albatruss

> Still, human history shows us that money always wins.

Are you aware of what happened to the landlords in China or do you mean the landlords weren't human?

The USA threw 100k+ of its own citizens in concentration camps, stripping them of property and leaving them in poverty after the war. Not exactly a shining moment for principles.

Source with interactive data: https://www.staatus-index.org

> Also - shouldn't the web be full off vurnurable database servers then?

No, the docker bridge network is not on a routable subnet.

Their MEGAsync client is open source at least.

Walmart makes over 200k in revenue per employee. Using profit to make your point is not applicable if honest. Otherwise you would advise Amazon to cease hiring altogether in all those years they were seemingly losing money per employee.

It's worth mentioning that it wasn't just Germany on the Axis side, but a 6 nation alliance that invaded the USSR.

I cannot cite a universally accepted definition of anything. That is an impossible standard and I'm sure nothing I say will satisfy you. The only help I can offer you here is to question the neutrality of that link.

The article concerns philosophers who loved talking about ideas, not the colloquial usage of the word stoic.

You've got it backwards. Toxic masculinity is exactly the avoidance of vulnerability and emotional openness you praise, not horsing around with your buds.

You don't have to guess on the definition by the way, as academic terms tend to be well explicated.

Something important to understand is that the hard sciences are more rigorous, but that's because they're easier to model than what the social sciences have to deal with. The naming is confusing.

How do you justify such an incredibly strong assertion?

Not good advice if you're American as your own government can always hurt you most.

If you're going to be this sort of fierce nerd, make sure you come from money, because you're getting fired if you pursue these traits in the workplace.

Astronomy and agriculture are celebrated because their advances make the world better in some broader sense. That broader sense, good as such, is the scope of morality.

I'm guessing your questions are facetious, but in case you seriously care, the nature of morality has been the subject of intensive research for thousands of years, including today. It predates even the concept of measurement, in fact.

Technical goals are means to moral ends, so I think it's great that the stuff that matters, the big picture, the point of it all, is getting more discussion nowadays.

I'm not disagreeing with you or defending Marx, only pointing out a common misconception. Marx's project is frequently misunderstood.

> but the value of all goods derive from their use

That's the definition of value economists adopt today following the marginal revolution, just as artificial as Marx's definition of value, which he qualifies as use-value or exchange-value. Marginalism is a great descriptive explanation for situations like the diamond-water paradox, but it is not really relevant to Marx's prescriptive project, as it concerns only what Marx calls use-value, and Marx's project very much relies on exploring this distinction he identifies between use-value and exchange-value. Whether that exploration is correct or important is another question, but I hate seeing this confusion of definitions and goals crop up all the time. Marx doesn't hold all these obviously stupid straw men views people ascribe to him regarding (use-)value, rather he thinks that the way we conceive of value should be rethought.

I don't know if the author is a socialist but Marx himself would certainly agree with your first paragraph. In his own words: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm...

By just helping people?

Exactly. That's why money is a proxy, not equivalent to power.

Smith does not address the point, made by Hickle and reiterated by the topmost comment, about taking into account subsistence farming and how that affects how we should be looking at the metric of income per day altogether. Hickle seems to believe that the lower bounds of this number are skewed by these broader concerns. Hence the topmost comment's sentiment, which I share, that they're talking past each other.

The article recognizes it, which I should have pointed out (on phone), but as far as addressing it there is only this line:

> Except in all his later writings, he has relentlessly refused to pay attention to those increases.

No examples are given. The next claim about moving the goalposts also is unsubstantiated. It might be true but I don't see where Hickle had ever moved the goalpost from $7.40.

I don't have a dog in this race. If you feel like I am somehow mistaken then please point it out, preferably without attacking my character. Of course you are under no obligation.

It's totally valid to see it as meaningful, but it doesn't really belong in a polemic titled "Against Hickelism" if it isn't what the target even believes. From the cited rebuttal:

> Smith says we need to recognize increases in income that happen below $7.40. Such increases improve the lives of the poor, he points out, and we shouldn’t let that get obscured. I absolutely agree. Once again, I have not argued that we shouldn’t pay attention to low-level increases in income.

Yes, and Noah Smith never seems to address Jason Hickle's point that the evidence based poverty line should be $7.40. And it seems that if that point holds, as Smith never actually challenges the point that the population beneath that line has actually gone up while "extreme poverty" has gone down (a point both agree on), then Smith isn't left with much of a position.

There is no blame or antagonism towards British or South Africans implied by the use of those terms. No British or South African communities have seen a rise in violence against them in the last year.

It's not mental acrobatics. It's pragmatism and empathy.

What are you trying to say? It seems like the point you're making is that given a certain standard we are not able to say how someone's thoughts came to be for certain. But how is this a relevant or interesting point?

Former AWS employee after being employed for <3 months.