"Persian" is a culture and language. "Iranian" is a nationality. You're right to emphasize that it's the state that violates human rights, not the culture. Though the culture almost certainly enables it.

It's sad that some people fall prey to their darker nature, but not surprising. I try not to blame them. Fentanyl is the a sad inevitability as well: until recently, the cheapest drugs to produce and transport weren't that dangerous. But discovery of fentanyl is like the discovery of nuclear fission: you can't undo it.

I'm sorry to hear that. Best wishes for your family and his other loved ones.

Please disregard my comment. I thought you were the same person the parent was replying to.

Pick a side. Do you think people are deadbeats if they never participated in war? Or are they monsters if they have? Sounds like one can't win arguing with you.

And what's your aim in bringing up your service? It read like "How do you know someone is a vet? Don't worry, they'll tell you", but you may have meant it to imply something clever about the topic at hand.

The whole point of this article is to claim that's not true. (I emphasize that we are not talking about the *sense* of knowing things but rather about an information flow that contains redundancy and can differentiate between justified knowledge and anything else.)

I've been saying there was something wrong in the architecture of these models for ages. If it just turned out the training was just subtly wrong, that would be disappointing. (Have we needlessly been on the wrong path?)

Don't worry about the polyurethane in this material--you'll be too busy eating polyurethane from foam mattresses and cushions.

The first is that people might have to pay for this feature even if they don't want it. Apple always shoves its designs down people's throats. But the real problem is that it may cause idiots to touch my screen instead of my mouse.

Who says this change will be painless? But besides that, I'm not qualified to address general inequality. But consider that in this economic system, with all its faults, almost everybody can afford the basic necessities and some nice things like electronics. The same cannot be said for the fairer systems, because fairness causes shortages.

I'm not sure how that scenario would follow from what I suggested. I think you left out too many assumptions and implications.

If you allow for negative externalities ad libitum, you are still spending future generations' money--not in the form of cash, but in the form of value extraction from the world. Perhaps framing things this way would let voters make more different decisions, both about borrowing and about (the cost of) energy usage.

I find our different ideas really interesting. I hear you that it's repugnant that the well-off would be able to live the same lifestyle while the poor would be hurt. I don't like it either. There are a few ameliorating or redeeming factors, though--and I'm not an economist so please know that a more knowledgeable person would make a stronger argument, but the hero you need isn't part of this thread.

First, it might not happen the way you expect. Traveling by plane costs so much energy that it might take a bite out of the travel budget of even the rich. Not Bill Gates or Taylor Swift, but I suspect the very richest people are a small proportion of travel. And few rich people actually enjoy blowing money. The social pressure (of spending an extravagant amount on travel) would also push the rich to more often fly on commercial flights instead of private.

Next, there is a "minimum fair" cost of emissions. It's hard to say what that is, but if I'm being ethical in the "do no harm" sense, I should pay the cost of energy production plus necessary profits (the market rate) plus the cost of harm: environmental, warming, rising coastlines--everything. The cost of harm is hard to calculate but if politicians even started thinking about this, it would be a start. Imagine a carbon emission fund, a methane emission fund, and a XX greenhouse gas emission fund. Gas purchases would include payments to the first fund, and it would be dedicated to environmental repair in all the ways you'd expect. (The last fund would be more around ozone layer repair than the first two.) The net harm would be zero. This is called a Pigouvian tax, but I'm not sure if it has ever been implemented in a totally correct way.

Banning emissions by legislation would also have unintended consequences. Even very complicated legislation does not take care of edge cases. Say you made air freight impossible or limited the number of times a person could fly per year. Your legislation would not take into account how much I need an urgent package or how badly you need to fly to see a sick relative (despite recently having traveled). But if the harm were built into the cost, we would be able to make that decision for ourselves. The $100 shipping or $3000 flight might seem like a bargain based on how much we needed it. But if you make it illegal, all that extra value (how much I need the package / how much you need the flight) is thrown away.

Finally, the rich being rich and the poor being poor is sad. I don't like it. It doesn't feel fair. This is a topic that I've heard elegant arguments about which I can't reproduce, but suffice to say I'm not aware of any way to improve the situation that doesn't involve horrid unintended consequences--except perhaps a Pigouvian tax. Theoretically, I'm interested in whether solving collective action problems and reducing transaction costs could give more opportunities to the poor, but I have nothing to share on that yet.

Yeah, I don't think people really understand the implications for food. I live somewhere warm and I can't grow anything I'd actually like to eat besides sweet potatoes. Every other crop I've tried has died or is flagging. In fact these plants can be grown, but it's much harder--and with more disease and lower yields--than in more temperate regions.

We will see regions that grow spinach and lettuce become unable to grow them. Summer tomatoes will become tasteless. At least children that want to eat fewer cruciferous vegetables will be happy.

No, you've mixed it up. The inconvenient truth is that we can't meaningfully reduce fossil fuels without incentivizing the change economically. And that is such a hard thing to do that politicians don't even discuss how to get started.

It feels like you tried valiantly to list a lot of good movies but couldn't.