It’s not about demonizing, it’s about bringing it under control. Silicon Valley behemoths cooperate with the US government in a way that TikTok does not.
During the pandemic there were very similar claims about the massive growth in wealth of the top 1%, where the graph conveniently started at the bottom of the 2020 stock market crash. See also: graphs that compare deaths from terrorist attacks vs. other causes, which start in 2002.
Unlike other professions, academics rarely face consequences for being wrong. A doctor who makes a bad diagnosis risks malpractice, a civil engineer risks their license, and so on.
Academics only really need to worry about the perception of their work by other academics, which isn't inherently tied to results (a notable exception is the hard sciences, which are conceptually much closer to industry).
Businesses and the free market are not an inherent good; they exist for the benefit of people and not the other way around.
Gambling companies, drug dealers, and scammers share a business model that is only profitable when preying on the vulnerable (and causing more suffering in the world), yet they hide behind the excuse that it’s up to the individual to self-regulate.
The people that can self-regulate are not their target audience! Their “tactics” are engineered to take advantage of the vulnerable, and not your average person. And they get away with it because of the American self-centered individualist mindset.
Allow me to play devils advocate. If a consenting adult wants to blow their whole paycheck at the casino, who are you to stop them? The casino did not trick or coerce the gambler. The rules are known and unchanging. According to the principles of freedom, you can't interfere with what two consenting parties agree to on their own. Why do you get to insert yourself in this transaction?
First, of course the casino "tricked" them, they literally manipulate their senses (visual, audio, temporal, spatial), they are Skinner boxes controlled by the opertaor.
Second, addiction suggests lack of full consent.
And clearly there are negative externalities to such a choice. That person may have a family, other debts they don't pay, may make poorer life choices as a result of blowing their paycheck , may choose violence or drugs or self-harm ... most of which will cost taxpayers and other third parties.
The argument seems to be whether people should be free to pursue activities they enjoy even if there are inherent risks, or if people feel that they know better and should step in to protect them from their own choices. It seems similar to how people
feel about free speech.
Again, "choices" made while in an addictive state is not "your own choice" (especially as it pertains to the developing brains of minors) and couching it in those terms is not helpful.
It sounds like a person that could spend their money like that because of the right music and lighting effects should probably get help before going to a casino.
Also, just as likely this person is already abusing their body with drugs.
This planet is HARD and not every thing born on it is going to have a good time. Ask the squirrels my neighbors shoot at if life is fair.
Nobody is an island. I would guess that the vast majority of cases of "blow their whole paycheck at the casino" is going to lead to some problem that society is going to have to solve afterwards.
This is not a devils advocate because in your hypothetical you already defined the gambler was a fully consenting, which is in alignment with the persons comment you replied to.
A more accurate devils advocate could be one who suggest that forms of manipulation and coercion should be allowed because its physically possible in reality to do so.
I think it is a devils advocate because there are plenty of people who think the state should disallow gambling by consenting adults.
As for when coercion is used... I don't think it's useful to play devils advocate for coercion. That one is settled, everyone already agrees that coercion is bad.
Wow! Just discovered the Spotlight customization and it is so much faster and more useful when you remove certain locations and turn off definitions and Siri suggestions.
That sounds delightful. Sadly, while Apple documents “Suggestions in Search”, and I can even see that option when I search Settings for Siri, the option itself is missing from the Siri & Search page.
The point of human rights is to protect the underprivileged - the privileged of any given society don’t need to have these protections because they are at the top of the social hierarchy and get to call the shots. They would simply use their influence to get an exception for themselves. That’s why the US constitution is great, because it’s such a pain in the ass to change (unfortunately the privileged invent “interpretations” to change it retroactively).
Your thought experiment exists in a utopia where the above isn’t the case, which isn’t really applicable to any human society that’s ever existed. The top of the food chain will Until humans stop forming hierarchies, we need rights.
Privacy though is perpetuating that priviledged class because they can do their shady business in secret. If everything was transparent, that would be harder to achieve.
Also the "every human society that's ever existed" isn't true, because for sure when humans were nomads, you basically knew what's happening with everybody in your tribe, transparency was at 100%, privacy at 0. It's also the case today in many places such as small villages where everybody knows what everybody else is doing and it seems to be ok.
It'd be great to expose shady business, but somebody has to enforce the forced transparency and that's a LOT of power. Whoever has that power can pretty easily keep privacy for themselves and their friends, use it to blackmail others, and enforce it more harshly on their enemies.
My point is that no matter what society you look at, the privileged get the nice things (like privacy) automatically whereas the underprivileged have to get it encoded into law, and even then it's not guaranteed. It's a rigged game, and the right to privacy levels the playing field.
When humans were nomads, we didn't have human rights so the point is kind of moot, but we still had secrets (even if gossip made it harder to keep them secret) and we still had a strong social hierarchy with privileged elders.
Of course, it needs to be constitutional for it to work, a complete ban of privacy. There can't be any entity that is priviledged over that because that would be terrible. Keep in mind that "human rights" is a thing we invented (or those people in power invented) and also a thing we can change, my point is that the human right of privacy really only actually benefits those in power more than the common person (who is going to be subjected to the violation of their privacy anyway) and by making privacy illegal constitutionally is really going to level the playing field.
I'm truly sorry if this comes off as a personal attack because I'm trying really hard for it not to be but my frustration bubbles over.
> demolishing beautiful, sustainably-built housing with shoddy, ugly, mass-produced 5-over-1s
YES. BECAUSE THAT'S ALL MODERN ZONING PERMITS. WHICH IS PRECISELY THE [bad word] PROBLEM.
In our haste, particularly on the West Coast, to ensure that we build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody, we've made zoning codes that produce THIS OUTCOME.
