> though I found it a bit fishy why he couldn’t get another job
What line of work was he in? If he lost his job during the pandemic, is it possible there simply were very few jobs available that he was qualified for?
> HIGH Severity. This includes issues that are of a lower risk than critical, perhaps due to affecting less common configurations, or which are less likely to be exploitable. These issues will be kept private and will trigger a new release of all supported versions. We will attempt to keep the time these issues are private to a minimum; our aim would be no longer than a month where this is something under our control
So something to make sure you update, but not a Heartbleed level concern
Taken to its conclusion should this not include every living being? Why not children, or animals? Ageism and speciesism indeed.
My point is that while the majority of Swiss cantons decided to not have gender restrictions on voting, they allowed Apenzell to keep being the weird one, and in response the people of Apenzell don’t force their way onto others. If I don’t want my neighbour to tell me how to run my household, I must also not force them. Apenzell didn’t force their way into the Züricher.
Although in the end, the people of Apenzell were forced to change their way.
Every time you say "the people of Apenzell" you really mean roughly ~50% of the voting age population. Would you make this same argument if only one person was allowed to vote in Apenzell? What about when that one person starts rounding up the people in Apenzell he doesn't like and imprisoning them?
When you say “voting age population”, you really mean roughly 70% of all residents?
You and I probably agree that a 12yo should not have the right to decide what the state should do with its might, but the argument is the same regarding how the legal voting population of this tiny state of 16k citizens decide to expand who gets to vote in their local elections.
What I say is that I’m impressed by the federal government of Switzerland for allowing even such a tiny group such self determination to select who can vote in local elections - until the UN forced them to conform in 1991 that is. I think this is why they don’t have civil wars when they disagree - they instead let others do their thing and the cantons run their competing systems simultaneously.
Regarding your question whether I would think it was ok to have a Swiss canton where local government was ran by one person, it’d be ridiculous but I would not think it’s right to use force to stop it, unless that local government hindered anyone from leaving. This is at least, as you have identified, the logical conclusion of the argument I am making, and the Swiss did until 1991. In reality no single person would likely run it well, and it would end up an economic disaster, and sooner or later change. Instead of coercion letting a hundred seeds grow, before separating the wheat from the chaff
You think people would really move away? It's just one guy, you just gotta knock him off a bridge.
And if the simplest solutions to problems of governance become violence, rather than the system itself, then you have failed at the main purpose of government.
It’s worth noting that we are talking about a state of 16000 people, who live in a federation, and this federation allowed until 1991 this small state to keep their own laws regarding voting in their local elections. The other cantons were certainly let living their neighbour, and in response the people of AI (again, a state of 16k people) didn’t tell the neighbours what they should do. Again, this until UN influence forced them to be like their neighbours in 1991.
tl;dr: People can build ASM modules on that site and load them into my game (when enabled) using chat commands. And it does work on my original SNES by using some SD2SNES trickery.
One person doing something in the face of billions of others is the entire opposite of pointless. Giving up because you're one person and you can't magically transform the entire world is cynical, a cop-out and completely misunderstands the nature of the problem.
The world won't change overnight, it won't immediately flip from the actions of one individual, or two, or even 1 thousand or 1 million. But that doesn't mean the action is pointless.
Change requires momentum, momentum requires the actions of an individual diligently living the change they want to see and sharing it with others. That sort of change builds slowly, often imperceptibly. But before you know it things begin actually changing. So no, this binary attitude of "You can't change everything by your actions so you may as well do nothing" is such an apathetic, cynical cop-out and I hate seeing it spouted everytime you see someone do something positive. As an idea it literally does nothing but harm and it has no value in being said.
It's not pointless, but I do think it's reasonable to question whether this is the best thing one can do to have an impact.
Could the time spent taking the neighbors trash away be spent doing something even more impactful?
Is the interaction with these neighbors caring and educative, or antagonistic? In the latter case they're unlikely to emulate it or pass on the idea to others.
It's not about doing the best thing, it's about doing something. You don't have to perfectly efficient, just take simple actions that reflect the change you want to see. We all have limited time and energy, if you see something positive you can do you shouldn't dismiss the idea of doing it just because you could sell all your belongings and become an eco-warrior and be maximally efficient in pursuing a positive development. Don't do nothing because you could be doing more. Just do what you can.
Why though, if you're not going to make a difference? Why bother?
The reality is that the reason we do these things is to make ourselves feel better. Ah, yes, my daily shot of endorphins from recycling. Ah yes, my bumper sticker makes sure everyone knows I'm one of the good ones -- my social standing is safe.
This philosophy is why middle class first world kids pay thousands of dollars to go on missionary trips to build a single well in a far away village. Yes, you got dirty with the natives and did something.
I think it's all hollow. If you aren't making a real impact -- actually moving the needle -- you are doing nothing. It's just a vanity.
I believe in donating money to causes that have high impact. Given my skillset, I'm confident that's by far the best thing I can do. And aside from that, I don't sweat the small stuff. I have a keurig. Yep you heard right. Also donated enough to save a few lives from malaria. Exactly one of those facts about myself made any difference at all to the world.
