Public transit is abysmal in SF. The fact that it exists by no means qualifies it as "good".

Private utilities are very common. There are many listed on the stock exchange.

Everything they do is heavily regulated. They cannot do things like cut off service for any reason whatsoever, or raise rates without justification.

In a socialist country, you would have a government entity building various qualities of housing.

The best houses in the best locations go to the nomenklatura, to the governor's cousin, to the nephew of the town party boss, and to black market operators who are capable of providing large bribes to those who decide housing allocations.

Normal people live three hours outside the city center in a low quality concrete highrise.

In a word, "gentrification."

(Yes, I know, I'm making a point, ye who lives in the United States of "It's not what you know, it's who knows you.")

All human enterprises are prone to our simian failings.

There was a DOS port of nethack, so likely it could be made to run on elks.

AI and machine learning aren't necessary at all. You 'just' have to empirically measure a few constants that describe and bound the various nonlinearities of different real pigments, and then plug them into a relatively straightforward paint mixing equation.

Paints have predictable mathematical properties in terms of what color they produce when mixed; they just mix nonlinearly, which is counterintuitive for people who have not practiced mixing paint a lot.

Photoshop and the other comparison programs on the page illustrate the linear mixing that most people intuitively expect.

Common misconception; Stoicism is not about curtailing or repressing emotions.

Stoicism is about not allowing your emotions to govern you.

Subtle but profound difference.

Hmm, I may be a stoic by accident then (or more like coming there on my own). Emotions are great, I've fallen madly in love few times, I've cried from happiness when summiting Matterhorn, proposing to my girlfriend on top of Mont Blanc or checking some other higher peaks, I've had tears of joy when cutting umbilical cords of my kids and so on.

But I never let them run my life, and I remove them from any bigger decisions. Cold hard facts don't change, and so doesn't your perspective and decisions based on them. Any new fact just adds to the mix with at most mild alteration of the result.

Yet many folks I know have fucked up something bad in their life, by giving up to emotions in crucial moments. Lifelong regrets often afterwards, either hiding the fact in shame or living with consequences, in both cases visibly permanently less happy (not just cheating to be clear although that's of course one of main ones).

Ditto the first sentence.

One imperfect, but applicable analogy: "emotions are a fuel, and reasoning should be the steering system"

I think it would be useful to emphasize that not letting the emotions govern applies to regret as well: Yeah, I did what I shouldn't have (or missed an opportunity), but now it's done and staying miserable helps noone, just makes me feel bad. Let's take it seriously and make the best of it (at least using it as a very important lesson), focusing on improving the future, not crying about the past.

Completely agree. I see mistakes (not really bad ones, I managed to avoid those due to what I wrote and probably some luck) as necessary learning steps that got me where I am right now. I am happy with current state, and thats all that matters. Then inevitably avoiding those mistakes would not made me the man I am today, you learn much more from bad experience rather than good one.

Past girlfriends are a prime example - since they are past, there was always a not-nice breakup for those long trelationships, but every time I learned very valuable lessons about psychology and personalities and also myself and areas to work on, that led me to my current, non-perfect but pretty amazing wife.

Of course then focus of not repeating those mistakes, this is going back to rationality.

And past is a great source of lessons, but that's about it - focus on now and future, time spent pondering about 'what if' is wasting precious little time we still have in this reality, and it will go fast.

At first glance it seems related to self discipline.

How shall we as a society decide who is to be denied agency in this way, because someone else determines they are to be infantilized, deemed incapable of exercising full responsibility for their own -- entirely voluntary -- actions?

Can you propose a universally acceptable formula or philosophy? Shall we just consult you on a case by case basis to determine when and where a putative power differential exists, and exactly when such a differnetial becomes large enough to verge into "unfair"?

> Shall we just consult you on a case by case basis to determine when and where a putative power differential exists, and exactly when such a differnetial becomes large enough to verge into "unfair"?

Yes exactly. Well not "me" or "you" but case by case yes.

