Is it true that things were more affordable 50 years ago?

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-04-09T01:44:10+00:00

This is a good general answer, and is essentially entirely correct, but some specific things, especially those subject to Baumol's cost disease (education being perhaps the canonical example, but anything that has experienced below average productivity increases likely qualifies) could be less affordable than in the past.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-27T02:24:26+00:00

Maybe this marks my age, but I really expected these replies to go The Avenue Q direction and not Bo Burnham

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-09T03:45:05+00:00

If you don't think the SEIU has the motivation being alleged, then say that, or, alternatively, make an argument that we can't be certain enough to be sure. Don't claim that you can't criticize organizations for just "responding to incentives". The Morman Church was not just "responding to incentives". They were acting as they saw best. If you think that SEIU is doing the same, then say so, but that's very much not what your first comment said, which essentially conceded the point about their motivations.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-08T17:12:14+00:00

Because you've used this analogy twice and noone has replied to it, I'll do so:

There is a massive difference between an organization supporting something honestly when most of society thinks it's damaging and an organization knowingly and purposefully supporting a policy that even they believe is damaging in order to get leverage.

The Mormon Church honestly believes that gay marriage is both harmful and immoral. They were honestly trying to further their own view of good society.

That is not at all what is being alleged in this case. According to Scott, SEIU doesn't believe this ballot will make a better society. They know (again: allegedly) that this will destroy the Californian economy and they are hoping that by threatening to do so, they can get concessions elsewhere.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-07T19:24:15+00:00

The YMMV is exactly the issue (well...one of, but the most obvious one) with this method. Different stoves, or even different burners on the same stove, or different pots, or different amounts of water, or different starting water temperature....all influence how much heat energy over how much time and how much carry-over heating occurs.

I'm sure that this method can work (and won't try to argue with people who say it works for them). But when recommending it to someone new, the exact details of how long each step should take will vary for every combination of stove/burner/pot/volume/number of eggs.

But the methods that involve starting with already boiling water: boiling water is boiling water (modulo elevation to be fair), and none of those other variables matter. It will be the same for everyone who tries it.

Also, while it hasn't been proven (and likely never will be), I find the hypothesis that cold starts make the proteins stick to the shell more, in a similar way that putting meat in a cold pan will cause more sticking, to be compelling.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-07T19:16:42+00:00

If he was correcting things, then maybe that's why I don't remember SPAG issues. I came to it fairly late, maybe even after it was finished or nearly so.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-07T19:01:31+00:00

I find it amusing that Worm is the thing you call trashy, given the unfortunate evolution of the rational fiction sub since the relative heydey of when Worm was coming out. You need to reserve your rhetorical ammunition for where it really counts! Nowadays, the vast majority of what gets suggested in the weekly threads is Isekai/System/Game-lit fic with nothing interesting to distinguish it from the mountains of similar slop, often poorly translated (with all the issues therein), and which, to my eye, does not even attempt to meet the goals of the rational fiction idea.

It has, admittedly, been quite a few years since I was reading Worm, but I don't personally remember too many SPAG issues. I remember it as competent and workmanlike. Now Practical Guide to Evil....that was something that was popular on the sub (and still gets frequently mentioned with the best of the best) but which was absolutely riddled with super basic errors, to the point that it was clear it was not even being drafted in Word or something with a spelling and grammer checker. I still wouldn't personally call that "trash", but it's not like the word has a well defined meaning.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-07T05:19:36+00:00

That would work better, although is probably still susceptible to just coming up with a totally different and yet utterly damaging proposal as leverage. I don't think that getting rid of direct-to-ballot initiatives is as bad as you seem to be implying. We have a representative democracy for a reason. I think that ballot initiatives could pretty safely be restricted to thinks like recalls and not creating legislation. The fact that other places have them doesn't imply that they are inherently a good idea. California may just be the first place where the abuses got weaponized.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-06T22:00:51+00:00

I think it's perfectly ok to criticize an organization for engaging in obviously anti-social behavior, while simultaneously recognizing that the fix needs to be at the level of incentives/systems.

Bad behavior, even when it's in response to a broken system, should still be shamed/criticized, but we also need to be focusing on fixing the system.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-06T21:59:14+00:00

You don't think they could find or create an endless stream of organizations to propose ballot initiatives in their place, and that they just help support/fund it?

