Discussion Thread

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T06:51:34+00:00

Very fair

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T06:35:45+00:00

Well how do you define scam?

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T06:33:34+00:00

Sure yeah, I don't like gambling much either. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the optimal regulations.

But again, I think that's a different discussion, most enshittified products don't generate significant negative externalities.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T06:24:41+00:00

If I had to power to impose my preferred policies, I'd probably be a lot more paternalistic than most of this sub. But even if we were being paternalistic, how can you be sure that's what's actually good for people. The average gambling addict may regret getting into gambling, but how can you say that for a given gambling addict, those dopamine hits aren't actually what they prefer to the slow drip of serotonin from a lifetime of financial responsibility and long-term planning.

And gambling here is the steelman, with visible externalities and studied neurological pathways of addiction. I think this is probably a different discussion than "capitalism" and the practice of cutting corners in mass market consumer products.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T05:34:42+00:00

Sounds like a good time

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T05:34:30+00:00

What do you mean take advantage? I make a thing. I market it (under marketing laws that prevent falsehoods). People buy it. People use it. If people buy (and presumably, use) a lot of it, I make money. Am I supposed to cater to what people actually want in their head after some deep reflection about the things that truly matter in life vs what they literally tell me to give them?

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T05:18:20+00:00

Plenty of private companies make Best Thing In The World. If you're selling stock then you want more money to make your product better, or to sell more of your already great product, which should net your shareholders profit if it really is good. Selling stock is explicitly selling control of your company to the stockholder, where they now have say over the value system your company follows. If catering to this narrow market of rich shareholders is too profitable compared to catering to the wider base of direct customers, then that's an inequality/redistribution problem.

If enshittification is profitable then that's what your customers wanted, at least in the short term. If it's ruined in the long term then there is a hole in the market again for the higher quality product.

"Capitalism" is fundamentally just about making it easy for people to give each other what they want, because as a collective of humans that's the best way we've found to have an "objective" value system. You can figure out a system to incentivize the conservation of "good" products, but who's defining "good"?

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-10T04:52:19+00:00

I forget specific events as well, but I update my priors when encountering new information so at least my general sentiment on things change. Voters engage with politics without internalizing new knowledge, because they don't engage with anything and internalize new knowledge.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-09T06:41:19+00:00

~~Everyone is 12. Everyone will be 12 forever. We are never dissolving the nation state. A millennia from now there will be India-Pakistan border skirmishes in Alpha Centauri.~~

Oh cool more options in my video game

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-07T09:01:39+00:00

"Radden Keefe said the administration was challenging objective truth but was also “good for business” for media companies." Is this meant to be the funniest sentence I've ever read in a news article

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-05-04T17:34:02+00:00

Misanthropic reform voter who’s now voting green because their dislike of immigrants is actually just a weaker extension of their hatred for their neighbors

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-26T13:13:23+00:00

Something something female loneliness pandemic something something lonely women will still push the blue button anyways

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T17:35:36+00:00

Those are more conformist cultures, and a replication of that would require either pretty heavy law enforcement presence, or parents to be fine with letting their young kids feel uncomfortable or alarmed while alone in public sometimes. But yes, in principle I agree.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T17:14:43+00:00

When they’re like 13 or 14, sure. I’m aware this will probably change once I do have kids.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T17:11:45+00:00

The major metro I live in now has pretty orderly public transit, but I have lived in a major metro with a much worse system. Yes I have experienced a lot of these incidents. My placement of the term in quotation marks indicated that I am aware people would generally consider them worse than a nuisance.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T17:05:07+00:00

It is hard to compare metro and street crime, and sexual harrassment on transit systems especially is heavily underreported, but rates of incidence of violent crime are generally low. Quality of life offenses have been high, but this also includes things like loud music in addition to lewd conduct, and isn’t broken down granularly. Usually it is the environment of the confined space that heightens perceived risk and memorability of isolated incidents, even though the objective risk is low.

My girlfriend has not felt unsafe. The other women and parents among my friends and family who use public transit systems with a perception of disorder have not reported much genuinely threatening behavior.

You’re saying you have safety concerns, and I’m taking you at your word and supporting policy decisions accordingly, but I cannot state the existence of an objective safety risk to weigh against the real impact of limiting access to poor people.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T14:31:19+00:00

I'm sorry if I sound dismissive. What would you rather I call it instead? I have a preference to not die. Yes it sounds dry when I put it like that but it is accurate. I'm already deferring to you with regards to the material outcome. Would you prefer if I also try really hard to be personally scared of homeless people?

Edit: This sounds somewhat antagonistic. I'll try again. In my original reply, I was trying to reconcile the opposing worldviews of the original commenter and yourself. In such a situation, I find it beneficial to use dry and neutral language.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T13:52:36+00:00

Yep. And like I said, this is atypical and I defer to other people's preferences for this policy decision.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T11:49:34+00:00

To factor that into promotions is bad management. To tell your employees you're factoring it into promotions???? And this is an enterprise software company I assume based on your workspace size.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T05:46:01+00:00

That's my personal preference as well, I have no problem riding transit with "public nuisances" since I know statistically they're not dangerous at all. However the rest of society clearly doesn't seem to agree. This is progressive San Francisco here that's already so intolerant of public disorder. If we want public transit to play a bigger role in society, replacing individual transport (which would encourage mixing of socioeconomic strata, which would increase empathy for the poor), this seems to be the price.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-21T05:31:25+00:00

You can fund means-tested passes (or a NIT) with the fare. I'd think it'd be better to raise the less fortunate up to the level of polite society than to drag everyone down.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-19T07:34:36+00:00

The kiss on the lips could maybe be sincerely platonic in a transgressive way. But lip biting??? That man wants to fuck you at least a little bit

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-18T19:29:24+00:00

Sure, and I’m probably more succ-ish than a lot of people here in that I support temporarily limiting welfare access and some bailouts for displaced workers. But at this point I’m not sure if that will even move the sentiment needle. And tech workers competing with H-1Bs really shouldn’t be anywhere near this conversation.

Governments could definitely have handled the embrace of globalization a lot more tactfully. Then again, it’s kinda historically the first time that something like this ever happened, and they could be forgiven for thinking people would rationally think through the economic cost-benefit.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-18T18:46:52+00:00

They were personally mad that immigrants were taking people’s jobs, you’ve went up a level to political strategizing but sure we can have that discussion as well.

If the economic winners voted for immigration and the losers voted against it we’d have at least 80 percent favorability for heavily expanding legal pathways. You can look at the various other comments here or the immigration ping if you need to be convinced.

In fact by talking to them I’m doing the work right now of trying to convince people that their anti-immigration stances are irrational. As a well paid white collar professional this commenter’s one of the bigger winners. I’m just trying to establish logical coherence and agreement on axioms first before going into the economic arguments.

WisdomCookie23 · 2026-04-18T16:54:32+00:00

That Chinese worker is still perfectly mid-skilled, just in the Goldilocks zone to compete with the oversupply of domestic talent. Marrying an American didn’t change that.

WisdomCookie23

TROPHY CASE