"Fidelity has cut Reddit valuation to $4.5B from $10B"
Why would Elon Musk do this?
https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/30/fidelity-deepens-valuation-cut-for-reddit-and-discord/
Why would Elon Musk do this?
https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/30/fidelity-deepens-valuation-cut-for-reddit-and-discord/
History is not a straight line forward, and sometimes cultures that appear to be moving forward end up taking steps back. There are a number of periods of history where something more like what we would consider to be good today regressed into something that was quite different that we would consider to be less good.
The Islamic golden age between the 8th and 14th centuries was characterized by advances in various fields including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and architecture. We feel the impact of those times to this day in our words for things like algebra and alchemy (and thus chemistry). That golden age was followed by an era of deep religious conservatism that in many ways continues to this day. Instead of investigating the world to find out what God has done through his works, they decided that the book itself was the word of God. They believed that God, being an unknowable entity, would go out and change the world at its whim. Therefore, rather than trying to understand God through the world, they believed that one must try to understand God through the Quran.
The Korean Goryeo period had a number of rights and freedoms for women that were something we might consider quite good for the time when viewed through today's lens. However, the following Joseon dynasty followed Confucianism, which is an extremely conservative set of values. This changed the role of women from one where they could hold positions of authority in a number of different institutions to one where they were often kept from social interactions altogether. Women were confined to the inner quarters of their homes and were told that they should obey their fathers, sons, and parents.
The Weimar Republic of Germany was, by the standards of the era, quite progressive when viewed through a modern lens. However, the next chapter of Germany's story were the national socialists under Adolf Hitler, who implemented a highly oppressive and totalitarian regime.
Given this, knowing that perhaps someday progressives may have to give back some of their gains, seems to me quite important not to use corrupt tools to achieve those gains. Acting as if a corrupt tool is a good thing because it happens to align with their values today means people don’t realize that they’re playing with a dangerous tool, much like the murasama sword it must taste blood before it is put back in the scabbard.
The Islamic golden age between the 8th and 14th centuries was characterized by advances in various fields including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and architecture. We feel the impact of those times to this day in our words for things like algebra and alchemy (and thus chemistry). That golden age was followed by an era of deep religious conservatism that in many ways continues to this day. Instead of investigating the world to find out what God has done through his works, they decided that the book itself was the word of God. They believed that God, being an unknowable entity, would go out and change the world at its whim. Therefore, rather than trying to understand God through the world, they believed that one must try to understand God through the Quran.
The Korean Goryeo period had a number of rights and freedoms for women that were something we might consider quite good for the time when viewed through today's lens. However, the following Joseon dynasty followed Confucianism, which is an extremely conservative set of values. This changed the role of women from one where they could hold positions of authority in a number of different institutions to one where they were often kept from social interactions altogether. Women were confined to the inner quarters of their homes and were told that they should obey their fathers, sons, and parents.
The Weimar Republic of Germany was, by the standards of the era, quite progressive when viewed through a modern lens. However, the next chapter of Germany's story were the national socialists under Adolf Hitler, who implemented a highly oppressive and totalitarian regime.
Given this, knowing that perhaps someday progressives may have to give back some of their gains, seems to me quite important not to use corrupt tools to achieve those gains. Acting as if a corrupt tool is a good thing because it happens to align with their values today means people don’t realize that they’re playing with a dangerous tool, much like the murasama sword it must taste blood before it is put back in the scabbard.
It's interesting because I'm completely on board with everything you just wrote. Grew up watching Moore, Stewart, Rock, Chappelle, even Whoopi Goldberg (though I found her comedy sort of boring because she was more about getting the audience to cheer than laugh)
Trump's thing is that mean tweets and an angry media helped cover up the fact that his actions would have made him an extremely popular democratic president. If people were thinking for themselves they would have realized that.
Trump's thing is that mean tweets and an angry media helped cover up the fact that his actions would have made him an extremely popular democratic president. If people were thinking for themselves they would have realized that.
The big problem with the current brand of liberalism is that it isn't liberalism.
