'I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said' -> I think viewing that some rich people go to heaven as Jesus not explicitly condemning rich people (which he clearly does multiple times) and not him showing the unlimited power of God's grace is a misreading of the text.
The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this:
And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
> God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
I love how you put that, and wholeheartedly agree.
I think it's good to realize that many people's commitment to "American" values is weak at best. Things like state's rights, equal representation in government, and even "freedom of speech" are often political tools rather than actual values.
Reading basic history shows it's always been this way. As a simple historical example the soon to be Confederate states complained about "state's rights" for slavery but when they seceded they enshrined slavery in their constitution and notably didn't leave it up to their states (so clearly that institution was more important to them than state autonomy). It's always been a convenient veneer over policy.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know).
Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority:
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution:
"I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying).
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
> The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves.
Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."
Huh, it never got tested in the Confederacy but it's interesting their Constitution might not have protected it. I'm very curious what the Confederate Supreme Court would have said if it ever had existed.
I wonder if that it's not clearly protected based on US jurisprudence is an oversight because apparently the Barron v Baltimore decision wasn't well known at the time according to the wiki article you linked on it and the VP was so adamant that it is.
> In thus constructing the fundamental law, of course, a struggle has occurred in the secret sessions of the Montgomery Congress, in which those refusing to close the door against the reception of anti-slavery States have achieved a victory.
They were hypocrites even before they succeeded, since one of their main grievances was that free states did not enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws, which were a case of the feds overriding the states on that matter to begin with. No surprise that, once they had their own government, they took those same laws to 11 by mandating slavery throughout.
Trump has been a pretty different politician (both in how he's talked but also what he's done) so I don't think it makes sense to view things he does slightly differently. Also the issue is less that a specific company is targeted but more that it looks like a personal political favor.
Not that your point is entirely invalid, just that I think the context is probably different (though I'm not sure exactly what EU comments you're referring to).
So I think the best argument against this is that the US has done massive infrastructure projects in the past. Some cities had (and some still have) decent public transportation and we've done large canals and even the interstate highway project. I've also seen local infrastructure (and I mean actually local, on the city/county level) be very impactful in the community.
My experience is that unless the community really wants the infrastructure it won't get done and I've seen a lot of opposition to forms of transport that aren't just roads (with the most extreme case of a vocal group in a town not wanting a rail line into the city because they were worried people from the city would come out to their town. They literally didn't want too easy of transportation into/out of the city).
What's to humor here? Do you have a passion for laundry and dishes? Do you spend your free time gleefully dirtying dishes just so you can wash them again? Is art or music something you feel forced to do but don't want to?
I am struggling to understand what's really the opposite here. I don't think anyone views art as the same sort of burden as people view dishes. It's not something you're forced to do (even in the situations you do need it it's pretty trivial to buy).
Your purchasing decisions are one of the more significant ways you impact the world and it makes sense people want to be cognizant of how they are effecting other people.
Though I recognize depending on people's mental health it can be stressful to think about and if you can't then it's okay, one of my friends in particular was worrying about what she was buying to the point where it was a significant source of stress in her life and that wasn't good (though therapy for her general anxiety helped a ton so she's now concientious about what she buys while not stressing over it. It took her a while to get there though).
It makes sense if consumerism is your only connection to human society.
It is a form of trained helplessness to fixate perpetually on consumption.
If someone wants to do good in the world, go out and do it. help someone for real. I think it is lack of real connection that leads people to navel gaze about the third order consequences of their clothes or software.
I think this substack [1] summed it up perfectly:
>I was 16 when I realized I had to kill myself. I was in a Denny’s with my friends, looking at an empty glass of Diet Coke. The glass was produced by taking the raw resources of a foreign country, exploiting its workers in horrible factories, and sent to me to drink out of. And I didn’t really have any other option for getting liquid from a nearby water source into my body, it had to travel through moral atrocity along the way. It wasn’t just one glass, of course. It was everything. It was the shoes I was wearing (shoes were a big deal in those days) and the flooring I walked on and the food I ate. The only moral act was to kill oneself, and failure to do that meant you accept your role as a vicious monster. (The depression helped, but maybe the depression/guilt causality was reversed.)
IMO you're pretty right on this front. A lot of the folks I see most concerned about consumption are the folks who have the hardest time engaging offline. I suspect a lot of these folks feel anxiety in interacting with a physical community and find consumption to be one of their main connections to the world around them.