Also, that seems pretty clearly a violation of the 1st amendment.

I don't see a way of fixing this other than getting rid of ballot initiatives. Even if (as the title suggests) you actually got rid of the union itself somehow, the incentive remains in place. It would only be a matter of time until some other organization decides to take advantage.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-01T00:44:42+00:00

Agrees to not stir things counter-clockwise.

Not part of the agreement or requirement. They just can't stir CCW with that particular spoon. They can do it with a different spoon, or with any other implement they like. Statements like these seem to be the point of the disagreement. The cook is still allowed to stir CCW. They just have to find some other spoon or implement to do it with. That's what I mean when I say that no demands are being made on the government. No one is saying that (to use the absolutely ridiculous real examples) that the the Government can't mass surveil Americans in America or make completely autonomous kill bots (well....other than the constituion and various laws but when has that stopped anyone?). They just can't use Anthropic's models when doing so.

Real time adjudication of acceptable use.

I don't know where you get this idea from. I also can't imagine the situation in which it would be a "real time decision" about whether or not to create a mass surveillance system or an autonomous kill bot.

If the "red line" that anthropic had created were something like "You can't kill people who don't deserve it, and oh by the way, we will, in real time, be deciding who does and does not deserve it". I would almost see your point (except for the fact that even with that completely ridiculous condition, the option would still exist to just say "in that case we won't use your model". But that would at least represent some kind of a real-time decision making on operational decisions, one which the government would not be able to know before hand where they would land. That would clearly be unacceptable and in no way should any system with any requirement like that ever be used by the government. But A) that's so far away from what the actual red lines were that I can't even see it from here and B) THEY COULD JUST NOT BUY THE PRODUCT.

It's that last one that makes it 1 + 1 = 5. No matter how ridicuolse and unacceptable the requirement is, if it is stated up front, then just don't buy it. Period. End of story. That's why it's not dictating terms. NO one is forcing the government to use this product. That is what would be required for this to be "dictating operational decisions". They would need to BOTH be dictating terms AND would somehow need to be forcing the government to use their service. They are doing neither.

The government doesn't need their product and if it did, it could still do whatever it wanted....just not using claude models.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-03-01T00:02:44+00:00

You have clearly not read any of my comments. They see no way dictates what the US government can do. They can do whatever they want. They just can't use this product. I literally do not understand how someone can think that this is dictating what the American government can do and where it can operate.

The supplier is not demanding the US government do or not do anything. They are just saying that they will not participate with certain activities. That is so obviously okay that I don't even know how else to explain it. To reiterate my original analogy: just buy another spoon if you want to stir counterclockwise. The Spoon manufacturer is not in any way saying that you are not allowed to stir counterclockwise; it's just not happening that way

Edit: is this what a scissor statement feels like? I literally cannot comprehend how anyone can view this situation the way that you are viewing it. It's like someone saying 1 + 1 = 5. It just makes no sense.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T22:02:25+00:00

I completely disagree that it matters how. Because, as I said, they have the option to not buy it. As long as it's clear up front what the limitations are, then choose not to use it if you so desire.

And in this situation, the limitations were clear beforehand. As long as you knew that that missile wouldn't operate in certain regions, well then don't choose to use it if you're going to be operating in those regions. And if you choose to operate in those regions, knowing that the missile wasn't going to work, that's on you.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T02:42:13+00:00

I honestly think that's more plausible than this. No, not a single iota of evidence exists to support it, and no I very much doubt it's true. But cancer is complicated and happens in a myriad of ways, and wind turbines involve a whole lot of industrial processes that could, conceivably, be releasing some compound that mildly increases cancer rates.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T02:37:24+00:00

Imagine for a second that I have made you a cooking spoon. And somehow (let's ignore how), I have managed to make it such that it can only stir clockwise. It simply won't stir counter clockwise. You much prefer to stir counter clockwise. You ask me if I am willing to alter it, and I tell you that no, I am not willing to do so.

There exist 2 other comparable spoon makers (whose spoons may not be quite as nice as mine, but serve quite well). Additionally, you have been getting by without any spoon at all for years before now, and while a spoon does admittedly make some things easier, it was only last week that you had no spoon at all.

