In my view, a government should not have the right to kill their citizens, period. It's too "big government" for my taste, personally.
Republicans seem to favor big government in this instance, whereas Democrats prefer small (less-empowered) government.
A small thread.🧵
Do I really care about whether an actual murderer gets life in prison or death sentence? No.
What I care about, is the misuse of this power by the government.
I know way too many governments around the world that are happy to use this authority to kill people they don't like.
In other words, I don't want to grant the power of life-vs-death to the government. I want that off the table.
Guilty people go to prison but can still communicate. Sometimes the evidence changes, and years or decades later it turns out they are not guilty and they are let free.
Oh and #FreeAssange. He's being slowly killed in prison for what exactly? Sharing the truth?
And #FreeRoss while we're at it. A decade is enough. There are far worse people that seriously impacted peoples' lives and went free and rich vs anything he did.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a boring analyst, if I don't trigger liberals, conservatives, progressives, and libertarians each at least once on a quarterly basis, I'm probably not doing my job right.
Writing to the crowd is for influencers. Writing to the truth (as far as I can see it) is for analysts.
Follow people that make you think.
My whole young life was about learning things, and then following things that differed from what I thought, and then changing accordingly as I learned more.
Whether it is me or others (feel free to disagree), follow people that make you think.
I want to provoke moderates too.
Being moderate for its own sake is a fake balance. Of course some of your beliefs are more right, and others are more left.
For any given issue, the truth is unlikely to be the middle. It's often closer to one side.
I purposely provoked both right-leaning and left-leaning people tonight. The goal was to shake off ideological echo-chamber followers.
Sometimes I'll be right or wrong in your views but I focus on objectivity and rationality. Follow if you want that, unfollow if you don't.
🧵👇
Libertarians were probably untriggered this time, but I've triggered them before too. 😉
I don't intend to provoke on purpose, but my goal is to make people think.
I want people to understand why different people might see the world differently. And empathize, and disagree. 🤝
Learn to steelman rather than strawman your opposition, which means to understand the strongest possible interpretation of your opponent's argument, and then refute it (or if you agree with it, change your view and accept it).
Don't mischaracterize and then argue that version.
About a decade ago I did a bunch of research on published nutritional studies, and as a result:
-I ate less carbs and industrial seed oils.
-I ate more meat, fish, eggs, whole dairy, natural fruit oils like coconut/olive/avocado.
-I kept eating veggies, berries, etc. as desired.
But then as any engineer should, I A/B tested myself. Verify, don't trust.
I checked my blood sugar, ketones (went through a ketogenic period, and then more seasonal), inflammation markers, cholesterol.
Lost an inch on my waist (flat stomach to flatter stomach, admittedly).
I felt better and all of my traditional biometrics improved on that new diet.
I'm not a physician, not a nutritional scientist, this isn't advice.
Just an individual person that reviewed published science, reviewed the ancestral logic, tried it, tested it, and never went back.
I like serious environmentalists that can outline their positions in detail, and explain a problem and a proposed solution.
I don't like unserious environmentalists that haven't researched or understood the trade-offs of their proposals.
The former is low time preference behavior. Optimizing long-run resources for human and planetary flourishing. Preserving un-reproducible old-growth habitats is important.
The latter is high time preference behavior. Faddish, unaware, and anti-humanistic.
Positive example:
"Specific chemicals ABC are damaging the global ozone layer. This is bad because of XYZ. Here's the clear data. Do this small change, and it improves the problem a lot and allows it to recover."
The world does it, and it recovers. Thanks, science!
Unlike other technology adoption curves of history, bitcoin is faced with growing through a multi-decade DDoS attack from thousands of other protocols, vying for attention and capital.
And it couldn't have been otherwise, due to its open source and non-capital intensive nature.
For example, when the radio was developed and we measure the "adoption curve" of radio, it includes all brands/models of radios.
And all the radios took effort to make, and most of them weren't scams- they were working radios. People adopted them. Straightforward.
The challenge with bitcoin, however, is that it can be copied, altered, in myriad ways. This is unlike, say, gold.
The node network and hash rate can't be easily copied, however.
For bitcoin to succeed, it has to get through decades of those interactions, challenges, etc.