Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Empact's commentslogin

While this list certainly includes a mix of ideas, the fact that some of them are not in vogue in the current orthodoxy does not make them wrong. https://www.paulgraham.com/say.html


There's abundant evidence against this belief:

  * Lottery winners do not commit less crime than those who do not win the lottery: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31962
  * Studies of identical twins adopted and raised apart shows that crime is more correlated with genetics than environment: 45% nature vs 18-27% nurture https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25936380/
  * "While individual study estimates vary, meta-analyses have suggested the level of heritability of antisocial behavior is approximately 40–60%. Shared environmental factors have been estimated to explain approximately 11–14% of the variance in antisocial/criminal behavior and non-shared environmental influences approximately 31–37%" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6640871/
  * “Black men raised in the top 1 percent – by millionaires – were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.” https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/03/19/race-class-debate/


Indenting that triggered monospace code formatting, which is preventing those from becoming links.


I'm hearing this high pitched sound, does anyone else hear that?

I clicked and scrolled through several of those studies, and those snippets are incredibly misleading. I would recommend not using these in debates, unless you want to come across as a poor researcher acting in bad faith.

The very last one says nothing about genetics at all, that's saying the justice system is biased.

The second to last is part of a much more nuanced section talking about environmental impacts and the role that can play in biological expression. It literally says:

> Thus, just as biological mechanisms can influence environmental responses, environmental stressors can affect biological expressions.

I stopped reading at that point.


Leftists ask “why don’t Americans hate capitalism,” while Americans live in one of the most prosperous and advanced societies in the world.


Unfortunately, leftists rely on Americans ability to empathize with the plight of the vassal states in the world which have been pillaged and destroyed in service of the most prosperous and advanced societies. It is obvious at this point that Americans do not have empathy and will gladly accept the state of the world as long as they don't have to witness the injustice of it.


"Americans live in one of the most prosperous and advanced societies in the world" for only a small % of the people that live in America!

1 - 2 million people are homeless!

What next mr south african, will go for 100 trillion?


Affordability is a combination of individual productivity and the economy’s productivity. A substantial increase in the economy’s productivity through AI and robotics should result in greater overall production, which should tend to result in abundance, and thus a lower cost of living, which can even overwhelm a decline in your individual productivity.


You can also use pigouvian taxation to make polluting expensive. Cost savings is generally the motivation for allowing negative externalities like pollution, so a natural way to reverse it in many cases while allowing flexibility when there is no practical alternative.


The problem is you can't enforce your taxation outside your borders without things like tariffs or subsidies.


>>without things like tariffs

Right, and if the US congress[0] properly cared about the environment, the regulation would require both A) requirements to keep the manufacturing clean if done here, and B) tariffs for goods produced with polluting processes over there, scaled so the costs are somewhat higher if produced dirty.

They can produce cleanly here or there without extra tariffs and without losing market share because some other competitor externalizes the pollution costs.

[0] Tariffs are proper the domain of Congress, not any other branch. OFC, because of this, it isn't really an option for California, since states cannot levy tariffs externally or vs other states.


This website is about what is banned in California, ostensibly for environmental reasons. So pigouvian taxes would enable them to unban those practices while mitigating their harms.

If you’re worried about people evading the tax, you can make a border adjustment for imports across national borders. Note California is simply forcing things to be done elsewhere.


I can attest that the Quaker Meeting on 9th street is an earnest reverent bunch. I attended regularly for some time around 2020.


The Old English representation, inclusive of the long S, is consistent with the 1847 source material, as you can see here: https://archive.org/details/firstsixbooksofe00byrn/page/n21/...

The first printed copy, of 1482, was in Latin: https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667076/

The Greek (Ελληνικά) representation is presumably consistent with Euclid's original manuscript, e.g. as represented in this copy, of 888: https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=208


Many people speak Russian, including many who do not live in Russia, e.g. about 30% of Ukranians.

Beyond that, I don't see how we stand to durably reduce military action by making languages mutually unintelligible.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language#/media/Fi...


This is an inaccurate description of what they are doing. For example Renee Good was actively blockading a street, by placing her car perpendicularly across it. Some may be engaged in observation, but that is not broadly the case, and organizationally, their apparent goal is to obstruct.


If she was trying to blokade the street she was doing a pretty bad job. A car goes past hers in the video where the murderer shoots her three times and calls her a "fucking bitch" while her corpse weights down the gas and her SUV goes careening down the road.

That's just normal law enforcement behavior though. I'm sure if she hadn't been short with him he would've otherwise been well-behaved and enforced our immigration laws without incident.


Their stated purpose and their actual function can be different, and speech that would otherwise be free can be illegal if involved in incitement, bribery, collusion, etc.

If I’m having a conversation with my friend, it’s free speech. If we’re plotting the overthrow of the government, it’s insurrection.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: