We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. It must be made personally infeasible to continue contributing to our own shortsighted destruction. The incentive structure can and must be changed.
> We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run.
"We" don't all view the world through the same lens. And moreover not on all matters. Your framing is erroneous, which leads to incorrect assumptions and strategy.
It may very well be true that in some cases, a bad actor asking you to do a bad thing X will simply find someone else to do it. However, consider the following:
* If there were someone more desperate than you and willing to do X, they would demand lower compensation, and the bad actor wouldn't even be talking to you.
* By saying no, you are inherently making bad thing X more expensive, because said bad actor has to spend more resources finding someone else to do it.
* Saying no gives cover for your peers who disagree with X to also say no.
* The person said bad actor finally finds to do X will inherently have more leverage to ask for greater compensation due to the fact that you, by saying no, have shrunk the pool of people capable of doing X.
* If enough people say no, said bad actor may never find someone both capable of doing X and willing to do it for the price point the bad actor is willing/able to pay.
I don't turn down jobs I disagree with because I necessarily believe it will stop those jobs from happening. I'm satisfied enough with keeping my conscience clear and knowing I made the job a little harder to accomplish.
Y'know, I used to say 1.5-2x, now I lean towards 2x but 3x is actually fine by me too. And for any kind of financial crimes, this should also be divided by the probability of getting caught and convicted.
Also just bad faith comments muddying the waters. The evidence has been abundantly available to any inquisitive minds to find out for themselves Musk's worldview, goals and especially his methods, the simpler explanation is they are merely following his example of corrupting online discussions with low effort rhetorical bait, whether they are aware of the imitation or not. The net is flooded with many such clones.
Can you provide evidence-based numbers of how many people's lives have been saved or improved vs how many have been ruined or ended in part due to the guidelines DSM? Or what the outcomes would have been had psychiatry not continued to rely on it as the gold standard? Without a comparison, a vague, unsubstantiated claim such as that is worthless.
I'm not familiar with every diagnosis in the DSM-5, but I'm very familiar with ADHD. The DSM lays down the diagnostic criteria, brain scans of people diagnosed according to those criteria have confirmed structural and functional differences, and even more extensive studies have confirmed the overwhelming efficacy of the medication used to treat the disorder. Is that worthless?
Claiming that DSM-5 is "worthless" simply because it doesn't provide physical mechanisms that cause the disorders is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not the other way around.
> how many have been ruined or ended in part due to the guidelines DSM
You tell us, how many have been ruined? What "guidelines" are you referring to?
I would beg to disagree: "The DSM is a bunch of nonsense. As long as [...], it’s worthless."
> DSM when not providing the underlying physical processes is worthless.
And when does the DSM ever provide the "underlying physical process"? It certainly doesn't for ADHD or any other chapters I happen to have read, which would make them worthless according to your criteria despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And while I haven't read all 1000 pages of the DSM because it's not exactly my idea of a good time, I don't think it provides that kind of information in any chapter because we simply don't understand these disorders to that extent, as your original comment correctly observed.
Then make app switching better, replace the overlong animation with a snappy transition and make returning to the original app seamless. They're loading these phones up with RAM, they should be able to support true multitasking. The UX should be as natural as alt-tabbing between apps on desktop, and could be made even more fluid with proper design. But that's clearly not a priority.
After decades of consumerism, most consumers already have most of what they need/want, so in order to keep selling widgets, corporations must manufacture demand. Enough big screen TVs have already been built and sold to give every American a fully functional 60"+ screen in every room in their residence, enough lightly used ones to go around to completely negate the need to manufacture more. But profit must not go down for any reason, so they must invent gimmicks to push the latest and greatest model onto a public that can't even tell the difference without marketing propaganda.
The entire global economic system depends on the unceasing transformation of natural resources into a stream of disposable crap for the benefit of the ownership class and shareholding leeches. It's obviously unsustainable, but so are the mortal lives of those who benefit from the system. What incentive have they to save a world in which they will no longer have any stake? Better to live out their days in comfort and wealth by cutting down the saplings under whose shade they will never sit.
This to me is the most urgent moral issue of the day: our active stunting of our children's development. Our collective misguided and counterproductive approach to pedagogy does not cultivate a learning mindset but rather stifles children's enormous natural aptitude for exploratory play. We are doing it wrong and we know it. The curriculum we use isn't worth paying minimum wage to teach.
It could be different. It must be. We have role models to imitate, better methods to follow, resources and tools galore. What is needed now is organization toward common purpose. How does the internet bystander locate effective organizations to disrupt the march of folly? This is a situation where the pilot has gone mad and we must seize control of the aircraft but are too paralyzed by social forces to act.
