deadpannini
The best reading of the literature is that radicals can make moderates look reasonable but reduce overall support for their cause. See these recent papers for the research:
- "Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions": Simpson, Willer & Feinberg 2022, https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/66336...
- "Extreme Protest Tactics Reduce Popular Support for Social Movements": Feinberg, Willer & Kovacheff 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2911177 (this is the working paper, since the published piece is paywalled)
None of that conflicts with the observation that large, well-financed, entrenched players better at navigating regulatory obstacles than small upstarts.
> I am so happy not to live in an American small town. Because whenever I'm shown some small town in the States it is populated with all kinds of monsters among whom flesh hungry zombies, evil aliens and sinister ghosts are most harmless.
Mocking irony, in the context of a negative review.
This isn't a useful analogy - more often, it's like asking a crew how much it would cost and how long it would take to paint your house, except the house isn't built yet, you're not sure what you're going to use it for (or whether you'll actually use it as a house rather than a B&B), plus you reserve the right to change colors at any point in the process.
Additionally, consider that you are the one bringing the nagging wife trope into this: it's merely one of many possibile explanations and unhappy marriage.
I don't mean this as a gotcha question: I really don't understand what people are claiming when they say this.
All three of those companies are now large conglomerates with a lot of power (perhaps too much), but calling them "monopolies" is counter-productive (except Google search), especially in the context of regulatory or legal framework, where the facts have to fit a very precise pattern to take action.
None of that means the software is good: we can recognize the smart business choices those companies made and also abhor their products.
They provide what Alan Cooper calls "Dancing bearware" - it doesn't matter how badly the bear dances, they're just grateful to have a bear that can do it at all.
I can see how it gets tiresome reading repetitive arguments, but a solid theory undergirds all the criticism: that one way to beat SAP, oracle, Microsoft, etc. Is to provide a better user experience.
> Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.
[0] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
No, "the Hunter Biden story is insignificant" is not a fact, it's a judgement. I'd say that calling it "misinformation" is bizarre, except that most prominent allegations of misinformation boil down to judgements too.
How about this: you don't get to decide what's remotely important to people in the context of the election?
The contents of Hunter's laptop didn't stop me from voting for Biden, but that's because I'm a cynical jerk that already thinks politicians are corrupt by default.
> On March 10, 2015, a jury found Thicke and Williams, but not T.I., liable for copyright infringement. The unanimous jury awarded Gaye's family US$7.4 million in damages for copyright infringement and credited Marvin Gaye as a songwriter for "Blurred Lines". In July 2015, the judge rejected a new trial and the verdict was lowered from US$7.4 million to US$5.3 million
Replace "GPT-3" with "Hacker News posters" "Wikipedia", or "News broadcasts" to create three more 100%-accurate paragraphs.
The current democracy-worship afoot in the US ignores the fact that almost every progressive aspect of the US state sprang from a counter-majoritarian institution: Roe and Brown, plus the administrative implementation of civil rights law.
You mean people without access to niche communities / echo chambers?
I grant there are people ready to embrace destructive ideas, but the fraction of them that don't already have access to those ideas is small enough to be irrelevant, especially in the age of the internet.
Better to have them out in the open, for the reasons I mentioned, and moreover, because it's better to have a realistic view of what they think.
For example, I'm in my late forties. When I was growing up, it was rare to encounter (out) gay people outside of major cities, and people would believe practically any negative statement about them, not so much anymore. Conversely, in my college town today, most of my accquaintences have never met a Republican, and they predictably believe in a stupid cartoon caricature of red staters. I'm definitely not buying it.
But taken too far, that principle leads to abdicating our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy, so while I was definitely chastened by the experience I will kindly decline the invitation to shut up: I choose to get better instead. The sum total of my influence on this matter has been, at worst, to encourage quicker and more widespread adoption of home tests, which falls very short of pernicious.
I'm quite puzzled by P5fRxh5kUvp2th's vitriol - maybe he or she is ardently pro-mask? Since I alluded to my low opinion of mask mandates (which I stand behind), that could explain it.
1) I am admitting that I was wrong and updated. That includes updating on my thought process, just like you are so ardently suggesting.
2) Ninety percent of your assumptions about me are wrong. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, or what "many people were RIGHT" about.
> There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.
What is the "platform" I was basing it on?
The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be much more likely to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. But that fear attenuated over time, especially as people lost trust in the alarmist if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage.
Finally, your hostility is unwarranted: I am and have been a strong proponent of vaccines and I was fully on board to "flatten the curve", even for a short period of lockdowns. But I am not and never have been in favor of permanent midnight.
Even now, I can think of ways to argue that testing could still drive COVID nearly to zero in the US, most of which revolve around the idea that we're not really testing or we're not doing it right. But I think I was wrong, partly because of things other people said earlier during the pandemic, including parallel arguments about why "masks work" were wrong, which I saw right away, though I didn't draw the obvious conclusions related to the effectiveness of testing.
I think Kahneman's position requires creative gerrymandering about what counts as an important belief, and about what counts as persuasion.