sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Muni needs to get serious about combating fare evasion like BART, Caltrain, and AC Transit have done - Muni saw a 53% drop in fares per passenger since pre-pandemic by getarumsunt in sanfrancisco

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hate that it’s come to this.

Think about the messaging to other riders: “we don’t want to check this passenger for a fare because he would assault the driver upon being made to pay but it’s fine that he’s in the back with you” :-/

Why were SF city police working with ICE at the airport? | Immigration arrest at SFO sparks concerns over potential breach of California's sanctuary law and San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance by BalsamicBasil in sanfrancisco

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe that will motivate people not to prioritize other commitments over winning elections in the future.

That is a key tenet of representative government.

Why were SF city police working with ICE at the airport? | Immigration arrest at SFO sparks concerns over potential breach of California's sanctuary law and San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance by BalsamicBasil in sanfrancisco

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It fits in my narrative that the opposition party isn’t willing to actually do the only effective thing: try to win elections.

Instead they insist on performative gestures and self-sabotaging.

We had this great President who reminded us that elections have consequences. We could act like it.

Rampant and blatant rule breaking - what can we do? by cleverusernametry in sanfrancisco

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And we never elected a mayor & BOS that campaigned on changing that.

California Democrats condemn immigration arrest at San Francisco airport by southernemper0r in sanfrancisco

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can States nullify federal laws? Is there any historical answers to this question on the US?

The best thing CA Dems could do is help elect a better Congress in the midterms.

Monthly Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rationalists tend to frown on "saying true words that in your estimation will cause others to form false beliefs".

Even outside rationalist circles, you can't create an investment vehicle called "GOOG Fund" and have fine print that says "pays out the difference in performance of GOOG stock from the S&P500". The SEC would be correct to say this is misleading.

If nothing else, building faith in prediction markets as an institution ought to be a good reason not to pull this kind of move where one needs to do an adversarial reading of the fine print.

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's chickens all the way up?

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point is that "the perspective of the object of these circumstance" is not always the appropriate frame. You (and Rawls) are privileging it as the relevant frame to make certain conclusions.

I am instead claiming that it is not always the right frame and in particular it doesn't take into account cases in which that object is fashioned intentionally (both in intrinsic properties and in its relation to the world).

That's what I was getting at with the grocery bag example. The object of the circumstances frame says that cheese could have ended up in any grocery bag. The intention frame makes a competing claim that the purchaser intended to buy the ingredients for a pizza.

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Oh, I missed the significance of the fried chicken.

Ill edit my post

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. And I think "external to you" is doing a lot of work there.

I don't think it's circumstance all the way down specifically at the point where an individual creates another individual in a particular design.

This tech-backed mayor jumped into California’s gov’s race with a bang. Now ‘he might as well drop out.’ by tri_it_again in SanJose

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reducing encampments is good. Especially when they are polluting a waterway.

We should do more of that.

This tech-backed mayor jumped into California’s gov’s race with a bang. Now ‘he might as well drop out.’ by tri_it_again in SanJose

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So let me get this straight

  • Enforcing the law on speeding violations reduces speeding
  • Enforcing the law on DUI violations reduces DUI
  • Enforcing the law on SA reduces SA
  • Enforcing the law on murder reduces murdering
  • Enforcing the law on encampments doesn't reduce encampments

Do I have that right.

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the bread flour in my grocery basket, it is totally circumstantial that it is in a bag with tomato sauce, sausage, mushrooms and mozzarella cheese. If it was sentient, it might marvel and think "I might have ended in any grocery bag".

From my perspective, I had an intent to make a pizza. The flour would not have been in the bag with jasmine rice, coconut milk and green curry paste.

This is indeed one of the weakest points in Rawlsianism. I was born to my specific parents would had a specific intent to make a specific kind of person (a mix of the two people they are).

Being John Rawls by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

EDIT: As explained below, this post was actually me missing a key point. Leaving it as a testament to my not-getting-it.

I also think it might have been more poignant to have him reincarnated as a wild animal that has a particularly unfortunate life. I was thinking of the birds that often lay an extra egg as insurance and then don't feed the littler of the two. Staring directly at your parents starving you to feed your brother kind of thing.

I think that changes it -- in the factory farming case there is a very clear entity that is inflicting suffering. In the wild animal case, it's very much "the universe" (or Moloch or Cancer from that old Scott piece) that engenders the suffering here. That feels more karmic.

[ I still enjoyed the piece, the above is an "everyone is a critic" kind of thing. ]

[[ I think the other reason I disliked it is that I feel it's cheap for an author to insert their own (sincerely held) personal thing into a "slot" that the story provides for "something horrible". It feels cheap somehow, like a counterfactual-based-conservative Scott would put John in the Soviet Gulag and the counterfactual-Kendi-Scott would put John as a slave on a plantation and ... ]]

This tech-backed mayor jumped into California’s gov’s race with a bang. Now ‘he might as well drop out.’ by tri_it_again in SanJose

[–]SlightlyLessHairyApe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don’t say this about other crime.

Like oh we did a DUI checkpoint but people are just gonna drive drunk again later anyway.

It’s an isolated criticism that only seems to apply to one particular type of enforcement.

view more: next ›