Telling the government "I know you've told me to take it down, but we specifically designed it in such a way that we can't take it down" sounds like an incredibly good legal strategy that will definitely not backfire.
So far, the "we can't do that" defense has worked for companies that provide E2E encryption. The government may change the rules, of course; they keep talking about it.
I disagree; this website is awful. If you hijack the scroll event to do something like this, instead of just... letting me scroll, you're very much going to hell.
This is not hijacking the scroll event. Look at the scrollbar. The page scrolls exactly as you'd expect according to your input method and operating system.
I know it's not technically correct, but I tend to conflate "hijacking scroll event" as both receiving a scroll event and doing something that weird or slows down my browser along with something that manipulates scrolling since they have similar effects to an end user.
People love to get outraged when economists talk about human tragedy in monetary terms because they assume the sub text of discussing things in terms of money is that that's what they think is really important about the situation. This entirely misses the point.
The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things.
If you want someone to analyze people's feelings about the tragedy get a psychologist but there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists.
> The economists want something they can measure. They are using dollar losses as a proxy for the gravity of the situation and as a proxy for relative value that people place on things.
This is a poor proxy, as it over-values areas with high, uneven distributions of capital accumulation. If the Netherlands were to succumb to the impending boiling sea-waters, that would necessarily have a higher "economist cost" than a similar tragedy befalling Nigeria, despite Nigeria having over 10x the population of the Netherlands.
Rather than viewing the very real human impact, the "economist cost" rides the coat-tails of chauvinist mythology by saying that, yes, in fact a Dutchman is worth 11x a Nigerian.
> there's a reason that economists are more likely to get invited to a climate summit than psychologists.
I can guarantee you it's not the reason you think it is.
> Run around and poll everyone on their feelings and make decisions based on anecdote points?
Democracy sounds pretty dope when you put it that way.
> You fail to present a better alternative
I just want people to treat human life with dignity. Chile 1973--we've seen what happens with your line of rationalization and commoditizing human lives.
Yeah, try enacting an infrastructure project at the implementation level via direct vote democracy. No evil quantifiable data needed.
I'm sure it will be "dope".
>I just want people to treat human life with dignity.
I want an airplane made of gold. Who cares what you want? You dislike the only practical method of achieving what you want and present no alternative so you'll get nothing.
> Yeah, try enacting an infrastructure project at the implementation level via direct vote democracy. No evil quantifiable data needed.
It's almost like there are multiple methods of organizing democratic systems of governance and not all of them rely on direct democracy. Maybe, if we had some roughly representative system, wherein people elected people to represent their interests, then those elected officials would hold town-halls to hear their constituents complaints, worries, and get a general feel for their "feelings." That sure seems capable of addressing infrastructural needs.
> Who cares what you want?
I am generally pretty interested in that. Maybe in the above fictional system of governance we recently conjured, my elected official might even have some interest in what I want.
> You dislike the only practical method of achieving what you want
What do I even dislike again? I critiqued you defending monstrous humans for prioritizing dollar values above human lives. Is the Pinochet model really the only viable model in your opinion?
> I want an airplane made of gold
At this point, it seems you'd sooner have a solid gold helicopter.
These figures aren't used to compare tragedies across countries in a professional setting. It is always about how a government should allocate aid resources or distributions within their own economy.
Except for foreign aid in which being devalued works strongly in the favor of poorer nations. Ie if I have 10 million in aid money to spend and I can buy 10 housing units in Germany or 1000 housing units in Uganda because the currency goes further, that money is going to be routed to the poorer place.
So this is a total strawman. No one respectable (and I mean 0) is using these figures to compare human worth between economies.
Remember the trending article yesterday where economists were admitting they totally got the free trade economics wrong? Well, predicting the economic effects of climate change is going to be 10x full of guesswork and mistaken assumptions and bad models. Good luck getting it right.
Do you think people can live without production of food, housing, medicine, clothing and other goods? Do you think those things get delivered without transportation and communication infrastructure? Economic cost is not abstract at all - its a reduction of things people need to live. It measures other things as well but there is virtually no harm from climate change that can’t be measured in economic terms. That’s practically a tautology.
Frankly, if the solution to climate change will slow economic growth, I think that the highest human cost will come from the lack of growth. To put it in clear terms: lack of growth means that a sewage system, or a hospital, don't get built. This _will_ cause victims.
Eh. While I’m optimistic that solutions will be found, in principle a shifting climate can radically alter food production. Billions could die. I don’t think they will, but in principle they could, and I lack the necessary background in agricultural science to tell what “likely” is.
I doubt that climate can shift so quickly that humans can't adapt at least their most important cultures. We're very good at this, and very quick, and we don't need to produce food anywhere near where it's consumed.
Although of course the ships that bring immense amounts of food across the globe have been built, and are operated, with fossil fuels. As is our agriculture. Again, increase the cost of the fuel that makes both possible, and people will die.
I find your reply below the minimum acceptable level here; in fact I can hardly guess what you tried to say. Anyway, growth means that people who could not afford things before now can. For you it might be a new car; for somebody else it might mean a sanitation system or a reachable hospital. But who cares, you already have the car and the hospital, so screw growth.
Are you talking about a different Switzerland than everyone else? A country literally made out of three different cultures (French Swiss, German Swiss and Italian Swiss)?
Words clearly do not have meanings anymore