darq

Anki might be worth your while if you are trying to learn something.

Load it up with a flashcard deck of something you want to remember, and it’ll show you those flashcards. Lots of people use it to learn languages, but it’s also good for anything that requires memorisation.

Ah no, that sucks. I’ve been using a lot of those apps.

Nobody at Google has heard of the concept that controls at the edge of the screen are harder to aim accurately at.

Interestingly, that’s the exact opposite of how it works on non-touch interfaces. The edges are prime control areas for pointer-driven interfaces.

Slight challenge to optimise a UX for both.

Yes, they have two date systems in common use. It’s only the year that changes though. And there’s no way to confuse the two, usually. If you write “2023” instead of “令5” it’s pretty obvious. I suppose there is a potential for confusion if one just writes a two-digit year though.

It’s not radical at all. It’s just ineffectual, unfortunately.

Yup, it’s a single character from the name of the era, and the era changes every time the emperor does.

Yeah but half the time is actually: EYY/MM/DD. Like this year is 令5/MM/DD.

And some years have two values, 2019 was both 平31, from 01/01 until 04/30, then 令1 from 05/01 onwards.

Yup, that’s what happens whenever “civility” is the primary metric used for moderation.

Trolls post heinous nonsense, and respond to people in the most insufferable rage-bait-y manner. But if anyone so much as calls them an asshole, they get their comments removed for saying a no-no word.

You still have the problem of misaligned incentives

Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.

That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.

together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion

I reject that premise.

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Except we aren’t talking about two people, are we? We’re talking about entire populations of people.

And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don’t work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we’re paranoid that they might just be lazy.

We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others’ throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they “don’t deserve”.

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

People don’t actually pay these costs there employer does, usually as an employment incentive.

Tying your ability to access healthcare to a private employer who can remove that access on a whim is utterly insane.

Insurance is optional in the US. So no they don’t necessarily pay it, infact it’s not uncommon to skip coverage to save some money.

People do not voluntarily go without health coverage. They go without when they cannot afford it. Which is a problem that doesn’t exist in countries with universal coverage.

And those people without coverage when suffer enormous financial burdens if they fall sick or get hurt.

Healthcare isn’t optional in life. It’s a matter for time before everyone needs something.

There are many different types of universal healthcare, the fact that you are making such a broad statement shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh shut the hell up.

I’ve lived in countries with various models, some with private coverage and some without. Some free at point of use, some only subsidised.

The reason I didn’t enumerate every option is because it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.

Okay, so you actually are too stupid to have this conversation. Lookup what Medicaid is, and additionally realise that needs-based programs are by definition not universal. In fact this is one of the biggest criticisms of Medicare for all and UBI, they involve giving money to a large percentage of the population that don’t need it.

I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but it’s clear you need someone to walk you through this very basic concept:

The rich pay higher taxes. So giving them 1000 dollars a month in UBI or healthcare is immediately recovered by the higher taxes. This isn’t difficult.

And making the rich use the same systems as the everyone else means that the rich are incentivised to improve the quality of the services that everyone uses.

In fact universal systems literally tax the poor to pay the rich, it’s the epitome of a regressive policy.

That might be the single stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Congratulations.

The current US system is inefficient sure, it’s not as inefficient as widely claimed and arguing that universalising it makes it cheaper for the user is simply false.

It is literally empirical fact. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

Because they have higher tax rates.

But US people pay this too. Except they pay it to for-profit insurance companies, who are significantly less efficient than a single, universal, non-profit fund.

And they pay more. A lot more. To have a for-profit company sit between them and their doctors, practicing medicine without a licence, telling the doctors what care the patient is and is not allowed to receive.

And all that additional complexity also costs money! Healthcare professionals waste time trying to get procedures paid for and negotiating with insurance companies about the needs of their patients.

Like. It’s just flat out cheaper to pay the additional taxes rather than the insurance company.

And it’s just less useful and less pleasant for everyone involved. People from countries with universal healthcare don’t know what “preauthorisation”, “deductables”, and “copays” are. If they get sick or hurt, they just go to the doctor.

Additionally if you actually poll the public, they do not want to pay the additional taxes to fund this universal healthcare.

Firstly, I don’t actually believe you. But secondly, if that is actually true, that is so stupid as to make me wonder if US people are lobotomised at birth.

You can literally save money, and get a much more pleasant healthcare experience, and all you have to do is allow poor people to have coverage too. And the US says that they would rather fund an insurance company CEO’s yacht than do that.

“This is such utter nonsense” So you don’t think that people choose to be wasteful?

That’s not what I said. Read again.

And guess what, laws do not pass if people do not already engage in personal habits that the laws encourage.

Of course they do. Behaviour can follow legislation. Furthermore most of the legislation would need to target corporations, not individuals. In which case behaviour definitely follows legislation.

