Part of it may be the mindset of "paying for something = negative" and "getting something = positive." Micropayments maximize the time we spend thinking about the negative part of the transaction. On the other hand, if we wait too long and have a $1000 bill at the end of the year, that may be even more painful than having to think about smaller payments more often. The psychological sweet spot for many things is the once a month subscription.
People who actually intend to harm you don't tell you about it, especially not in public. They just do it.
Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind. As is the case here: Matze is almost certainly in no danger. But there is still a chance, so he hides from it.
In a better world, we'd prosecute everybody making violent threats, and that would be the end of it. In practice, practically none of these threats ever turn into violence, and law enforcement organizations generally ignore them. They'd be overwhelmed if they didn't.
In this world, having the death threats removed does, in fact, make me feel safer -- because the threat itself is the primary harm. It's often possible to remove the threats before I see them, by looking closer at the users who make them. Even if they can't remove it before I see it, leaving it up informs other users that this is allowed.
As I said, I'd much rather have the FBI take death threats seriously. But since they won't, removing them (and preventing users from making more) is better than leaving it there.
> Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind.
Regardless of the intentions of the one making the threat, if the threatened person knew with 100% certainty there was no real danger, then they would not feel fear. For example, if we receive an anonymous threat and then we learn that the person who made it was a 3rd grader on another continent. If we feel fear after receiving some seemingly empty threat, then it's because at least subconsciously we believe there is now some non-zero chance of facing danger.
My point was that it's not hypocritical for him to be upset about receiving online threats. It's the fact that people are making threats that's scary, not whether or not moderators are removing them.
This was confusing. The narrator leads by saying that cities are ponzi schemes and supports this by showing a cash flow graph, but that graph doesn't seem to be grounded with any examples. I find it surprising that long term maintenance costs more than the long term tax revenue growth. I would've liked to see more evidence that these cities really are unsustainable.
What you're referring to as "gatekeepers," I would see as one of many sources of evidence. Others include direct experience, non-expert opinion, data from experiments/studies, and so on. Ideally we'd weigh each source of evidence by how trustworthy and reliable they are, and then we'd use our brain to make sense of what may be true based on that evidence.
Society does not "work better when gatekeepers decide what the truth is." That's especially the case when the "truth" is political, and people have ideological incentives to report what they see as the truth in a certain light. Instead, society works better when individuals are free to look at the evidence and think about it for themselves. This is because in this case, you're treating the members of that society with human dignity.
Interestingly it was Mussolini who said, “Fascism should more appropriate be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." And this past election cycle and especially the past week, we've seen quite an alignment of those powers: the largest market cap companies, and a soon to be ruling political party.
> For example incitement to genocide must be a red line.
I don't think this has to do with why Twitter banned Trump.
> Iran’s leader has repeatedly shared tweets calling Israel a “deadly, cancerous growth” to be “uprooted and destroyed” — all going unchecked by Twitter.
> “The long-lasting virus of Zionism will be uprooted thanks to the determination and faith of the youth,” Khamenei wrote as recently as May.
I'm referring to the long term policy of tax cuts, starting in the 1980s. The data set you link to has real median income (after inflation) going up by about 40% since 1975, under 1% per year.
That's not zero, but compared to GDP, the stock market, and other measures of overall economic health -- which have gone up by an order of magnitude or more -- the median is practically immobile.
And for much of that time, it was even more immobile. The median was $31k in 1997, and was $31k in 2014. It bottomed out at $30k in 2012; it has been rising since but that was almost two decades of complete stagnation -- while GDP rose and stock markets climbed.
Your choice of a thirty-two year period, and 11 year period, and a 24 year period, when the unequal periods aren't supported by some kind of consistent in-period patterns in the conjectured independent variable, plus using fuzzy subjective descriptors for the independent variable, suggest a breathtaking degree of cherry picking and desired-results-driving-methodology, here.
They are unequal periods, and that's why we annualize the growth.
The periods aren't "cherry-picked." If you'd actually look at the plotted effective capital gains rate, you'd see a clear difference in tax policy in those three periods.
The "fuzzy subjective descriptors" are totally in line with the parent poster's: "long term tax policy."
> The periods aren't "cherry-picked." If you'd actually look at the plotted effective capital gains rate, you'd see a clear difference in tax policy in those three periods.
The first period includes within it a perfectly flat period longer than shortest of the periods you chose followed by a period of equal length that is more consistently increasing than the (mostly flat) period you've held up as an increasing trend, and then a period nearly as long as your shortest that is as consistently and more sharply decreasing than the one you hold up as showing a decreasing trend.
So, no, I don't see natural breakpoints in the data.
(You've kind of muddied whether you are more concerned with the actual cap gains tax rate or the trend in changes to the rate, seeming to lean a little more heavily on the former, so I focussed on that in my criticism; but if you care about the rates instead of the deltas the periods you chose still make no sense, for similar reasons.)
> The first period includes within it a perfectly flat period longer than shortest of the periods you chose followed by a period of equal length that is more consistently increasing than the (mostly flat) period you've held up as an increasing trend, and then a period nearly as long as your shortest that is as consistently and more sharply decreasing than the one you hold up as showing a decreasing trend.
It sounds like you're referring to the "maximum tax rate on long term gains." As I stated, I used the "effective capital gains tax rate," which is the average rate that is being taxed (long term cap gains tax is different than short term).
The price elasticity of higher education is 0, and healthcare is also very low. We see my more inflation in things that we're not willing to go without.
