Being able to engage in consensual activities without a threat violence from an outside party.
One of the problems with this approach is goin to be that AI will read entire papers. Oftentimes, scientists will put the political virtue signaling nonsense in the abstract, but that isn't actually supported by the substance of the paper. This is especially true in climate science, but it's a general issue for any grant funded work.
I think this is probably true for the bubble you live in (I don't mean that pejoratively), but that for most people it's just a synonym for stupid.
It's really not used in my bubble either, but I recognize that I don't regularly interact with a representative sample of the country.
Try visiting New Jersey. The Bitcoin community's got nothing on Jersey.
I love trying to imagine what must have happened for someone to make each warning/instruction label.
That's very charitable of you.
The state is worse than what they warn would happen without it.
What the rubes consuming those news conferences fail to realize is that the CIA makes a ton of money selling drugs and those confiscations keep prices high for them.
Once again, I believe they will have failed to "post-dict" the recession that's already happening.
Some of the work I do involves hedonic adjustments to historical price series (quality adjusted prices).
There's always a discontinuity right around '72/'73 and my colleagues are always at a loss for why the price of this or that behaved weirdly in that year. They rack their brains trying to come up with what happened in the specific industry or with the specific commodity that might explain the price movement.
When I offer the explanation that the entire monetary system changed, they look at me like I have two heads.
and both groups bribe the AMA to make sure trusted family doctors don't pass along real health advice
The Population Bomb and Other Disasters
"In 1968, two Stanford professors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, wrote a book at the suggestion of the executive director of the Sierra Club, a prominent environmentalist organization. Titled The Population Bomb, the book warned that increasing birth rates—helped by the abundance of energy—would become a species-level crisis. Too many people would mean too little food, water, and land.
Chaos would erupt.
Doom would follow.
All of this would happen in the coming decades.
The book’s ideas were not new. They were a modern repackaging of the economics of Thomas Malthus, who warned that an increase in economic growth would inevitably lead to a higher population than natural resources could sustain.
What both Malthus and the Ehrlichs failed to foresee was the degree to which human ingenuity would lead to innovations that would meet growing human needs. The result is that even though the population is larger than ever, the world’s food production per capita has never been higher than in modern times.
But tragically, fallacious Malthusian ideas have had a real-life impact on government policy. For example, lingering concerns about the population bomb led to horrific population control programs in countries around the world. Most know about China’s one-child policy. Less known is that the Peruvian government used US foreign-aid money to sterilize indigenous women involuntarily. Other population control policies were implemented around the world
The failure of these predictions has not disgraced the Malthusian worldview, however. In fact, its advocates continue to be treated as respected leaders in their fields. In 2023, Paul Ehrlich appeared on 60 Minutes to offer new warnings of extinction, despite a fifty-plus-year track record of being wrong.
The unfortunate reality is that predictions of environmental doom are useful for those that desire power. The greater the threat, the more power is needed. As history has shown, the government grows in times of crisis and rarely ever shrinks once the emergency has passed.
Even as concerns about global cooling have transformed into worries about global warming, the underlying need for power remains: the government needs to regulate, tax, and enjoy generally greater control over the organization of society.
This does not mean, of course, that all warnings about pollution and other negative externalities are not justified. What it does mean is that politicizing science is extremely dangerous. Whether it’s climate change, foreign policy, or covid-19, the unfortunate reality is that those that argue for aggressive state intervention are often rewarded with increased government funding. We pay for it with taxes, higher prices, and a loss of liberty.
The incentives of institutional research matter. In today’s world, they are too often guided by politics, not science."
Trading Bitcoin, Productive Assets, and Synthetic Dividends
"In this video, I discuss the risks of trading in and out of Bitcoin, as well as whether it makes post-tax sense to convert some of your Bitcoin holdings into a productive asset or an asset with yield, like stocks, bonds, rental properties, or businesses.
I also discuss how to create a "synthetic dividend" for any asset, including Bitcoin.
Just as it never makes sense to trade back into a hyperinflationary currency like the Turkish lira or Argentine peso, it probably doesn't make sense to liquidate your Bitcoin for USD.
Real estate, stocks, and bonds are great, but they are less portable and more subject to confiscation risks than Bitcoin. There is also the risk that they do not end up preserving your purchasing power as well as Bitcoin.
Bitcoin allows one to sidestep operational risk and confiscation, as well as elude regulatory risk thanks to Bitcoin's portability and confiscation resistance.
Bitcoin is the apex predator of assets. Moving out of it into anything else is more "di-worsification" than diversification, in my opinion."
I sure hope it's better than Strange New Worlds.
"If voting mattered, they wouldn't let us do it." -Emma Goldman, more or less
Corollary: they're trying to prevent us from voting because it might make a difference.
Outside perspective from Zuby on the state of America.
He raises the interesting question "How can there be a war on everybody?" wrt to sentiments across American society that the system is against them.
Here's how there can be a "war on everybody": The regime is at war with all of us and most people are so myopic and narcistic that they only see how it affects people like them.
In the excerpt, "successfully" is the operative word. In the title, I think it's taken for granted that the reader will infer that.
I've had an issue with how market advocates talk about this for a while, because it often sounds like we're saying the entire economy will collapse if central planning is introduced. What our core theory actually implies is that central planning leads to much lower levels of prosperity than markets.
The Bombing of Hiroshima: The Crime and the Cover-Up
https://mises.org/wire/bombing-hiroshima-crime-and-cover
"The real effects of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were hidden from Americans until the New Yorker published an exposé in 1946. Americans finally were confronted with the truth—even if they didn't want to believe it."
I disagree. It just doesn't have a particularly useful meaning.
Basically, "Far Right" is anyone with any skepticism about any regime talking point.