No, they both have consequences. I’m pointing out that the distinction being made that somehow political views have special considerations over all the other personal actions is worthless. (Remember what the actual topic was?)

Because one primarily affects the person making the decision, with smaller secondary effects on other people. And the other primarily affects other people, doing significantly more harm.

People being overweight does not affect you nearly as much as people voting to ban gay marriage or trans healthcare affects LGBT+ people.

It is. Here’s the hard facts,

Oh please.

overweight people are less happy,

Which is none of your business.

they have worse socialisation,

You are deeply unpleasant yourself, take the log out of your own eye.

they are unattractive ( which as much as people want to pretend like attractiveness doesn’t matter, it absolutely does when it comes to casual interaction),

Nobody owes you attractiveness you little freak.

they have shorter, less productive lives,

None of your business, how other people spend their lives.

they increase health care costs.

Old people increase healthcare costs. If unhealthy people die earlier as you say, then they probably save the system money.

All of these effect society as a whole and the individual.

Not even remotely to the degree that political action does. Voting outweighs all of that by many orders of magnitude.

I have no idea what you are talking about, I never downplayed any laws, you’re just fabricating that so you can justify your whining.

It’s called an “example” sweetheart.

Progressives aren’t ending relationships based on political stances around taxes. They’re ending relationships because of bigotry against marginalised groups.

If what you were saying is true, how does every developed nation on Earth, except for the US, afford it?

Not to mention that universal healthcare is cheaper than the US model.

Nobody said “beat”.

Many of the biggest issues {climate change, healthcare, drug abuse etc} faced are directly caused by poor personal habits, not voting

This is just such utter nonsense. Many places around the world have made massive inroads into solving these problems and every single time, the solution has come from systemic policy decisions.

Healthcare has been addressed by various universal healthcare systems, drug abuse has been addressed through decriminalisation, offering of rehabilitation, and making sure people aren’t living under crushingly miserable economic conditions.

And climate change is not caused by individual decisions, but by the fact that our economic system only values profit, and thus incentivises the destruction of the environment to increase profit.

So the question is out of all personal decisions, why are political views being carved out as an exception that is worthy of terminating a relationship?

Because politics affects people’s lives. I could not care less if you’re a nice person to my face if you are voting for policies that make it impossible for me to live my life.

You talk about personal choices as if someone being overweight is going to measurably affect your life, when it just isn’t, no not even through increases in health insurance costs. And then downplay the actual effect of conservatives criminalising my healthcare.

One of those actions clearly has orders of magnitude more impact than the other. Yet strangely, you are concerned about the one with negligible impact, and want to ignore the one with considerable impact.

Sometimes when you are criticised it’s because you are a complete moron, not because your ideas are so brilliant they send people running.

You are below my contempt. Your ideas are simplistic and have been addressed decades ago. You are painfully boring.

Because many of us understand that there isn’t a meaningful difference between personal interaction and political action.

The above person treats the gay people he meets with civility when he interacts with them personally. He also votes for political movements who want to dissolve their marriage and want to treat being gay as something to be hidden from public view.

That is not respecting gay people. That is not treating them as equals. It does not matter how nice and polite you are to someone’s face if you vote against them being able to live fulfilling lives.

In any form of hierarchy?

No not any. But conservativism is characterised by belief in inherent hierarchy. That all people are not equal. That some people are more or less worthy than others.

And note I’ve said “characterised” and “belief”. In reality ideologies are complex, and the humans and organisations implementing them are even more complex and subject to corruption. So it’s not a simplistic “presence of hierarchy == right-wing”. Some ostensibly left-wing governments fall to authoritarianism. After all politicians are vulnerable to greed and corruption. Though notably those governments begin to quickly abandon their left-wing principles as they do so. For example, the Chinese Communist Party has certainly gone all-in on capitalist ideas of private ownership of land and the means of production.

That characterisation is simply a useful lens for understanding political movements. One can easily see that when there is a push to distribute power “down” the hierarchy, people who refer to themselves as conservative will be more likely to oppose it. They oppose social safety nets that benefit those at the bottom, they oppose transgender recognition, they opposed gay marriage, they opposed ending slavery.

Would a technocracy be right wing?

Depends. If you mean replacing the democratically elected government with a government of “experts” (who gets to be an expert being decided by, you guessed it! The experts)? Then yes. As that is basically just a form of aristocracy.

But if you mean democratically elected politicians relying on expert advice to make policy decisions, then no.

Or leftist states with a leadership structure? Like, any leftist state.

Depends. How is that leadership structure maintained? If those positions are elected, and the elections are fair and representative, then no. Because the power ultimately lies with the people, with one person having one vote.

But, do you have a point that you are approaching? Because at this point it seems like you are just asking endless questions. In which case I kinda agree with the other person, you’re sealioning.