"People" and their "wants" or "enjoyments" are manufactured by culture (which is in turn now dominated by corporate propaganda). They are not fixed by nature. Any examination of the range of 'wants' in human history will inevitably conclude that, beyond a few corporeal basics, they are endlessly plastic. This is hard to see from the centres of Empire (especially highly mediated ones) where local and highly propagandised 'desires' are seen as 'natural'.
Agricultural societies are machines for creating large numbers of humans. In any democracy (or sufficiently responsive government) the kinds of persons that are created is a powerful determinant of what subsequently happens. Corporations choose to make consumer-humans. Many other types have existed, so ipso facto are possible.
No. "Commitment" in corporate speak is a synonym for "absolute lack of intention". That's why corps 'commit' to reducing emissions, treating employees fairly, etc, ie. to all the things they will not do. But no suit 'commits' to making money. They just make money. It's just a superficial linguistic gesture. Shakespeare got it.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
Or to put it another way: a Pebble would cover more uses with a GPS. They're clearly not expensive nor necessarily profligate with battery. My now 5 year old Amazfit bip, which was cheap as chips, still gets 3 weeks of battery life with a daily gps-mapped run.
We agree on the empirical fact that many people generate suffering for themselves by encouraging an inner narrative of complaint about others' behavour.
If there's disagreement, it seems to be about whether or not this is necessary. I contend (along with thousands of wise narrators from just about every culture throughout human history) that it is not. This is just spiritual/ideological/psychological pragmatism (depending on your metaphysical orientation), and is intrinsically unrelated to altruism or perhaps ethics. Indeed someone holding a view that judgement of others is ethically or morally 'bad' merely shifts the target of the wasted mental judging-activity to their own putative ego.
It reinforces ego. It's a common malady. An optional one (which isn't to say it's always easy to ditch given constant and insistent if irrational social reinforcement).
Do you think those who optionally exercise the mental activity of making judgements of those behaviours are likely to suffer more or less burnout than those who choose not to? How useful an activity do you think making judgements of people you interact with is? Who is it useful to? The judge? The judged?
It's the barstool economist argument style, on long-expired loan from medieval theology. Responding to clear empirical evidence that X occurs: "X can't happen because [insert 'rational' theory recapitulation]"
You're quite capable of seeing that a serious of ludicrously generalised ideological statements, entirely abstracted from reality, are as close to meaningless as human statements get (which is exactly why social media affords them). You are just blinkered by acculturation, and prefer it that why. Drama is so much more fun than reality.
Someone once said something to the effect: "I'm not concerned that computers will become more like people, I am that people will learn to 'think' like computers".
A fortiori humans vs social media. You are faux-thinking in a series of tweets.
Your malevolent childs-ego-inflated-to-national 'winners vs losers' notion will inevitably, if not expunged, make losers of us all. My 'us' is of course unimaginable to your minuscule 'me'.
> Turns out that the person who originally created the language doesn't like them either.
But it also turns out the very same isn't as neurotically attached to his 'likes' as most of us are:
> The Rust I Wanted probably had no future, or at least not one anywhere near as good as The Rust We Got. The fact that there was any path that achieved the level of success the language has seen so far is frankly miraculous. Don't jinx it by imagining I would have done any better!
He understands that his likes are just contingent facts about a single mammal, not truths. This is a hard-won understanding. Most people never reach it.
I think what you have to bear in mind is, with all sorts of caveats and exceptions, the HN crowd is at the centre of the current ecocidal empire, with most participants personally gaining from biosphere destruction. Participating here is much like being around public debate forums in 18thC Britain, where, yes, the slave traders inevitably dominated because they were at the centre of power, but abolitionists kept heads high and voices loud and eventually won. Of course we don't yet know whether or not we're going to win.
Being here can be interesting, but don't expect it to be sympatico. There can be no solidarity while exploitation dominates.
Agricultural societies are machines for creating large numbers of humans. In any democracy (or sufficiently responsive government) the kinds of persons that are created is a powerful determinant of what subsequently happens. Corporations choose to make consumer-humans. Many other types have existed, so ipso facto are possible.