indiogrindio
No there isn't. You just didn't read any of the links in the article that it used for support, IE https://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-cha...
> The Union-driven higher costs of manufacturing also drove outsourcing, off-shoring, and did not lead to higher quality output, (if Unions were producing higher quality that would have kept Japanese-manufactured cars from dominating US car sales shortly after).
You can't have it both ways in your argument. You set up an initial statement about high Union costs driving outsourcing, and then immediately drop that point as you pivoted to an argument about quality being the driver.
> The USSR, North Korea, and Cuba all have/had lower levels of inequality than the west
> In China, hundreds of millions are wealthier than they were two generations ago. They have increased absolute inequaliry and increased equality at the same time.
Sources? Do you have any data or metrics available for your claims (outside of Facebook memes)?
> In these studies, chimps are behaving more rationally than humans. There is no wasted motion to obtain the reward.
> Humans haven’t been successful because we are innovators. Rather, we are successful because we don’t think for ourselves, and save time and energy by copying others.
> In contrast, children will copy every single action, including the unnecessary ones.
Isn't the chimpanzee the one saving time/energy in this case since it's not engaging in superfluous activities and only doing what it's necessary for its goal? I was expecting the article to state that the point of human superfluous activity is that it allows for a greater range of experimentation (a superfluous activity might lead to an adjacent innovative/novel solution for a new goal that was outside of the original scope).
> It can come in a format similar to GitHub where anyone can present in their preferred version of a subject instead of edit-warring at a small point, and if version is good enough then they can be merged/pushed/vouched by other users to work upon and goes to the top in ranks.
It will always lead to the same sort of supposed systemic biases regardless of the system, because so much content is based on subjective judgement calls at the end of it (IE, who decides what is "good enough?"). In other words, there will be another anecdotal thread about the future Github-style wiki and all of it's problems and drama.
Comments like these are always fun, because nothing is ever really said, nor are answers provided. It's just the usual gaslighting by a classic CCP poster (you know we can see your comment history, right? It's all the same gaslighting routine every pro-fascist poster does).
Like this:
"If you want Apple to push back on censorship in China, let's talk about the details. What would China likely do in return?"
How about YOU answer it since YOU brought it up?
Welcome to reality. Evolution doesn't care which species is here or not or what form it takes, it's just the basic essence of adapting to new conditions.
> Sex hormones like testosterone fulfill many more functions than the name "sex hormone" implies. Like any hormone in the body they act as a form of chemical communication between a variety of systems. This topic is far too deep to get into in a comment so I suggest you do some reading on it.
Strawman argument ^ Sex hormones only came into being around 500 million years ago. That is the point I'm making. In another 10 billion years, whatever life exists at that point might look back in time to see this small little period of history where there were these things called "hormones" existed, before evolution got rid of them.
I wonder how many times this could have been said in the ~4 billion year history of life on this planet, and then life just keeps going anyways in some new form.
It's just evolution. You have a changing environment, decreased hormones or what not, and some parts of the population will develop ways around it and others won't. If you have a set mindset on how life should propagate, as in "we need so-and-so hormone", then you're probably going by the wayside in terms of an evolutionary perspective.
What's the most obvious answer here? The emergence of technology. We might not even have sex hormones in the future. There might be some completely new way of genetic propagation (if genes themselves are even a thing in the future) that we can't even dream of right now. The concept of sex, hormones, etc., might even disappear as whatever new form of "information" propagation takes hold. We just have no idea. We could be in the middle of the change right now, or the bare beginnings. Maybe those new forms of life will be resistant to the effects of global warming and other things as well, and so on.
It's like how organisms such as cyanobacteria changed the composition of the atmosphere billions of years ago, and wiped out previous forms of life as oxygen become abundant. A whole new ball game got started, and we're here now.
In other words, a present solution might no longer work well for the current environment (a specific sex hormone), and so it begins to filter out of the 'system'. The issue here though, as is obvious on this forum, is that we can get attached to so-and-so hormone from an emotional standpoint, since we've been fooled into believing that it's our identify, and then get angry when we see it no longer "useful", even though that hormone is just one interchangeable part of our identities.
> I am quite disappointed in the author to be so dismissive on a topic she is an “instant expert” on. Only on hacker news does a physicist who spends their days criticizing string theory (and whose expertise there makes sense) make the front page doing an analysis on testosterone.
I'm new to hacker news, and am quite surprised by the amount of ad hominem arguments on here.