This is a sane and measured response to a terrorist attack /s Just do terrorism back 100-fold, I guess?

Considering prior authorization is predicated on the fact that if they reject enough requests inevitably some people won’t fight them, meaning they don’t have to pay out, I wouldn’t be surprised if they use a slightly better than chance prediction as justification for denying coverage, if they even need an actual excuse to begin with.

IIT confuses me. Every time I try to understand it, it sounds like incoherent pseudoscience using technical-sounding language that doesn’t actually describe anything actionable. Yet it’s also very popular and has some implementations approximating its metric? Maybe I’m just dumb… Though I’m pretty sure random networks of XOR gates aren’t conscious fwiw.

Vaxn’t?

I would rather they slashed politician’s tires than let out the air in random people’s tires.

I think they’re talking about the post-GamerGate anti-SJW movement where atheist youtubers converted to debunking straw-feminists. Maybe they’ve gotten out of that pipeline but haven’t internalized that those “bad” feminists were caricatures of their actual positions or cherry-picked crazies?

Considering they let the air out of the tires and left a polite finger-wagging note, I don’t think they skipped the gentle reminder phase.

Daily reminder that property damage is not violence, but random acts of property damage isn’t the same thing as genuine activism. We must be mindful of the purpose of a political act, and whether the act actually accomplishes that purpose. What is the purpose of inconveniencing random SUV owners? Will this affect any change, or will it merely entrench people’s existing attitudes?

Imo if you’re gonna slash tires, do it to the politicians. More news coverage, clearer message, and you don’t come off as petty against people for having the “wrong” kind of social performance (eg driving an SUV instead of an electric) and trivialize the issue.

To what end? Do SUV owners write bills? Will inconveniencing nonpolitical randos get anyone talking about the issues, let alone talking about them without souring the discussion for climate activists, who now look like vindictive assholes?

This reads like petty vengeance against people with marginally larger carbon footprints and with the wrong kind of social performance, not genuine activism. If you’re gonna slash tires, do it to the politicians ffs.

This, the intent would be a lot more clear if they eg did it to politicians who supported anti-climate bills. That sends a much more powerful message, whereas targeting random SUVs isn’t likely to get anyone talking or caring about the issues.

I would challenge that any society which has any significant amount of wealth disparity wouldn’t eventually devolve into “whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules”. Money is an abstraction of human value, so if one person has significantly more abstract-value than most people, their power and influence will always be more than people who have less even if it isn’t as direct as our system via eg lobbying. On top of that, any economic system which has even the slightest asymptotic behavior towards wealth consolidation will eventually have wealth disparity.

Personally I like economic systems that use money as a price signal because of how decentralized it can be, but I’m not sure how you would avoid these tendencies without some major overhaul in the fundamental principles. Market socialism is at least better, since no one solely owns the means of production so it’s harder to accumulate wealth but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t possible at all.

Maybe a change in ethos like you said, competition can inspire innovation but it can also lead to tremendous waste as competitors reinvent their own wheels. Encouraging cooperation in tandem with competition could produce a more well-rounded society, but there will always be sociopaths who want power for its own sake and will naturally rise to the top and ruin whatever good thing we have going on. Maybe something like radical anarchism, which rejects (unjustified) hierarchy and makes it exceptionally difficult for anyone to gain coercive power? Fat chance ever implementing something like that, though.

Yes, in fact it’s the most obvious things which need scientific study most desperately, because what’s “obvious” today may tomorrow be “cigarettes are good for your health”. If something is obvious (and isn’t a value or opinion), that’s a red flag that you should double-check because it might be an overlooked assumption rather than an objective truth. That being said it’s not exactly “sexy” science since the result tends to be “our hypothesis was correct”. The Ig Nobel Prize has some good example of this, dumb “obvious” or “pointless” research that on further reflection makes you think.

I would personally prefer to sentence anyone with a net worth of over $1B to a lifetime eating $100 bills until they’ve literally eaten their fortune. Show them the real value of their monopoly paper, you know?