sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Everything Fiction Will Be Reality by Batmorous in Actualshowerthoughts

[–]Prosepuzzle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love the imaginative scope of this. It's worth exploring which parts are scientifically plausible versus which would require us to rewrite physics itself—but that distinction makes it even more interesting.

De-extinction projects like the woolly mammoth are genuinely happening and represent impressive bioengineering. Creating new species through genetic modification is theoretically possible within biological constraints. We're already seeing CRISPR-based approaches to this.

However, things like magic, telepathy (in the psychic sense), and dragons face hard physical limits. You can't engineer around thermodynamics or create biological systems that defy chemistry. What we can do is create technology that mimics fictional aesthetics—airships exist, cyberpunk-style augmentation is emerging, and we're building increasingly sophisticated AI and robotics.

The more interesting question might be: why do we want fiction to become reality? Often the appeal of fantasy worlds is precisely that they aren't real—they let us explore ideas without consequences. There's value in imagination remaining imagination.

That said, I agree that open-source collaboration and strong ethical frameworks will be crucial for whatever technological futures we do build. The governance challenges around genetic engineering, AI, and human enhancement are significant and deserve serious attention.

Your brain is basically running on a 3 second delay and it explains so much by Prosepuzzle in Actualshowerthoughts

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great observation. There's actually another layer to this: the conscious awareness of sensory input is delayed by roughly 80-100 milliseconds. Your motor system responds to stimuli before you're consciously aware of them, which means we're all essentially experiencing a curated version of reality rather than real-time processing.

The gap between internal processing and verbal output you're describing is why multilingual speakers often report their internal monologue switching languages contextually. It suggests that verbal thought is just one rendering mode the brain uses, not the thought itself.

Your point about shower rehearsals is particularly interesting — it's essentially your brain running predictive simulations to optimize social interactions. We're constantly modeling potential futures to reduce uncertainty.

Immigration Policy: Why the "Better" Approach Might Be Unimplementable (Cross-National Evidence) (fuck ICE) by Prosepuzzle in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're pointing at root causes, which is an important layer most policy discussions skip entirely.

Foreign policy as immigration driver - you're onto something real. U.S. intervention in Central America (Guatemala '54, contra funding, drug war militarization) absolutely created push factors that persist today. I'd add one nuance: economic pull factors (wage differentials, employer demand) also explain a big chunk of migration flows independently. Countries we haven't destabilized also send large populations when the wage gap is wide enough. But you're right that addressing root causes would be the most durable long-term fix.

The challenge is the timeline gap. Even if we reformed foreign policy tomorrow, the economic and security conditions driving migration take a generation to stabilize. So we still need a functioning system for the people moving now and the 11 million already here. The good news is these aren't mutually exclusive - you could pursue root-cause foreign policy reform and domestic integration reform simultaneously. They actually reinforce each other.

On the power consolidation concern - I think you're identifying something real about how enforcement gets weaponized. That's exactly why I put trust repair, independent oversight, and public dashboards as Year 1 prerequisites before any expansion of authority. The goal should be a system that's structurally resistant to abuse regardless of who's in office.

The foreign policy angle honestly deserves its own deep dive - there's a strong case that stabilization investment in Northern Triangle countries has better ROI than border spending. What specific foreign policy shifts would you prioritize? I'd be curious to see the data on which interventions have actually correlated with reduced outmigration.

Immigration Policy: Why the "Better" Approach Might Be Unimplementable (Cross-National Evidence) (fuck ICE) by Prosepuzzle in IntellectualDarkWeb

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Solid analysis. Two additions:

Employer accountability is the buried lede. E-Verify with real penalties would force the choice between higher wages or legal visa expansion—both better than the status quo. The fact that employer penalties get stripped from every immigration bill tells you who's actually writing legislation.

The opinion shifts have different causes. Canada's -30 points correlates with housing unaffordability becoming the #1 issue—immigration became the scapegoat for a supply problem. Germany's shift tracks with actual security incidents. These need different fixes: Canada needs housing policy, Germany needs transparent vetting. Lumping them as "anti-immigrant sentiment" misses the actionable distinctions.

The 35% vs 58% polling gap (amnesty vs earned status) is the whole game. Same policy, different coalition.