> The reality is that the reason we do these things is to make ourselves feel better. Ah, yes, my daily shot of endorphins from recycling. Ah yes, my bumper sticker makes sure everyone knows I'm one of the good ones -- my social standing is safe
Speak for yourself my friend. The idea that people only make changes, even little ones entirely out of self service is extraordinarily cynical and a very negative and sad view of the world.
Sometimes people just do good things, because they want to improve some minor aspect of our world, or make someone elses (or somethings) day a little bit nicer. Sometimes people do this entirely without the desire to praise themselves or be praised by someone else.
It still exists, but by it's nature you don't often see it. And if you don't believe it exists, even when you do catch a glimpse of it you wouldn't notice or care.
> I think it's all hollow. If you aren't making a real impact -- actually moving the needle -- you are doing nothing. It's just a vanity.
Say on my walk to and from work every day I pick up one single piece of litter and quietly put it in the bin. I do this every day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. That's 500 pieces of litter. Every day those little actions aren't moving the needle at all, but at the end of the year I've actually managed to make a tiny little nudge to my environment around me. Say I tell my friend and they decide to do the same thing, now it's 1000 pieces of litter. They tell 2 of their friends, now it's 2000 pieces of litter. Then I decide to make it 2 pieces of litter, and I tell my friend and they pass it on. Now it's 4000 pieces. They start telling their friends. And so on and so on. The individual action barely nudges any needle, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't moving some needle even slightly. You just don't have strong enough vision.
> I believe in donating money to causes that have high impact. Given my skillset, I'm confident that's by far the best thing I can do. And aside from that, I don't sweat the small stuff. I have a keurig. Yep you heard right. Also donated enough to save a few lives from malaria. Exactly one of those facts about myself made any difference at all to the world.
You don't exist in a vacuum, and my whole point of all my comments is that individual action drives collective change. One person making minor adjustments on it's own is nothing, but if many of those singular people decide to make changes it can lead to amazing things. You can choose to make whatever change you please, I'm glad you believe in some action. But let me ask you, what change do you think you're making by stomping on the idea that multiple little changes can lead to positive effects? Why expend the energy if it's pointless anyway?
Things can be better, and people should try and make as many little positive changes as they can to the world. No person is smart enough, or has enough foresight or knowledge to be able to predict what that may lead to in the future, and personally I choose to be optimistic because why waste my life believing that anything better is a futile mission?
The idea that people only make changes, even little ones entirely out of self service is extraordinarily cynical and a very negative and sad view of the world.
You keep saying that. It's subjective, and it's not an argument. George Bernard Shaw said, The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
Say I tell my friend and they decide to do the same thing, now it's 1000 pieces of litter. They tell 2 of their friends, now it's 2000 pieces of litter. Then I decide to make it 2 pieces of litter, and I tell my friend and they pass it on. Now it's 4000 pieces. They start telling their friend
Well that's imaginative but it seems highly unlikely. After all, if everyone is so highly primed to change in this way, and all it takes is one person to spark the fire... chances are enormously likely it would have happened already, and it would have happened without you needing to spark it.
This idea that you're at the center of a movement to change the world is just more subconscious ego feeding. If you want to be at the center of a movement that changes the world... it's going to take a lot of hard work.
what change do you think you're making by stomping on the idea that multiple little changes can lead to positive effects
Humans enjoy conversation, and some of them enjoy trying to figure out truth from fiction. No more, no less.
personally I choose to be optimistic because why waste my life
Whatever floats your boat. We "cynics" are enjoying the ride as much as anyone. We just think we're doing it in a clear-eyed way.
> George Bernard Shaw said, The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
I think you should double check to make sure your "accurate observation" and "clear eyed" thinking is not tainted by your own biases. It's very easy to consider ones own view the accurate one without ironing out the biases learnt or inherent to you.
> Well that's imaginative but it seems highly unlikely. After all, if everyone is so highly primed to change in this way, and all it takes is one person to spark the fire... chances are enormously likely it would have happened already, and it would have happened without you needing to spark it.
They have. Millions of times in fact! Human history is always changing and growing from little things and big things too. The world of today looks drastically different to that of 30 years ago, or 90 years ago or 500 years ago!
> This idea that you're at the center of a movement to change the world is just more subconscious ego feeding. If you want to be at the center of a movement that changes the world... it's going to take a lot of hard work.
It's not about being the center of a movement to change the world, and the fact you keep jumping back to that shows that you don't understand what I'm saying. You look at it in that lens because you want to, but it's just about doing minor good things for it's own purpose. A simple autotelic action. It's honestly that simple, but the end result of a lot of people making that simple choice is a changed world. It's not about feeding ego at all. It's also not about building a movement, at least not directly. It's about convincing those around you of the value of doing something small that improves things even insignificantly because combined they have massive impact.
Enjoy your "clear-eyed view" of the world, I know you've convinced yourself you're 100% correct.
What line of work was he in? If he lost his job during the pandemic, is it possible there simply were very few jobs available that he was qualified for?