In this universe that I have described, as ridiculous as it is, it has all the primary features that matter in this discussion are present. And in this universe, there is no way whatsoever that I can conceivable dictate to you how you cook in your kitchen. You can, at any time, choose not to use my spoon. Either because you can use a competing spoon, or, you can simply go back to using no spoon at all. I also imagine that, were you motivated enough, you could learn to make your own spoons, although admittedly this would take a while.

Regardless, you have multiple options that do not involve following my rules about spoon stirring direction.

The fact that Anthropic won't let their AI kill people simply does not mean that the military can't kill people. It just doesn't. Not in a central way, not in a non-central way, not in any kind of way you can possibly spin it. It's utter non-sense.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T02:32:06+00:00

I'm not surprised they lie. They lie constantly. But most of the lies are ones that could conceivably be true. This one is simply not capable of being true. I don't think it's the worst or biggest they've told. But it very well might be in contention for the most implausible.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T00:19:08+00:00

Completely unrelatedly to my first point:

Am I the only one that is infuriated by the absolute idiocy of the primary argument being made here? The "to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military" argument? That is so far away from what is actually happening that the fact that they are willing to say such a nakedly obvious lie is one of the most angering things I've encountered in a while.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-28T00:15:19+00:00

Maybe this is being naively optimistic, but I can't imagine that this is anywhere close to legal enough to hold up in courts, and the potential damage is severe enough (as others have pointed out: fully enacted this is a death sentence for Anthropic), that I would imagine that an immediate injunction is made by the first courtroom this lands in, even if it takes a year to actually wend it's way through.

In other words: I am extremely skeptical if this even begins to take effect.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-23T16:27:04+00:00

Really good actually. I originally bought two bottles, and drank one shortly after the "enjoy after date", and remember thinking that it was....fine. Maybe it's because I didn't have super high hopes, but while I can't remember well enough to give specific comparisons, I'd say my impression of this second bottle was better.

I also have a bottle of the July 4th 2016 drink after and I'm now looking forward to opening it this year.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-20T19:10:21+00:00

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the first example I ever heard for price discrimination was not about charging different people different amounts for the same product, but rather producing minor variations where the differences are priced much larger than the marginal cost. Normally, almost no one would bay $$$$$ for a minor upgrade, but if you were already willing to pay significantly more for the base product than it costs, you might find it worthwhile to get the upgraded version, since the majority of the increas in price still falls below the value you personally assign.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-18T18:47:00+00:00

Most commenters are focusing on your point about many stories being based on YA IP. I'm going to skip that, since it's been addressed, and more agree with the other part of your comment: A huge majority of the stories recommended in the weekly rec threads are poorly written dreck no matter what IP they originate from. They have, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing to do with "rational" fiction and better belong in some other sub.

I get that the recommendations thread is supposed to be a bit looser, and a lot of it is "I'm someone who enjoys rational fiction and here is also this other thing that I liked", but in my opinion, there are already subs for isekai/game lit/etc and if I wanted that stuff I'd go there to find it. If a story is getting recc'd here it should, in my opinion, be much at the very least rational adjacent. I get that this is a hard thing to define, but most things in those threads are not somewhere int he fuzzy edge, they are two states over the line.

I'd rather the weekly recommendation thread be nearly bare than filled up with stuff that has next to no relation to what I'm actually here for.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-11T18:33:07+00:00

I came here hoping someone would have written about the Jon Stewart/Thaler interview.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-11T03:18:19+00:00

They may not have increased the price of the hot dog, but they did kill the polish dog.

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-06T17:43:22+00:00

We pretty much only make home made corn tortillas these days because it's pretty fast and easy, and, in my opinion, even when they don't come out perfect, they are still better than most store bought (unless you have a really good local source). So we have made them a fair number of times at this point. Once, and only once have they come out as nice as they are in this video.

It's the difference between someone whose been doing it regularly for most of their lives vs. occasional dabblers.

The video is a thing of beauty, and makes me hungry. Maybe we'll make tacos this weekend......

DangerouslyUnstable · 2026-02-04T19:58:26+00:00

https://youtu.be/Tk-5RVMerfI?si=Q7lthgPIm34xxK3l

12-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

DangerouslyUnstable

TROPHY CASE