It's not necessary that someone be able to articulate and defend a universal moral philosophy consistent with a given policy in order to enact it. Having systems in place to evaluate specific cases as they come up is sufficient.

We have such social systems, and they have already evaluated this specific case and determined that we as a society want to allow gambling.

Note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of that outcome; I am just noting that the process you describe has already been done, and has determined in this case that "gambling is OK."

Why should we revisit that process simply because a few people dislike the result? By what right do you suppose your personal views ought to overturn this social process -- simply because you and a few others personally disapprove of the outcome?

Should social processes always yield results that you personally like, and be considered invalid when they don't?

There's no point at which this process is "complete" for a given policy and must be merely accepted. We continue to evaluate based on the results of implementation, and can make changes with that new information.

So yes, I "and a few others" disapprove of this outcome and are acting to change it within the constraints that we have. You oppose that or not that's your business.

So there are no objective standards possible or even relevant in the lawmaking process -- it's purely a question of might makes right, whoever can marshal the most people to their team through sophistry should win?

I didn't say that either, maybe you should reread what I did say.

You said "yes exactly" when I asked if personal sentiment was the means of determining when an unfair power differential exists and ought to be legislated against.

Then you said "there is no point at which the process is 'complete' for a given policy and must be merely accepted..." This sounds very much like you believe it is both possible and correct to revisit any policy topic at any time, and with no particular criteria for when it is valid to do so -- it is always valid to do so, under that statement.

Thus, I asked for clarification -- it sounds like there are no possible objective standards for the lawmaking process in your formulation above; any law or policy can be revisited at any time, and without any objective criteria that leaves purely emotional arguments and whoever successfully gathers a bigger band of followers to their side as the main determining factor in what policy we get.

> Can you propose a universally acceptable formula or philosophy?

While I have found few people to think this acceptable, I believe it better than the wanton passing of social laws to appease a voter base in order to keep a job. (How many people did DOMA[0] practically harm in order to appease the metaphysical sensitivities of a majority of voters)

Laws should be to prevent[dissuade] harm __to others__. If someone wants to recklessly use drugs, then we have laws that punish them for the harm they did to others, with an added under-the-influence charge. There is no reason to punish a consenting adult doing no harm to another, only possibly themself. The problem with this, is politicians don't get re-elected for creating education and other services that would help those addicted/using it to escape their life or those with trauma/mental instability inflicting trauma on others. But using "moral" arguments to rile up majority population voting bases is low hanging fruit; which the system rewards one for going after. Laws that are publicly passed are usually done by exploiting the emotions of group-type majorities. instead of using funds on analysts to find the current emotional trigger to poke, use it to find the best ways to help those that are a higher risk to cause harm towards others (ie, addicts, mental health - including those with trauma that are not as easy to treat with medication and basic security needs). And honestly, I find it unethical to exploit a persons personal faith for job security.

At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves, their actions, and stay out of your neighbor's business until your neighbor begins harming other humans (whether in their house or outside of it). Laws don't prevent harm to others, they establish (or should only establish) societal time-outs(rehabilitation) and damage/cost/etc retribution/repayment (the word I want to use escapes me in describing this exactly), the same way police are law _enforcement_ officers, not crime prevention psychics.

TL;DR: "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins." (This also encompasses the non-physical assault or harm - stealing etc)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Why is that the standard? We're in the real world not magic libertarian logic automaton world. We have the ability to judge social harm and weigh it against the benefits and make nuanced decisions

edit: like how we've managed to do with literally every single other law?

You mean the way we passed the current laws that allow such gambling, which you are now complaining about?

By that standard, we're done, the matter has already been concluded in favor of "allow gambling."

Yes, and I think that was a huge mistake. What is your point again?

edit: things can improve, women can open bank accounts without their husband approving it now! We decided something, re-evaluated and made a better decision

This takes us back to the beginning: how shall we determine when the social process has failed, and what constitutes "improvement"?

