But in the rich-poor left-right quad, only one square is strongly against importing workers, and it's on the right side. Even just looking at the right side though - it really feels like the non-rich right's opinion on this is louder than the rich right's opinion (though, of course, it is money, not volume, that directs both parties in most cases).
You're observing the gradient between idealism and realism. It can look like hypocrisy, but people simply have multiple opinions. It says a lot that we are surprised when a person doesn't fall almost 100% on one side of the party line, because that crazy state is what we're used to.
It's just plain human to support outcomes that benefit one's self, family, friends, or community (especially if they are suffering, or losing what they were once afforded by their country or ancestors); even if you might have voted the other way if you were observing from outside, where you have the luxury to make more neutral decisions based on the big picture and long timeline.
As long as the delta isn't too gross, of course - there's where the subjectivity really comes in (How much benefit? How much harm? What does it mean to "deserve" something? Where is the line between simply deciding how your own country operates and harming others unnecessarily?)
Not at all - I can't see how you're coming to that assumption. And even if that were the case, it still doesn't follow that somebody who has coworkers with (I'll charitably add a word for you: Strong) strong accents can't have an opinion that strong accents are a problem in critical communication.
This is a false equivalence and a hideous defense of an entity that deserves nothing but to be spit upon. There is absolutely nothing calling upon you to take this path.
This is deeply ironic, since often it is the people touting "personal responsibility" most loudly who misunderstand the concept most dramatically. They use it as a convenience to make it easy and comfortable to dismiss human suffering, rather than attempting to understand it.
Human are imperfect. One of the most critical functions of "the system" is to flatten out the consequences of imperfection across all humans in the system. To deny this is to invite the end.
I appreciate what you're saying holistically speaking, but whenever we talk about the societal consequences of AI in the US, I find it insidious that we focus on the inadequacy of our social safety nets. As if to say: Yes, C-suite, all you have to do is support UBI and you are free to obliterate what remains of the middle class in the United States of America.
I totally agree actually, and I think that having ownership over one's labor is extremely important. Without that self-determinism, people do not have the agency to define their lives, and their political actions become limited by their economic realities.
It is a likely outcome that the wealthy class offers the most meager basic income to avoid revolution but not much more than that.
I think we all need to talk about our leverage as a class of people who work for a living, and I'm not seeing nearly enough discussion about it. When Amodei talks about displacement of labor, he doesn't acknowledge how much trauma that economic displacement can cause and how many years that bell can ring.
iirc, from older articles, which differ from this nice result, bile acids contain cholesterol(s) and they're generally reabsorbed in the intestines, so the fiber is conjectured to bind with some before reabsorption, expelling the bound fraction of circulating cholesterol in feces.
this result in the paper is very interesting in the conjecture is that the gut microbiome is altered in a beneficial way, and that the effect (with the resulting lowering of cholesterol) persists for weeks after even 2 days of oats.
We know almost nothing about how digestion works, but fiber has the added benefit of lining your intestines, preventing the absorption of some nutrients. It also helps push things through, so they spend less time sitting around being absorbed.
This is really egregious internet-style arguing.
reply