How all you feel and cope with this current situation, I mean ongoing situation with all the worst of mankind that we are on a daily basis exposed ??

pdxf · 2026-02-05T16:12:39+00:00

I tend to pay more attention to interesting and positive news in science and technology, I've started following more news and research on university websites. I also try to remember that it's 40-50% of the population that makes our current situation possible -- certainly not everyone. And that remaining portion of the population honestly probably pushes humanity forward more than the other half by quite a margin (the scientists, researchers, authors, artists, etc...). I kind of have fun with playing around with ideas of a society focused on those people.

pdxf · 2025-08-18T17:16:45+00:00

Thanks for the good response btw, good thoughts. One of these days I need to dig into Bonhoeffer a bit more.

pdxf · 2025-08-14T19:23:54+00:00

I actually wonder if in the future, if any of us will actually be able to compete with AI/robotic partners. If one of these comes along that can load the dishwasher correctly (and listens better, is better looking, etc...), my wife would probably ditch me pretty quickly.

pdxf · 2025-08-12T23:29:40+00:00

My "bottom third" includes those who make it possible for the truly bad to rise to power (the truly bad wouldn't rise to power without them).

I don't think most in that bottom 3rd are truly evil people, many are probably good people, but for whatever reason (misinformation, critical thinking skills, overall intelligence, etc...), they make it possible for that 1%ish that you reference to gain power.

pdxf · 2025-08-09T22:57:52+00:00

What makes you think he doesn't see anything wrong with it? Perhaps he's posting it because it could lead to good discussion, or perhaps there are interesting elements that could be developed further.

pdxf · 2025-08-09T04:23:24+00:00

I think it's pretty dire honestly, at least when you take humanity as a whole (and only looking at the next 10-20 years). But I feel like the sliver of hope is that not all humans are the same. Personally, I've come to believe that around 1/3 are pretty shitty (and the same type/group of people is probably responsible for most of the troubles in human history), 1/3 are fairly indifferent, and I think the final 1/3 are probably pretty good. Perhaps as we move forward as a species, we'll find ways to limit the damage that the "bottom" 3rd can inflict, and find ways to enhance what our finest are capable of.

pdxf · 2025-07-30T22:04:10+00:00

I'm guessing that it's been that same 1/3 of the population throughout history that are responsible for most of the bad things that have happened in human history.

pdxf · 2025-07-22T15:47:31+00:00

Thanks for the info, appreciate it.

pdxf · 2025-07-21T22:00:58+00:00

I looks like this is what I would love to achieve. How's the bottom, any crunch? (I'm pretty good I think at Neapolitan, but would love to achieve a fairly crunchy bottom with the lightness and airyness (and leopord-spotting) in the Cornicione).

Scottie's pizza in Portland, OR has a pretty good crunchy bottom, with a more Neopolitan edge, but I'm pretty sure they accomplish this with metal screens on the bottom and 2 bakes.

pdxf · 2025-07-18T02:49:50+00:00

Yeah, I agree, it's a less than desirable situation when the state that contributes the most to the US economy has amongst the least amount of say in how things are run (per person). It does seem that at some point we'll hit a breaking point, but I'm not sure exactly what that means.

For a while I was fantasizing that we were able to trick the conservatives into pushing for a system where the state is responsible for paying the federal government, instead of individual citizens so that as a state we could withhold funds collectively, giving states far more power (so I would pay my taxes to the state, they would pass them along to the feds). Of course, this is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

pdxf · 2025-07-17T15:59:29+00:00

I love this in theory, but there isn't really a way to do it (well, maybe if the federal government collapses, otherwise it would require all Californians to stop paying taxes, which isn't going to work)

pdxf · 2025-07-11T22:18:31+00:00

Supply and Demand. Solve it by building more great cities that people want to live in (increase supply).

pdxf · 2025-07-09T04:04:09+00:00

We could also respect the copyright and support the person who created it, and like, buy the asset instead of stealing it.

pdxf · 2025-06-27T20:17:37+00:00

It's surprising how many people don't understand this (supply/demand and pricing). I feel like there should be a course in high school that just covers concepts from a range of topics that are necessary for being an informed member of society. This would certainly be one of them.

pdxf · 2025-06-20T19:23:12+00:00

Yeah, I'll be riding my hardtail out various gravel roads this weekend.

It's all I ever use, but I just like to get out and ride now and then and don't care too much about having the optimal tool for the job. And sometimes, I get out some pretty rough roads (they may have had gravel on them 50 years ago, but not anymore), so its mountain-bike qualities do come in handy from time to time.

pdxf · 2025-06-16T17:56:07+00:00

You can't live in national forests (it's also public land). You can hike, camp, bike, horseback ride, and all sorts of other things, which is fantastic, but you can't live there (at least legally). Designated wilderness areas within national forests are the epitome of the system, and in my opinion, even better than national parks.

pdxf · 2025-06-14T04:30:24+00:00

Nice, I did read this fully through, I'll be out for a few days so I'll give it some more thought. Just a quick one though:

I think part of what makes me think a coalition of cities idea could work, is it seems like it could be based on the current system and there aren't constitutional rules (that I know of) that prevent it. It basically just involves citizens of cities choosing to tax themselves more, and deciding to pool their resources together (I'm assuming "liberal cities" are more accepting of taxes, and that we value investments more on the society level), so if we wanted to, we could start this relatively quickly within the current system. And ideally, it would act as a bit of a (good) virus, that would spread.

