manofstick

> It was never fun to grind through killing 100 Goblins, but you did it so that you could get the magic sword at the end.

I think you're taking exactly the wrong lesson from that. It wasn't fun to grind through the goblins, but it wasn't challenging either. You did it because you could turn your brain off. I opine that if it did require thinking then the world would now be overrun with goblins...

...except that it's not true [1]...

[1] https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/18...

(Edit: pondering the down-vote. Is it because you don't like what I am saying, or that it's factually not true?)

The problem with the Carbon Tax is that right wing parties across the world (well at least in the Anglo-zone that I know about) have demonized it - even when they supposedly believe in market-based solutions.

So a regressive measure is unfortunately the only (well...) politically viable solution.

Tolls and other car taxes can be reintroduced slowly after the transition is complete.

Yes this is "stupid", but unless you can change the psychology of the populous, then that's about it.

"Minority" is not the opposite of "Privileged".

When we speak of wanting to assist minorities this is when they are disadvantaged minorities. i.e. they are the opposite of privileged.

Please don't just play word games.

No "Privileged" means having advantages that others don't.

Being white is highly correlated with being privileged due to historical circumstances, but it is only a racist reading of the word that thinks that being privileged is being white.

Yes, it's Hedonic Quality Adjustment [1]. If you follow through the example on the link, you see the negative CPI component, even though a) you can't actually buy the old version anymore - so you can't reap the "real" price benefit and b) the subjective experience ultimately for lots of these things is the same. i.e. a mid-level TV from 40 years ago probably gave the same hedonistic pleasure as one today. Arguably the older one gave more because of less other gadgets!

[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...

Another economic number I ponder over is inflation, and the economists method of revaluation of goods called the hedonic quality adjustment [1].

If you follow the example on the link provided, they show how upgrading an old tv that cost $250 to a new one that cost $1250 actually was had a negative inflation effect due to the extra features that the new TV had.

From one perspective I can understand their point, but when the "new normal" of tv ownership basically demanded those features, so they weren't really extra benefits for the end user in the long run (and then became standard features where the prices did plummet back to the original $250, one again reading down the inflation figures).

Look if like to think that economist are smarter than that, but given the original article...

[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...

Sigh.

If you want to be closed minded, and not accept that you are choosing your axioms in the same way as someone else exposed to different upbringings is - as per my examples, then I guess I have no chance of convincing you otherwise.

> Simply put, those who are attacked will fight back.

Well not that I'm Christian, but Christian teaching is basically the opposite of this (Matthew 5:39 - i.e. turn the other cheek). And Gandhi's resistance was also an example of the opposite. In fact the opposite is the only way to deescalate a fight (or, as the US chooses to do, create the biggest weapons, but isn't that then affecting the rights of the people on the other side of the argument?)

> Those who are forced to say or believe something will instead resist the idea.

Really? Advertising, religion, nation states, even your belief that these are "natural" laws are examples of your inherent bias. As a smaller example, even politeness - civility - is a counter example.

Which was exactly what the parent had said. i.e.

> This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.

Which is what the US Constitution is. (Just because the say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't mean that they are)

Mind blown huh?

New Zealand in the 90's was trying to have an integrated policing system designed by IBM which burnt a lot of money (in the order of 100 million) and was abandoned [0].

I was working with one of the companies that came along to replace one part of the system with a much smaller component that just handled that individual piece and vividly remember the meeting with the IBM team. They had no code to show me, but they handed my a massive folder - probably verging on 10cm thick of use case diagrams. So many little stick figures staring up at me I was awestruck - but not in a positive way!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INCIS

As non-american, living outside of america (but having lived there for a year and a half starting January 2000), I concur. I still follow american politics quite a bit (too much for me to remain healthy actually) and I'm constantly bamboozled trying to comprehend what people mean by the "far left".

To me it seems like any one is considered "far left" if they believe in:

- treating all people, regardless of race, gender, gender-identity or age equally (*) - believing in the science of climate change - believing that guns are the main reason for mass murders - believing that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay

Which, for the rest of the world, are pretty centralist positions...

>> NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country

Not according to the CIA Factbook it isn't:

NZ: European 71.2%, Maori 14.1%, Asian 11.3%, Pacific peoples 7.6%, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.1%, other 1.6%, not stated or unidentified 5.4%

USA: white 72.4%, black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.9%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%, other 6.2%, two or more races 2.9% (2010 estimate)

I would say almost quite comparable.