No, they are one of the laziest, most do nothing ways.
Right now in your community are tons of organizations looking for people to actually help.
I've restored nesting habitat for endangered birds. And I just happened to be able the beach when volunteers came around. That did more than stressing over what I bought ever did, and it was just hanging out at the beach. There are orgs for driving people to medical appointments. That can be an amazing impact on someone's life and on yourself (more than buying the right ketchup).
Make yourself financially strong so that you can help others. Sacrificing your money to make a point is wasted virtue signaling.
I mainly see people who shop correct/rescue animals as the most minimal helpers who want to feel they are helping. There is an old woman dieing crying in your town right now because she's overwhelmed and doesn't know how to get to an appointment she needs. An no one cares. But if I buy the right ketchup, that matters? If I drive 2 hours to save a dog (while the old woman dies crying and alone, unable to get to the doctor, a 15 minute trip) I'm a good person?
price discovery through invisible hand, competitive markets are the the opposite of communism. crony capitalist monopolies are more like fascism vs communism
“Crony capitalist monopolies” are a prominent feature of the real world system for which socialist critics coined the name “capitalism”.
They do have a lot to do with “Communism” if by that you mean Leninism and its derivatives, all of which are state-capitalist systems in practice (in theory as a transitional developmental phase to socialism, but few ever transitioned out except a few like China that transitioned to something like the fascist form of corporatism, which is in many ways, as an economic system divorced from the rest of fascism, a midway point between private capitalism and state capitalism.)
the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian states and started slaughtering, torturing and starving people. what's your point?
and by socialism i mean the 4th international, the 3rd international, et al, whence were spawned many socialist parties that called themselves socialists, but which are in full agreement with what casual observers would call communism and or marxism. it's all distinction without difference.
> the real world critics of crony capitalism also coined the term socialism and then set about forming sociopathic totalitarian stat
No, they didn't; the people who did the latter were different people, decades later than the former, who, despite claiming ideological continuity, departed radically from the theory of the former. The original critics saw capitalism as (like socialism, but prior to it) an imperfect but necessary developmental stage on the road to the end-stage of communism, while the people who built the totalitarian dystopias saw it as a thing to be avoided entirely, adapted Marxist theory to bypass it, etc.
> and by socialism i mean the 4th international, the 3rd international, etc.,
Obviously, the 3rd and 4th international were not the people who wrote the original critiques in which capitalism was named
> but which are in full agreement with what casual observers would call communism and or marxism
“Casual observers” are called that for a reason.
> source: i used to be an active communist
Not at all surprised; you seem to still deeply hold to the propaganda of one of the Leninist-derived branches, even having abandoned it as an ideology/identity.
The US has made at least hundreds of billions of dollars from it's tech companies and has had a dominance over global tech for a long time. The tech industry has brought a crazy amount of money and power to the US so it makes sense the US puts extra effort to support it.
The US isn't supporting it out of charity, it's good for US businesses to have someone coordinating this for everyone. Why would we want to rely on other countries to be supporting our tech sector? At least now we are subject to only the capricious whims of our own government, as little comfort as that is right now (if another country was funding it we would be relying on the whims of a foreign government, which isn't ideal when tech is the golden goose of your modern economy).
The scores were never going to be that accurate across people's environments (IDK how much other places relied on them, places I worked never did that much) and issues with the scores don't seem to be a good justification to torch the whole CVE system anyway.
This^ and to add to that, at the very least MITRE assigned IDs which is great. Plus they did an initial scoring, which, well… will never be perfect like you said and I’m sure these things evolve throughout time and get better (not talking necessarily CVSS vX).
What a shame on this current gov. administration, if you can even call it that.
I think the question everyone in this thread should ask is: why is it the government's job to do this, especially given the prior widespread view that they're doing a bad job? Is the software industry so immiserated by poverty that it cannot organize its own distribution of security bulletins? Clearly not: GitHub already runs its own vuln tracking scheme that's better integrated with the tooling we use for open source software. The industry routinely sets up collaborations like standards bodies, information sharing groups and more. And there is as whole ecosystem of security companies to help you understand vulns in your stack.
So there seems nothing specific to CVEs that requires government involvement, but the existence of the tax funded scheme does discourage the creation of competitors that might function better.