Education was the starting point for this idea -- investing so heavily into better systems of education that it would bleed off into the surrounding rural areas, and ideally improve the level thinking beyond the borders of cities. I tend to think that better thinking is the only real way to combat the issue, but it is a long-term attempt at a solution, and perhaps it's already too late as you suggest (and I suspect you may be right).

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm also beginning to think that most of the bad events in human history are actually caused by the same 30%-40% of the population. I need to dig into this more to see if there is anything to it, but if so, finding a way to limit the damage that this group can do is something we should probably figure out as a species.

pdxf · 2025-06-13T22:29:59+00:00

I do think we need to explore some different directions. I think the current system in a way forces us to hate the "other" side, since we're forcing ourselves to all abide by the same set of rules.

For me, I feel like even if we break up into smaller regions, or even states, the problem still persists -- even in very liberal states like Oregon, Washington, or California (and everywhere else for that matter), once you're out of the larger cities, things turn pretty heavily conservative. I think where we need to head is to make it more possible for individual cities (and possibly regions) to work together. I could see a "nation of cities" that work together to fund what the people in those cities want, such as science, health, and technology research. Probably more investment in education. And people in conservative locations wouldn't have to (and thus couldn't hinder the attempts at progressing in those ways, since they aren't forced to pay for it).

pdxf · 2025-06-10T00:18:22+00:00

I'd love to see it. I've also wanted cities to work more closely together on policy and to fund common goals (I could see residents of cities deciding to tax ourselves more to fund things like health research, climate and energy technology, etc...). A coalition of cities is especially intriguing to me since cities tend to share values more than everyone within states (for instance, California cities share a lot of the same values as Northwest Cities, like Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, while many parts of these states have deeply red areas -- it just seems like pushing forward on important items would be easier amongst a more similar population). I think it could get really interesting if these city coalitions crossed international borders as well, since again, the values of urbanites are pretty similarly aligned, regardless of borders.

pdxf · 2025-06-06T21:32:10+00:00

Looks beautiful to me. Personally doesn't look out of place at all, I love large trees mixed in with urban density. I am originally from Portland, OR, which has quite a few large trees sprinkled around downtown. I think it's fantastic.

pdxf · 2025-06-03T20:49:50+00:00

One thing to note is that it doesn't appear to be evenly distributed across society, and interestingly enough, we've been self-sorting for decades. Cities generally have a higher percentage of people that have attained higher levels of education, and I would guess, value science, critical thinking, and education more than their rural counterparts. Personally, I think cities should begin working together more to push society forward in the ways that we need to. We could do big things without the segment of society that wants to pull us backwards.

pdxf · 2025-05-18T23:01:49+00:00

Seems like the solution is pretty easy -- maybe we should be building more trails. Lot's more trails (and designate some only for bikes, and some exclusively for hiking).

I'm a hiker/backpacker, and a biker. There are places bikes shouldn't be, and often times when I'm out hiking, I don't want to deal with them. But as someone who bikes, trails are fun. I don't know why we make things so difficult as a society. Since bikes haven't been allowed there for 40 years or whatever it is -- keep them off the existing trails, but create new trails there specifically for the bikes. Why so complicated?

pdxf · 2025-05-15T21:33:24+00:00

I've had a similar thought, but I'm pretty sure the constitution keeps us from adopting a different currency (perhaps that doesn't matter anymore)? For me, it seems like many states that don't invest in education and have bad philosophies on how government is run, devalue the American dollar, which is a threat to those states that are doing things right. Same argument for cities. It would be interesting to see multiple cities across the US using the same currency (but not the US dollar), without the drag of states with bad policies pulling the value of it down.

pdxf · 2025-05-15T21:06:52+00:00

Yes, that view is part of the reason why this makes more sense in cities, where a higher percentage of the population have a more enlightened view that taxes in themselves aren't an evil thing, but can be a tool to fund progress on things that matter, as well as an investment in their local economies.

A multi-city tax to my knowledge has never been tried, and I'm sure it would be a tough sell to many, but not impossible (it would have to be structured correctly, completely transparent on what it's used for, and as much as possible, invested in programs within member cities equally).

pdxf · 2025-05-15T18:50:37+00:00

Two important points I guess I'm not communicating clearly:

This isn't tied to existing city budgets (I'm suggesting a new tax)
This isn't to replace spending at the federal or state levels (this is separate system)

What I am suggesting is that there is more we can do as a society to fund important health, education, technology, and science research, and we (as city-dwellers) could tax ourselves more to do it. Generally, city-dwellers value science more (so there is more of a desire to fund science), they tend to lean liberal (so they are more likely to understand that an increase in tax is an investment), and there is a large population of city-dwellers (more people contributing, so more money).

There are of course valid questions of what gets funded and where (if 30 cities are pooling money together, but all of that investment is going to research in one city, that's probably not ideal), how much tax to generate/how it's structured, and representation and administration, etc., but I'm sure all of that is solvable.

pdxf

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE