If you have something quantifiable to peddle here that never brushes up against human ideology, go for it.
Otherwise your reply is no different than mine.
See politically I can label it with as much nuance as I want. So can anyone. There is no “one way” to view things. There’s very meticulous and nuanced ways, but I don’t have to adopt them as part of my political tool belt.
Any ideas and nuance we hold onto in our head outside of what physics and chemistry say the structure of matter looks like at various speeds relative to light, is subjective human ideology.
Whichever ideology holds official power “wins.” Largely by saying some other ideology is deficient we’re picking this one instead.
So... quantify it with something other than a human ideology then?
Pure math economics models are invalid. Human biology doesn’t need to conform to the behaviors within. It’s academic economists trying to find a causative conclusion from physics to wealth accumulation to defend political ideology.
Inequality in living standards is exactly what they’re talking about when they talk about inequality.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the nuanced discourse of groups tackling these problems directly at the political level, instead of taking textbook definitions of words and none of the context of the broader social movements behind the effort.
“Wealth” is a measure of relative living standards. You’re talking about the same damn thing these groups do but somehow seem annoyed at your own lack of experience with the political conversation.
DRY can apply to more than code. No reason to reinvent definitions and quantify problems when people
have already spent a lifetime discussing these things.
Get off HN and engage directly maybe, rather than getting circle and repetitive.
Humanity built bridges and roads and trade before it had any answers like we do about physics and math. We do not need or rely on the uptight definitions in academia. Language is mushed up as needed.
STEM headed nerds would be wise to forget their academia a bit and their propensity for falling into functional fixedness when it comes to language
If you have something quantifiable to peddle here that never brushes up against human ideology, go for it.
Otherwise your reply is no different than mine.
See politically I can label it with as much nuance as I want. So can anyone. There is no “one way” to view things. There’s very meticulous and nuanced ways, but I don’t have to adopt them as part of my political tool belt.
Any ideas and nuance we hold onto in our head outside of what physics and chemistry say the structure of matter looks like at various speeds relative to light, is subjective human ideology.
Whichever ideology holds official power “wins.” Largely by saying some other ideology is deficient we’re picking this one instead.
So... quantify it with something other than a human ideology then?
Pure math economics models are invalid. Human biology doesn’t need to conform to the behaviors within. It’s academic economists trying to find a causative conclusion from physics to wealth accumulation to defend political ideology.