There's a reply upthread that says that density advocates want to cram everyone into Soviet-style "dystopian" high rises and, to be honest, your reply here sounds a lot like that.
A WORLD of difference exists between "detached dwelling on a 7,500 square foot lot" and "clone stamp 5-over-1 with empty retail on the bottom." BUT ZONING DOESN'T PERMIT IT. We absolutely should be building rowhouses and stacked flats and plaza housing and all of the other beautiful, people-scale-yet-still-dense, workable housing types that have been tried all over the planet yet America thinks we're too god damn special to have because "American Dream".
If you have rules that say you can only build 5-over-1s, it should come as no shock at all when those are the only things being built, especially in the very tiny slice of areas where it's permitted to build anything dense at all.
If the truth is that zoning is the only obstacle holding us back from idyllic, beautiful mixed-density cities, then I'm showing my ignorance, but I'm not convinced that it is. From what I've seen, developers love building places like Mission Bay in SF and Seaport in Boston, made of cheap and ugly ticky-tacky that caters to insular WFH yuppies. If that's the vision of our utopian future, count me out.
> If the truth is that zoning is the only obstacle holding us back from idyllic, beautiful mixed-density cities, then I'm showing my ignorance, but I'm not convinced that it is.
It definitely is. I work in IT but one of my kids is in land use planning and they have regaled me with many stories of how builders come to the city (not in California) with plans. All of them involve a zoning variance and, more often than not, a trip through what is called Design Review. If the zoning change doesn't kill it--usually because they want a departure from what is called "floor area ratio" rules or from the "wedding cake" style zoning that is supposed to keep zones of detached housing "safe" from "impacts"--then design review absolutely does. Which dovetails into...
> made of cheap and ugly ticky-tacky that caters to insular WFH yuppies
...your other point. It's fine to not like the design of a particular building, but to enforce design aesthetic onto someone else is also a failing of zoning. Design review is often used as a cudgel to "catch" what zoning doesn't (so the rules say this kind of building is allowed but neighbors don't want it) and then administrivia it into, if not oblivion, then a very expensive project through things like "more building modulation" and "tamp down building massing" and "mitigate shadow impacts".
In your world, everyone counts except the people who actually live in the community today and will be affected by changes. You're shocked that outsiders come into a town with plans to build things that require special consideration and the people of the town demand it be put through a rigorous process?
I get it, there are real issues. But minimizing real concerns of people that are the stakeholders isn't fair. Construction means years of noise and dust, and traffic issues in many cases and people don't want that. People are wary of the character of their town being ruined - what makes the town a great place to be. I agree that there's usualy a middle ground that could be found. But importantly, to your last point...
> It's fine to not like the design of a particular building, but to enforce design aesthetic onto someone else is also a failing of zoning.
I disagree. Go to somewhere like the UK and you'll see in many places they not only restrict what you can do to existing structures, but they dictate which materials can be used to build new developments. They do this because it allows the area to develop while also hopefully maintaining the character of the place. The thing that makes the place nice today. If someone wanted to put up a house covered in vinyl siding, they wouldn't be allowed to.
I fully support enforcing new developments having to use certain materials and be restricted to certain sizes, styles, and layouts.
> In your world, everyone counts except the people who actually live in the community today and will be affected by changes.
In my world, everyone counts including the people who actually live in the community today and will be affected by changes...alongside the people who do not yet live there and thus have no voice.
I am vehemently opposed to ladder-pulling in all its forms.
> But minimizing real concerns of people that are the stakeholders isn't fair.
I do not believe I am minimizing their real concerns, I believe I am putting them on the same footing as other real concerns, concerns which people who want to act insular have no motivation to consider. Concerns like the state bill in question here attempts to balance.
Cities change or they die. The world is full of inconveniences and problems related to change but it is not fair to use the regulatory power of the state to insist that a hamlet remain as-is in perpetuity. There are strategies to mitigate those inconveniences instead of "nope, not here."
> I fully support enforcing new developments having to use certain materials and be restricted to certain sizes, styles, and layouts.
In a perfect world, I would be fine with this, but we do not live in a perfect world and these restrictions are more often used as a fig leaf to keep people out than they are to maintain a character. Hell, the phrase "neighborhood character" is very often used as a code phrase for keeping out "those people", whomever is the villain of the day (often renters or people who want to buy but who can't or don't want to buy a massive structure).
These sorts of rules can be useful--look at Leavenworth in Washington State, for example--but, in a lot of places in the United States and especially on the West Coast, they are impossible-to-meet predicates for exclusion.
> In my world, everyone counts including the people who actually live in the community today and will be affected by changes...alongside the people who do not yet live there and thus have no voice.
It's difficult to understand how this makes sense. There are ~900K people who live in San Francisco. There are (roughly) 333 million people in the US who don't live in San Francisco. So you're saying those 333 million people should all have equal voice in deciding what happens in SF? Why?
Because his son is a developer who wants to disrupt existing communities without the community having a say in it. He disguises it in a mask of egalitarianism. But his argument is the same as a pro-lifer who claims they’re the voice of the unheard baby to be aborted without considering the existing person who’s voice we can actually verify.
You can’t possibly know what future people in the community may want and can only justify your own opinions about what ought to be by projecting them on these hypothetical people. If anything the evidence says differently as the people living in a community today were the hypothetical people in previous years.
Developers "love" building that stuff because... it's what zoning allows them to build.
You would need to actually look at a place with better zoning to see a functional example, like suburban metropolitan Japan or France or Spain, where neighborhoods are often made of tightly-clustered detached homes (e.g. the old-fashioned Victorian row home equivalent) mixed with corner store retail.
In a community like HN, where most people work on making rocks think, it’s no surprise when most people start applying the logic backwards: that since we think, we can be no more complex than rocks.
