> Knowing what little about humanity I do, what would be the end-game of covering up "aliens".
I think it's possible the government practically can't reveal information about extraterrestrials, supernatural phenomenon, or really anything that's within the realm of incredible.
The reason being - there will be a potentially large amount of people that will not believe what the government reveals or that they're being honest about their revelations.
You only have to see something like QAnon or the Russiagate stuff to see that a large segment of people across the political spectrum creates vast narratives founded in distrust of whatever is relatively credible and apparent.
So if the government were to say "we're aware of phenomenon that we cannot explain and it seems to be characteristic of some form of intelligence," you'd have many who would start arguing that the government is colluding with aliens or something. It could be destabilizing to society.
The total wealth of all American billionaires is $4 trillion, the same amount Bernie Sanders estimates M4A would cost on an annual basis.
So if you took all those assets, somehow found $4 trillion of buyers (lots of Chinese, Russians, and Saudis would line up, I'm sure) we'd get 1 year, not 3.
Universal healthcare in the USA would have a negative cost; that is, today, the US government spends more than Canada does per capita on providing healthcare to the population. And then private individuals spend as much more again. And for all that spending a huge proportion of the population has effectively zero healthcare.
So if the US could implement Canada's system wholesale not only would your health insurance costs and direct payments drop vastly but you'd also get a tax refund.
And it is about to get much worse according to the CDC in 2017. [1] IIRC there were some articles cant find them that talked about the Department of Defense tracking this as an existential threat to the future of the United States of America.
Maybe one-size-fits-all "guidance" is net harmful, and local knowledge and individual risk evaluation has outperformed the supposed advice, efforts and mandates of so-called experts.
You’re totally right. It’s strange to see random self-righteous, presumably highly-educated, safety-minded people suggest that the US should just be New Zealand. There’s been some really wildly unworkable things offered as though it’s just obviously correct.
The only failure we have to grapple with are all the people who demand any action in an emergency.
The most damaging force in a chaotic situation like a terrorist attack, financial crisis or natural disaster are those who scream "you must act now, do anything!"
Look at the demand for ventilators - it's likely that the people demanding them cost people their lives.
It's often that governments will act in ways that are much worse than had nothing been done at all, and at least in the context of something as complex and varied as a pandemic - local knowledge generally has vastly outperformed the one-size-fits-all mandates from the federal government.
I feel like the best option is that the federal government just fund the needs of the local governments though grants. If the local areas need the money, they'll petition for it. If they don't, a word won't be said.
Fauci is a mess honestly. He's been all over the map and revealed he's in the business of noble lies in the interest of policy objectives - which only backfires and erodes public trust.
Were the establishment smart, they'd have no problem with vaccination hesitancy by saying that after vaccination you can resume normal life and ditch the masks. Instead it's been the outrageous message of "nothing will change."
You only have to see how the establishment has handled the obesity epidemic in the US to see whether any of their supposed intelligence and expertise accomplishes anything.
> It was (and remains to be, for many of the OGs) about making a space for peaceful people which was outside of the manipulation of large institutions, both corporate and governmental.
I agree with this explanation, and would add that I think the simple point is that people should be able to save their hard-earned money and accumulate value in a way that's divorced from technocrats manipulating the economy.
Precious metals have served this purpose for a while, but obviously a virtual system dispenses with the huge inconveniences of storing heavy physical objects. You've got gold that can be transported at the speed of information.
The institutional system we have now has essentially decided that saving money is wrong, that deferring consumption is pernicious.
Of course, this is a boon for "consumer capitalism", which last I checked is reviled.
> Compared to the risk of going unvaccinated, it's an obvious choice.
I think the insidious and repugnant effect of this line of thinking is that it subverts the body autonomy and free will that every human being should enjoy.
The issue isn’t only risk, rather it’s individuals deciding based on their own judgement, which may involve their own evaluation (informed or not) of risk.
The public health establishment is set on presenting the illusion that people have absolutely no choice but to take a vaccine that was rapidly developed using novel technology.
In my opinion, this is unethical. No human being should be coerced or propagandized into taking drugs or medicine of any type.
The only responsibility of government should be presenting boring information about the vaccine to be used by people to decide what they’d like to do. But it’s very clear that society at large is set on propaganda and conformity in the pursuit of technocratic policy goals.
It’s precisely this well-intentioned pursuit of end goals augmented by the certainty of science that allowed the eugenics of the 1920s. And it seems like a century later we think we’re immune to that pernicious illusion afforded by science.
As someone in my late twenties who started a little later than the people who went through CS in college w/ internships, etc., you can do it!
It takes a bunch of persistence - just keep chugging at applications and learning.
If you don't jibe well with the leetcode interviews (I certainly don't, I just don't do well and I think it has to do with my anxiety), aim for smaller companies or really just any that ends up having a laxer interview process. They do exist though!
I'm convinced the leetcode stuff selects for something largely orthogonal to ability. My major was practically the same as CS, if not harder in many ways (EE) - I can understand any of the concepts in their full math and theory, etc., I generally just don't have them at at my fingertips to perform on demand, aside from basics. This stuff belongs in books to be referenced as needed.
I think it's possible the government practically can't reveal information about extraterrestrials, supernatural phenomenon, or really anything that's within the realm of incredible.
The reason being - there will be a potentially large amount of people that will not believe what the government reveals or that they're being honest about their revelations.
You only have to see something like QAnon or the Russiagate stuff to see that a large segment of people across the political spectrum creates vast narratives founded in distrust of whatever is relatively credible and apparent.
So if the government were to say "we're aware of phenomenon that we cannot explain and it seems to be characteristic of some form of intelligence," you'd have many who would start arguing that the government is colluding with aliens or something. It could be destabilizing to society.