Society has already spoken on this matter. It seems that your criteria amount to nothing more than "when I personally dislike the results of the social process, the social process has failed, and we ought to revisit it."

So I ask again the question you've begged: by what formula or philosophy are we to determine when a social decision such as "allow gambling" is bad? Is there anything beyond your personal feelings on a topic that we can turn to as a criterion?

>How shall we as a society decide who is to be denied agency in this way

By advocacy and persuasion and some level of agreement through democracy.

>By that standard, we're done

Laws can change, so we're never done.

Society is a never-ending churn of social forces. There will always be a matrix of people who are good and bad and indifferent, who think similar and different to one another. It will never settle.

To answer your question about sports gambling in particular (though you did not ask me): I think the bets on specific things happening in a game are more manipulable and thus damaging to sports in general, as well as to the addictive properties of gambling, than simply betting on an outcome of a game.

So yeah, some aspects of gambling are bad enough that, now that we've seen the impact it's having, we should consider some more guardrails.

Even the college kid libertarian I used to be would say that the government should enforce "an informed consumer": That people should know what mechanisms gambling companies use to entice and addict people.

[edited for tone]

Interesting. Do you then view the lawmaking process as nothing more than a chaotic and never-ending expression of the randomly changing emotions of the people?

No ongoing rational standards, logic, or objective argumentation is required or even relevant -- just might makes right, anything goes, whoever convinces the most people to agree through sophistic "advocacy" wins?

I suppose that such a system could exist in theory, but it seems to be heavily at odds with the constitutional legal system that the United States uses.

Interesting how you consistently prompt questions without making declarative statements of your own beliefs.

Of course there is logic and standards. Such as my logic that sports betting on individual plays is more conducive to corruption and more numerous than whole-game outcomes, thus more appropriate for regulation.

The constitution was written in the aftermath of a might-makes-right event called a war. Among other things, it puts in place certain rules more protected than others, to add some order to the chaos and protect minoruty interests.

You know that laws already exist right?

Of course, and our laws have apparently determined that "gambling is OK."

Why ought we revisit and overturn that process in this case? Is there any objective criterion beyond "it seems bad to me, I don't like the result of our lawmaking process?"

This is a perfectly valid criterion. People sometimes make stupid decisions and want to reverse them, a wholly rational choice.

I don't want to outlaw gambling as such but I think it needs to be far more strictly regulated because gambling corporations massively exploit people and the industry borders on scamming.

My point was that drawing arbitrary lines for what's legal isn't the new invention you acted like it was.

This most recent comment has shifted the topic entirely, and I'm not going to address it because it's obviously either written in bad faith or just painfully unthoughtful.

The lines for what is legal are not at all drawn arbitrarily in a constitutional legal system such as the United States.

Counterpoint: Yes, they are, within the bounds of higher law.

Nubank _as a company_ does not support Datomic. It's a bank.

_A few employees_ they acquihired support Datomic.

If those few employees quit, get fired, get transferred to some other project, etc., then no more Datomic support.

Nubank uses Datomic internally. They’re not just gonna throw their hands up and quit if someone retires.

It’s perfectly reasonable to not want to use a DB that isn’t open source but Datomic isn’t a side project that’s on the edge of not existing.

> teams forget what the goal of the company is and instead get hyperfocused on their teams KPI's

This is the intractable and unavoidable problem with the use of KPIs as a management tool: Goodhart's Law -- any metric used as a target ceases to be a good measure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

You are -- literally -- telling the team, "go make this KPI number go up. Your entire job performance will be evaluated on that basis." It is unsurprising that the team therefore focuses on making that number go up.

If you want teams to consider the goals of the company, or anything at all besides their KPIs, don't use KPIs.

On the contrary, most religions assert that their particular views are the _only_ valid ones -- and many require their adherents to actively proselytize, to try to convert others to their dogma.

These views are replete with many untestable and non-falsifiable axiomatic assumptions, which must be accepted on "faith."

That word means "accepting the validity of those axioms _despite_ their lack of congruence with reality."