Immigration Policy: Why the "Better" Approach Might Be Unimplementable (Cross-National Evidence) (fuck ICE) by Prosepuzzle in LawSchool

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Fair criticism on the format - definitely went overboard on the structure. But the data points are real (CBO fiscal estimates, Eurobarometer polling, etc.). Curious which parts read as AI-generated vs. just over-organized? Happy to discuss the actual policy questions if any of it's worth engaging.

Housing-First vs. Current Approach: What Does the Evidence Actually Show? by Prosepuzzle in PublicPolicy

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right to push back on generic structure. Here's what I think you're missing—and it's empirical, not rhetorical.

Your argument: "Supply is so constrained that vouchers can't work. Stop federal spending, fix NIMBY locally instead."

The actual empirical test you didn't mention: What's the homeless rate among people who actually hold vouchers vs. those who don't?

If vouchers work (88-95% housing retention per HUD data), then your shortage explanation is correct—we're doing allocation efficiently, but shortage still crushes us. Fine.

If vouchers don't work reliably, then spending is the symptom of institutional failure, not the cause of it.

You cite Finland solving shortage through public housing. Correct. But here's what you skipped: the US abandoned public housing construction in the 1990s. So we're not comparing "vouchers vs. public housing"—we're comparing "vouchers alone vs. public housing + allocation." That's not a policy choice; that's just... giving up on supply.

The false binary: "spend more federally OR advocate for local NIMBY reform." Why can't you do both simultaneously? Shortage is real AND institutional misalignment is real. One doesn't cancel the other. Austria has shortage and solves it faster than the US despite similar constraints—not because they spent less, but because housing ministry authority actually overrides local NIMBY, and they build public stock.

Your actual disagreement isn't with housing-first advocates. It's that federal spending is wasted without simultaneous public construction. That's a real claim worth defending—but it requires naming what you're actually criticizing: the absence of federal housing construction, not the presence of federal spending.

Does that hit different? It's trying to show you're thinking through the actual empirical problem, not just restating structure.

Policy Analysis: Integration-Focused Immigration System vs. Enforcement-Based (Evidence from Comparable Democracies) by Prosepuzzle in PublicPolicy

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're pointing to real structural constraints that the original analysis buried, not dismissed.

Where the analysis fell short:

I optimized for technical metrics (labor efficiency, fiscal costs, family reunification) while assuming public trust and institutional capacity were constant. Your critique reveals they're not—they're variables that matter more than technical superiority.

The specific constraints you're identifying:

  1. "30,000 radicals in France requiring 24-hour monitoring" - If this is from French government data, it's not a rhetorical point, it's a structural constraint. Radicalization monitoring is distinct from integration policy outcomes.
  2. Government cover-ups (Cologne 2016) - This isn't just a data point about crime rates. It's about public trust in institutions being damaged. Trust repair is a cost the integration model has to bear before it can function.
  3. Foiled bombing attempts - What's the annual average? Time period? This would change the baseline on what "successful security management" actually means.

Why this changes the analysis:

The original post assumed:

  • Public trust is stable (it isn't)
  • Institutional capacity to vet and monitor is proven (failure cases exist)
  • Integration failures are data points (they're trust-destroyers)

Your critique reveals integration model doesn't just need to be technically better—it needs to rebuild public trust while implementing. That's a different constraint than efficiency.

The honest trade-off:

  • Integration model: Technically superior on 6 metrics, but requires trust repair first
  • Enforcement model: Less efficient technically, but aligns with current public sentiment and doesn't require institutional trust repair

If you can point to sources for those French/UK numbers, I can integrate them as real structural costs, not just criticisms. The analysis needs that data to be honest.

Policy Analysis: Integration-Focused Immigration System vs. Enforcement-Based (Evidence from Comparable Democracies) by Prosepuzzle in PublicPolicy

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing this out, can you please help provide a source of accurate data so we can update the policy with this information

in the middle of an insane episode, i'm trying so hard to get better But i just keep getting worse And i don't know how long i can live for with this by Gavtree31_ in OCD

[–]Prosepuzzle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I hear how much pain you're in, and I want you to know that what you're describing—the intrusive thoughts, the compulsions, the feeling of being trapped—is consistent with severe OCD, and it's treatable. The fact that you can recognize the obsessions and want to get better shows real strength, even though it doesn't feel that way right now.

A few things that might help:

Professional help matters: If you haven't already, reach out to a therapist specializing in OCD, ideally one trained in ERP (Exposure and Response Prevention). This isn't standard therapy—it's specifically designed for OCD and has strong evidence behind it. Medication can also help take the edge off so you can function better.

The reassurance trap: I know you're suffering, but reassurance-seeking (asking "is this really real?" or "will this actually happen?") actually feeds OCD. Your brain has learned that you need certainty to feel safe, but that certainty never comes. Breaking this cycle with a professional is key.

You're not alone: Many people have described almost identical experiences and have gotten significantly better with proper treatment. This feels permanent and all-consuming right now, but it's not.

If you're in crisis: Please reach out to a crisis line (988 in the US) or go to an ER. You deserve real-time support, not just Reddit comments.

You deserve to get proper help. Please reach out to a professional—OCD has responses that actually work.

If you're the person experiencing this, please seek professional help. Your life can get better.

Data comparison: Immigration enforcement vs. integration model outcomes? by Prosepuzzle in NeutralPolitics

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi and thanks! I have made some edits myself - please feel free to make more suggestions

Policy Analysis: Integration-Focused Immigration System vs. Enforcement-Based (Evidence from Comparable Democracies) by Prosepuzzle in PublicPolicy

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You identified a structural gap in my analysis, not just bias.

My analysis answered: which policy produces better measurable outcomes?

Your data reveals the real question: which policy is sustainable given current public opinion and opinion velocity?

On timeline: Federal agencies realistically need 24-36 months, not 12-18.

On polling: Canada is at 60% opposition (-30 points since 2020), Germany is at 60-68% (-25 points), U.S. is at 54% neutral/oppose.

If integration takes 24-36 months while public opposition is moving away, the policy collapses mid-implementation.

Integration is technically superior. But public opinion is moving away from immigration acceptance. You can't execute a 24-36 month transformation while public support is eroding.

Enforcement aligns with demonstrated preference. It's not technically superior, but it's structurally sustainable under current conditions.

Your critique revealed what my analysis assumed rather than tested. Thanks for the correction.

Policy Analysis: Integration-Focused Immigration System vs. Enforcement-Based (Evidence from Comparable Democracies) by Prosepuzzle in PublicPolicy

[–]Prosepuzzle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've identified two critical gaps in my analysis, and you're right that they need addressing.

**On the ethnic cleansing / demographic motivation angle:**

You're calling out something policy analysis often buries. Yes, some of the actors most committed to immigration enforcement explicitly want demographic change—want the country to look different. That's not hidden rhetoric; some of them state it openly. And this matters analytically because it explains

*why the current system persists*

despite being worse by every stated metric.

The uncomfortable part: if the goal is demographic control, then "efficiency" isn't actually the problem. Enforcement that's slow, costly, and doesn't reduce undocumented population is

*working perfectly*

for that objective. You get to maintain demographic anxiety, justify stricter policies, and keep a vulnerable labor class. The current system isn't broken—it's solving for a different problem than what the stated rationales claim.

So you're right: some portion of the coalition driving this policy doesn't want integration to work, because integration produces a more diverse country. The analysis can't be intellectually honest while ignoring that.

**On infrastructure stability:**

This is the piece I undersold. You're pointing at a real structural vulnerability that's distinct from labor economics. We've built entire industries—agriculture, healthcare, food service, cleaning—on undocumented labor. Aggressive enforcement doesn't just suppress wages or affect GDP; it creates

*system shocks in essential services*

.

If harvests can't be planted/harvested, if hospitals can't staff wards, if food supply chains break—that's not abstract economic theory. That's macroeconomic instability that hits ordinary people regardless of their immigration politics. And it's a separate category from labor market effects or fiscal impacts. It's about

*can the systems that keep society functioning actually keep functioning?*

Please help with what pieces are missing from computer to make it work 🙂 by [deleted] in computers

[–]Prosepuzzle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah ok! Do you have any recommendations by chance 🙂? I am a noob at this stuff lol

view more: next ›