What Have The Romans... - Monty Python's Life of Brian

> Where do you think the things people today spend all their time politicking on would rank? I realize "politicking" is often used in a derogatory sense, and perhaps that's how you mean it here, but there is a whole lot of plain-old-politics that takes place on a regular basis which has good overlap with those issues you hinted at. Things like: planning and building infrastructure, making sure people do not go hungry or thirsty and that they have places to live, having common laws, etc. A list kind of like "what have the Romans ever done for us?"[1]. Certainly, politics/politicking can also have an amplifying effect on the bad stuff too, as you mention. I suppose my main issue with what you say is the bit starting: "politics invariably turns into a viral team sport ..." I don't see it as invariable. The pendulum has been swinging that direction recently, and I don't like it either, but I don't see it as a one-way road to doom. Though I respect if you do feel that way, of course! ---- Aside: Your comment led me to read a bit about history, and I found on Wikipedia[2]: "According to a 2021 study, Franz Ferdinand's absence was key to the breakdown of diplomacy and escalation into war, as Ferdinand had been the most powerful and effective proponent for peace in Vienna." Like you, I had the "an otherwise irrelevant Archduke" idea in my head, but I guess now I'm not so sure. So, thanks for the indirect new info (: [1] [this video] [2] [link]

Do you have the same concerns and vocalize them when you get gifts on christmas, also? He payed the price to write this book (and maybe got salary for his work), so you can have it for free. Sorry, but your comment seems awfully misguided. (assuming you celebrate christmas) EDIT: instead of dismissing it directly, how does actually reading some parts of it first sound like? Ah, and dismissing an important argument with "excluding open source" is not a good way to actually find truth. Because if excluding this argument means changing the question and scrambling the context too much, the answer to this modified questions does not reflect reality that much: [this video]

> I guess I'm braindead. Lets see shall we. > None of those things would necessarily make it a net-good thing Who is talking 'net' here? The commenter simply questioned whether social media added any value to society. To deny social media has provided any value to society is as braindead as denying that fossil fuels added value to society. Now whether the negatives outweight the positives ( aka net value ) is an entirely different question. > My grandma could interact with some of her grandkids for a short while on Facebook, for instance. Of course, she (or we) used to just pick up the phone, which is what happens now too. I've seen some cool projects on HN I'd otherwise likely never have seen. Oh so it does provide value. So you are agreeing with me then? > Otherwise I'm drawing a blank. You aren't braindead. You are disingenuous. So you never asked for or search for information on reddit, hn, stackoverflow, etc. You never found solutions to problems on tiktok, youtube, etc? You don't know anyone who found a job via hn, linkedin, etc? Bought or sold stuff on facebook, etc? If you believe that the negatives of social media outweigh the positives of social media, then fine. That's your opinion. But to cavalierly dismiss or deny that social media provides value to society is being disingenuous at best or braindead at worst. Or more likely agenda driven nonsense. Your comment reminds me of this excellent monty python clip: What have the romans done for us? [this video]

I can assure you, as a life long New Yorker, that most of us do not have an especially strong identity connection to the steam system. Most people don't even know about it, besides the steam cones. Again, the point is economical: the cost of a technology is not defined solely by its age, but by the cost of replacing it with the newer thing. For Manhattan, the cost of replacing the steam network would be immense, with marginal-to-net-negative consequences (larger demands on the city's electrical grid, higher emissions, waste of steam from local cogeneration plants, additional local emissions from per-building boilers). This doesn't mean that district steam is shiny, new, or particularly good technology (and it doesn't mean the opposite, either). It just means it isn't worth replacing, and probably won't be for a while. (By all means, if you want to run on the "kill the steam network" ticket, I'm sure someone will vote for you. But I think that money would be better spent finishing the SAS, IBX, and building some more crosstown lines in Brooklyn and Queens instead.) [1]: [this video]

> What have Governments ever created except for laws that stifle innovation/progress every single time? [this video] In all seriousness without the government you would have no innovation and progress, because it's the public school system, functioning roads, research grants a stable and lawful society that allow you to do any kind of innovation. Apart from that, you have answered to a strawman. I said redistribute, not give to the government. I explicitly worded things that way because I don't think we should not be having a discussion on policy. I think we are moving to an economy where the share of profits taken by capital becomes much larger than the one take from labor. If that happens then laborers will have very little discretionary income to fuel consumption and even capitalists will end up suffering. We can choose to redistribute now or wait for it to happen naturally, however that usually happens in a much more violent way, be it hyperinflation, famine, war or revolution.