If people advocate for individual freedom and accountability, and if you advocate against giving anyone dictatorial powers over a nation, and if you advocate for freedom of speech, particularly for viewpoints you don't agree with, and if you advocate against state control of the economy and society, and if you're against propaganda, even if it's for viewpoints you agree with, and if you're against the persecution of minorities, and if you think there needs to be different political factions or parties and that they all bring important things to the table and that single party rule is not good all of those together suggest that you might be a liberal.
The implementation of a bureaucratic substate that has overwhelming power of our daily lives seems incompatible with liberalism.
A state acting to silence speech it doesn't like is incompatible with liberalism. In fact, it seems to me that the government using control over corporations to control society is explicitly a part of fascist ideology.
Persecution of political minorities I think could also count as opposed to liberalism. If a state uses differential prosecution to jail its political opponents and to protect its political allies, that is against liberalism. Indeed, this sort of differential treatment would be closer to fascism than liberalism.
We see a highly partisan system emerging that predicts the establishment of a single party state -- Voting for a different party according to the Democrats is a problem to be solved, as we saw in Biden's insane crimson backed "death to all my enemies" speech where he was surrounded by soldiers.
One historian I follow recently suggested that we are no longer in an age of liberalism, but instead a new "Managerialism". Under managerialism, freedoms are curtailed by an elite class of state managers who control our lives to a greater extent than ever before. There is some lip-service given to individual freedoms, but anything of substance you can't do without approval from the managerial class, and it is an underlying narrative that individuals can't achieve anything without the expert managerial class to protect and guide us.
I think the Democrats aren't a party supporting liberalism, but a party supporting managerialism. While managerialism can be supported by democratic governments, it itself is undemocratic, with decisions over people's lives being made by bureaucrats rather than elected officials.
If people advocate for individual freedom and accountability, and if you advocate against giving anyone dictatorial powers over a nation, and if you advocate for freedom of speech, particularly for viewpoints you don't agree with, and if you advocate against state control of the economy and society, and if you're against propaganda, even if it's for viewpoints you agree with, and if you're against the persecution of minorities, and if you think there needs to be different political factions or parties and that they all bring important things to the table and that single party rule is not good all of those together suggest that you might be a liberal.
The implementation of a bureaucratic substate that has overwhelming power of our daily lives seems incompatible with liberalism.
A state acting to silence speech it doesn't like is incompatible with liberalism. In fact, it seems to me that the government using control over corporations to control society is explicitly a part of fascist ideology.
Persecution of political minorities I think could also count as opposed to liberalism. If a state uses differential prosecution to jail its political opponents and to protect its political allies, that is against liberalism. Indeed, this sort of differential treatment would be closer to fascism than liberalism.
We see a highly partisan system emerging that predicts the establishment of a single party state -- Voting for a different party according to the Democrats is a problem to be solved, as we saw in Biden's insane crimson backed "death to all my enemies" speech where he was surrounded by soldiers.
One historian I follow recently suggested that we are no longer in an age of liberalism, but instead a new "Managerialism". Under managerialism, freedoms are curtailed by an elite class of state managers who control our lives to a greater extent than ever before. There is some lip-service given to individual freedoms, but anything of substance you can't do without approval from the managerial class, and it is an underlying narrative that individuals can't achieve anything without the expert managerial class to protect and guide us.
I think the Democrats aren't a party supporting liberalism, but a party supporting managerialism. While managerialism can be supported by democratic governments, it itself is undemocratic, with decisions over people's lives being made by bureaucrats rather than elected officials.
I have to admit the bank of Canada went hard early, I was surprised and impressed at their early actions. These charts show it paid dividends.
I think it would be reasonable to be concerned about bad decisions on both sides.
I know I don't want to replace one form of authoritarianism for another. That's not an improvement, just replacing one color of eggshells for another.
I know I don't want to replace one form of authoritarianism for another. That's not an improvement, just replacing one color of eggshells for another.
He couldn't even dress up in a vaguely racist costume to get his photo taken. He wouldn't even want to be involved if he can't even do that.
That's a pretty cool hypothesis. If it's true, it really does change the character of the whole historical event!
One thing studying history has done for me lately is it's helped me to realize how huge the world is. Just in terms of the things we still believe happened, so many things that were like "No, that never could have happened" turn out to be true or at least truer than you'd think.