But, to CVE or not to CVE ... that is not the question. US deficit spending is out of control. This sort of thing had to happen some day. It's what Europeans in the 2010s called "austerity" and it always makes some people scream but this graph:
... is not sustainable. Up to 1984 overall US debt was stable. Since then its growth rate became dangerous. Debt/GDP ratio is now worse than just after WW2. The federal government is currently spending more on interest than on defense or Medicare:
The US is currently getting its first taste of what parts of Europe started going through in 2008, and unfortunately there's bad news: the cuts you're seeing now are mostly cosmetic. They're what can be done within the current framework of laws, sort of, with lots of bending of the rules and creative interpretations of them and maybe some oversteps. But it's just the start of what's needed. Large scale reform of the laws themselves will be required regardless of whoever wins the next elections.
This is like, exactly the sort of thing that the public sector should be doing. There's no profit incentive for this to happen in the private sector.
I don't disagree with your overall sentiment re: unsustainable debt. But the answer must be reform and taking hard looks at the military budget, not just randomly cutting programs that you disagree with politically.
They are doing it, but there's no profit incentive. Github is a bit of a special case because of their commitment to OSS and the broader engineering community, but the moment a downturn occurs and MS takes a harder look at P&Ls, you better believe that's on the chopping block.
The public sector is exactly where you need things that are important to society but don't make money.
There's a profit incentive: GitHub sells its services. The free stuff is an advert.
At any rate, even if they give it away for altruistic reasons, Microsoft is a sustainable going concern that brings in more than it spends. It can afford charity. The US government isn't and can't.
> But, to CVE or not to CVE ... that is not the question. US deficit spending is out of control. This sort of thing had to happen some day.
I suppose more people would be more amenable to these wholesale cuts if the current administration weren't blowing through even more money than before [0]:
> The new Treasury Department data shows a deficit of $1.307 trillion for October through March, the first six months of the fiscal year 2025. And spending is $139 billion more in the first three months of 2025 compared to the same period last year, with borrowing over that period $41 billion higher.
We're currently fighting no wars and yet Trump is proposing a record $1 trillion defense budget [1]:
> “We’re going to be approving a budget, and I’m proud to say, actually, the biggest one we’ve ever done for the military,” he said. “$1 trillion. Nobody has seen anything like it.
And that's before proposed cuts to tax revenue [2]:
> Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. Long-run GDP would be 1.1 percent higher, offsetting $710 billion, or 16 percent, of the revenue losses.
So this whole "we're just imposing much needed austerity" to justify penny-wise-pound-foolish policies is kind of laughable when the proposed increase to our peacetime defense budget alone wipes out Elon's most recent estimate of DOGE's total savings [3].
Yes. The Republicans are not and never have been united around fiscal conservatism. Eliminate-the-deficit libertarians are one faction within the party but not the dominant one, and Trump doesn't come from it. Same with most right wing parties the world over: the bigger faction is usually one that likes both tax cuts and spending increases. That's why deficits are out of control across the west: between the tax-and-spend left and the don't-tax-but-spend right, the don't-tax-and-don't-spend contingent isn't big enough to outvote the others. Clinton was very unusual in this regard, perhaps a product of the short post-USSR consensus.
Elon is a libertarian and has been allowed to go do some spending cuts around the edges. This gets support from Republican members of Congress partly because the USG turns out to be spending a lot of money on highly partisan Democrat projects, but mostly because it's someone else doing the cutting and not them. Even if they know they should be doing it themselves they don't want the crazies trashing their cars, so if some outsider does it for them that's a deal they'll happily take whilst it lasts.
All that said, it's inevitable that the administration would be blowing through more money than before even with DOGE. It's the nature of debt that it compounds. The level of cuts required to even keep the deficit stable would be huge because interest payments are accelerating, and the cuts DOGE are allowed to make are small (even when they go further than they might technically be allowed).
Right now there's just no mainstream support in US politics for serious austerity. There never is in any country, but sometimes the public can be convinced to agree to some amount if politicians do a good job of communicating the deficit problem. The UK in 2010 is an example of that, where the Conservative/Lib Dem alliance was able to convince the public to vote for spending cuts (albeit not as deep as were actually required... but it tided the UK over until the economy started growing again).
Even in engineering it's important for people to understand what people want and to make sure people feel heard and validated. I've found that especially when dealing with people up the management chain understanding what they want and even using the techniques you describe is very effective. My experience is that pretty much everyone, but especially people in engineering fields and data driven science fields (me included), vastly overestimates how "logical" they are. At the end of the day we are all just a species of ape
The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this: And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
reply