nurse’s office for a medical check. She asked what had happened to me. She had never seen a Canadian there before. When I told her my story, she grabbed my hand and said: “Do you believe in God?”
Edit2 (more dumb):
> There were around 140 of us in our unit. Many women had lived and worked in the US legally for years but had overstayed their visas – often after reapplying and being denied. They had all been detained without warning
>Another woman from Canada had been living in the US with her husband who was detained after a traffic stop. She admitted she had overstayed her visa and accepted that she would be deported. But she had been stuck in the system for almost six weeks because she hadn’t had her passport. Who runs casual errands with their passport?
Really? Not having your passport on you is the big mistake here?
Edit 3 (Even more dumb):
> One woman had been offered asylum in Mexico within two weeks but had been encouraged to keep going to the US. Now, she was stuck, living in a nightmare, separated from her young children for months. She sobbed, telling me how she felt like the worst mother in the world.
> Many of these women were highly educated and spoke multiple languages. Yet, they had been advised to pretend they didn’t speak English because it would supposedly increase their chances of asylum.
Trying to game the asylum system by lying to immigration authorities.
I'm not sure how all these cases are supposed to sustain the main thrust of the article, which is that all these people are innocent victims of some Kafkaesque nightmare for which they bear no responsibility. They clearly do.
We shouldn't be treating people like this period, but this is just really stupid behavior.
So she probably was alright with the law (short stay) but not with the system if I understand correctly. Still, wouldn't her detention be arbitrary and thus fall foul of habeas corpus principles which I have no doubt are in the US law?
I'm sorry, what? You think that stretches credulity?
Oh man you must be lucky to not live around these types of people.
I remember the first time I was told I was going to burn in hell for eternity. At my first job at 16 by some coworkers in their 20s and 30s because I wasn't participating in their constant religion talk so it made it clear I wasn't part of "the group".
Yes, I think it's a generally rare occurrence to be confronted this way about one's belief in God in the US, having lived here most of my life. Perhaps the circumstances warrant it, but I think the statement that the nurse had "never seen a Canadian there before" and that her plight elicited that statement from the nurse is farfetched, seeing as the nurse would have seen much much worse from other detainees.
The story is pretty incredible on its face, so I don't see why some skepticism on the way it's being reported isn't justified, especially in the face of reflexive hysteria over a descent into fascism we're supposedly facing.
Again, if true, it is disgusting, and I'm negatively disposed towards ICE and the CPB in general. But I'd like to know whether this is a case of a really odd situation paired with bad judgement and/or bad advice, or something much worse.
You think it's "reflexive hysteria" to be worried about fascism? Let me ask: when exactly would you recognize it? When would you "step in"?
In Italy, would it be in 1919 when Mussolini founded his party? Or 1922 when he marched on Rome? Maybe 1924 when opposition leader Matteotti was murdered? Or 1926 when all other parties were banned?
For Nazi Germany, was January 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor too early to worry? March 1933 when he got emergency powers? 1935 with the Nuremberg Laws? 1938 with Kristallnacht?
By the time it's obvious enough to satisfy skeptics like you, it's usually too late. What we're seeing now...invoking the Alien Enemies Act, mass detention, ideological purges of government workers, demonizing immigrants, these aren't random events. They're recognizable patterns.
History doesn't announce itself with a banner saying "THIS IS FASCISM NOW." It creeps in while people like you call concerns "hysteria."
Sigh, when will people stop reaching for Hitler / Mussolini analogies to explain every political development they witness in their lives? It really is a remarkable achievement by the propaganda departments of the victors of the 2nd world war that 80 years later this is still the only framework by which their citizens understand the world.
History didn't start in 1918, and if you think the political situation in the US right now is anything like interwar Europe, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
> It really is a remarkable achievement by the propaganda departments of the victors of the 2nd world war [...]
We know about the horrors of the Third Reich and the Holocaust in large part a) because of the survivors and their accounts of what they lived through and because b) the Nazis kept meticulous records of everything they were doing.
Your dismissal misses the point. I didn't claim "every political development" parallels fascism, I outlined specific concerning patterns: the Alien Enemies Act, mass detention, ideological purges, and demonizing outgroups.
History provides frameworks for recognizing dangerous patterns. If you prefer earlier examples: Consider the Roman Republic's fall where Sulla targeted political enemies, Caesar dismantled institutional checks, or Augustus centralized power while maintaining democratic facades. Or Napoleon's transformation from revolutionary to emperor using emergency powers and populist appeals.
The point isn't perfect historical parallels, it's recognizing warning signs before it's too late. Dismissing valid concerns with sighs and bridge-selling metaphors adds nothing substantive.
The Foreign Service Institute training is also full-time, 8+ hours a day, working with dedicated tutors in small groups. Basically, it's your job to learn the language.
This isn't taking a semester of high school language instruction or playing with Duolingo for six months. It's basically doing nothing else during working hours and maybe homework for over half a year in what would have probably been close to a $100K crash course.
They mean 24 weeks in a residential, 24 hour a day program, where you sign an oath never to speak in anything but the target language, and which is largely attended by people in the armed forces whose career will be affected by their performance. The level is probably about B2/C1, and they expect these people to immediately go to work in the language.
English shares a lot of vocabulary with French, so that's a lot less for English speakers to learn.
These are the estimates for how long it takes to reach the FSI "Speaking 3: General Proficiency in Speaking (S3)" and "Reading 3: General Professional Proficiency in Reading (R3)", which I understand to mean roughly B2 in the CEFR scale.
The blocking of Pinterest domains makes obvious sense (the bane of image search), but the blocking of news domains (foxnews, dailymail, nytimes) less so.
Are news outlets regular polluting search results for people for run-of-the-mill queries?
People who are of bipartisan ideology hate the other side enough that they ban their news outlets from their search results. I think people do search for a lot of news topics, and then get furious when a link to their enemies appear in the results.
Just look at building costs in California vs Texas. Both are nominally constituents of the same "advanced economy".