One thing studying history has done for me lately is it's helped me to realize how huge the world is. Just in terms of the things we still believe happened, so many things that were like "No, that never could have happened" turn out to be true or at least truer than you'd think.
I'm not sure that the specific set of cases had any merit to it, there were things that were obviously untrue like a child saying they made him kill his friend and eat him (but the friend was still alive).
That being said, you're absolutely right that we have overwhelming evidence that there's all kinds of stuff going on that any law enforcement organization worth existing would look into deeper. It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that things happened that most people would find absolutely unacceptable, and there's no reason to believe it isn't going on right now with a different high society pimp at the head of it.
That being said, you're absolutely right that we have overwhelming evidence that there's all kinds of stuff going on that any law enforcement organization worth existing would look into deeper. It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that things happened that most people would find absolutely unacceptable, and there's no reason to believe it isn't going on right now with a different high society pimp at the head of it.
“No Nazis or bigots” is a nice slogan, but if people turn off our brains and turn off our humanity and just start mindlessly chanting slogans that justify the punishing of our enemies, then there’s no difference between us and the typical German in 1938.
It doesn’t take a lot to end up in a bad place if we think we’re purely good and in the right and our enemy is purely evil.
Many people are familiar with the Salem witch trials, the werewolf trials in France in the 1500s and 1600s and the Satanic Panic of the late 80s and early 90s? Those people thought they were morally justified in anything they did against the accused because they were fighting against literally Satan.
World War 2 ended 75 years ago. Virtually everyone who was a Nazi is dead of old age.
So if you want to stomp out the Nazis, who are you stomping?
It doesn’t take a lot to end up in a bad place if we think we’re purely good and in the right and our enemy is purely evil.
Many people are familiar with the Salem witch trials, the werewolf trials in France in the 1500s and 1600s and the Satanic Panic of the late 80s and early 90s? Those people thought they were morally justified in anything they did against the accused because they were fighting against literally Satan.
World War 2 ended 75 years ago. Virtually everyone who was a Nazi is dead of old age.
So if you want to stomp out the Nazis, who are you stomping?
One of the things I talk about a lot in the Graysonian Ethic and I want to make sure my son understands as he grows up is that even the best ideals that you totally agree with can be warped into something evil if you turn your brain off, ignore your humanity, and mindlessly follow it.
And that's without being remotely malicious. Add malicious intent and the best of values will be made the deepest of evil.
And that's without being remotely malicious. Add malicious intent and the best of values will be made the deepest of evil.
It's all local, so where hydroelectric can work, use it. If there's some crazy winds somewhere, maybe you can use that. If it's sunny all the time, maybe there's something to using solar.
The scam is something that they used to do at a gas station I worked at (before I ever worked there). They paid the gas jockeys a commission to sell oil, so when they checked the oil they'd always err on adding more oil because it made them money. Even if your car was still full and fine, they'd still add more oil because they made money on it.
In the same way, you won't make huge amounts of free money building a known quantity like a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant, and you'll actually solve the problem.
The scam is something that they used to do at a gas station I worked at (before I ever worked there). They paid the gas jockeys a commission to sell oil, so when they checked the oil they'd always err on adding more oil because it made them money. Even if your car was still full and fine, they'd still add more oil because they made money on it.
In the same way, you won't make huge amounts of free money building a known quantity like a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant, and you'll actually solve the problem.
If wind and solar was really the cheapest form of energy then electricity prices would trend down as they are added to the grid. Instead the opposite often happens.
We actually have a model for what cheap green energy looks like, it's hydroelectric. When major hydroelectric dams go in, electricity rates plummet and we even see people migrating from fossil fuel heat to electric heat because it makes financial sense to switch.
We actually have a model for what cheap green energy looks like, it's hydroelectric. When major hydroelectric dams go in, electricity rates plummet and we even see people migrating from fossil fuel heat to electric heat because it makes financial sense to switch.
"We're going to use science based policy!"
But the data shows your policies inevitably lead to ruin everywhere you get any power? 🤔
But the data shows your policies inevitably lead to ruin everywhere you get any power? 🤔
