That was the point of the lawsuit. But also seems like the law, museum, and lots of people here missed the point too.
The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.
Good! And welcome back (after keeping your promise to dang for ~611 days [0] (and counting)) :)
If you have time to elaborate on how you make a little money on it at some point, I’m sure lots of people here would love to hear more details and thoughts on that!
So you dislike the word lobbying being used here, based on a seemingly pretty specific understanding of what that means.
Lobbying can happen in many ways, and have many different implications. It certainly sounds like it didn’t happen as a result of company/executive action (and at least Tavis believes that), and neither parent, gp or ggp claim so (in fact they agree the opposite is the case).
I rarely have casual discussions with friends working at regulatory agencies that come back to haunt other people. I also don’t think the word “lobbied” was used in a harmful or particularly egregious way, especially considering the context in which it was used (and explained).
> Also known as a command economy, a staple stalinist recipe
No. That’s an extreme, just like your idea of what you call a “social service” performed by scalpers.
There’s a middle ground, and it’s certainly possible to regulate a market to mitigate the most pathological consequences of capitalism without Stalinism. In fact, that happens all the time.
To be fair to the GP, this isn't the point they're making. Your argument would be valid if they were positing "it's not like it's me who's going to die."
They're asking, in good faith, if the effects of pollution-related deaths would have a net benefit to the world due to overpopulation concerns.
The point of view expressed here somewhat ironically show a severe lack of humanity. If anything it seems more humanity is needed here.
It’s not uncommon to hear people talk about various types of population control/reduction while being seemingly oblivious to just how tragic and psychopathic the point of view is.
If you find yourself agreeing with, say, Thanos, and also think it’d be great to see half the world’s population reduced by half, I think that’s a pretty strong signal that you need to really think about what you’re saying and if something can be done to increase your ability to empathize with people in need.
Another approach, that doesn’t involve letting people die, directly or indirectly, through our (lack of) action, would be to address issues that cause long term high population growth, in addition to for instance developing technologies and making cultural/lifestyle changes to accommodate more people on our planet to the extent that’s needed.
Population reduction advocates never seem to argue that themselves committing suicide would be the moral choice, which reveals they are valuing the preservation of their own current lifestyle over the lives of the "others".
In practice, it seems like the majority of people who call for population reduction are white/western supremacists who lack empathy for humans born with less privilege.
Birth control should be freely available to every human on the planet. Beyond that, I don't think there is any moral policy available to reduce population.
I didn't really mean to suggest population control, even though I wrote just that. The problem as I see it is that everybody tries to approach the problem as if it will be solvable by technology.
The only way I see that we can solve a climate crisis or the survival of humanity long term is to actually work together. Which I'm pretty certain will never happen, since there will always be greedy and selfish people.
I agree. I believe reducing wealth inequality is the best path towards stable global population. Nearly half of the countries in the world are already below the population replacement rate - and it seems birth rates are inversely correlated with wealth to some extent.
My point is that there's no need for population control. The problem will eventually solve itself.
I think humanity is doomed as long as there are egotistical and greedy people and there's nothing you or I can do as individuals.
The problem is lack of resources, so I don't think the problem is solvable with with technology.
And just for reference, I actually am very successful in a field where you do have to empathize with people to be successful. That's actually what makes me bitter, I empathize and all I see is greed and selfishness. It's human nature, and that can't be solved with technology or science.
In a departure from prevailing strategies around the world, the British government also decided to begin giving as many people as possible a first vaccine dose rather than holding back supplies for quick second shots, greatly expanding the number of people who will be inoculated.
That decision put Britain at the vanguard of a far-reaching and uncertain experiment in speeding up vaccinations, one that some scientists say could alleviate the suffering wrought by a pandemic that has been killing hundreds of people each day in Britain and thousands more around the world.
My understanding from https://youtu.be/8Pj4_aK-j8I?t=73 (Dr. John Campbell) is that the first shot of the Oxford vaccine gives about 70% immunity after 3-4 weeks and in trials showed that people might get ill but not ill enough to need hospitalisation. If the goal is to keep people out of hospitals then speeding up the first shots makes sense.
> As can be seen, it’s true that Pelosi did utter these words: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. However, the article left out important context, including the next few words of Pelosi’s statement: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
This looks like a case of Snopes trying to make Nancy Pelosi look good without justification. Their "important context" doesn't actually improve anything.
This is an example of why I personally don't trust fact checkers any more. This gets a "mixture" rating, in spite of being:
a) quite literally factual - she said those exact words
b) semantically similar in and out of context - Even if you read the whole speech she gave, she still seems to be implying that you need to have the act passed so that you can see what it looks like when implemented. She gives a rough draft of important desired outcomes (many of which ended up being false), but the point of that one one sentence remains the same: to establish that the bill needs to be passed in order for it's real implications to be understood.
To be honest, I half agree with Pelosi here, but snopes is definitely trying to provide her with some unwarranted cover here.
The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.