fiasco

We routinely take photos in other frequency ranges. It's easy enough to find infrared photographs, made easier since not only is there film that exposes IR, but digital cameras are naturally sensitive to it so you just need to change out some filters. But you know, astrophotography often uses different frequency ranges, since a lot of stellar phenomena emit different kinds of radiation.

The bigger question is, would an alien without eyes at all be aware of electromagnetic radiation? And conversely, what phenomena are there that would be obvious to aliens but we just don't know about, because out sensory organs don't predispose us to being aware of them?

I browsed 4chan /x/ earlier today, so here's where they are...

The obvious one relates to the fact that founding members of the Federal Reserve were on the Titanic, and it was intentionally sunk to (something incoherent about economics). The submarine was sunk for similar reasons.

The Titanic didn't sink, but it was some other vessel, and They had to sink the submarine so the truth wouldn't get out.

There are deep ocean aliens, and the sub had to sink to conceal that fact.

Those are the ones I could remember. In any case, it's always the Jews and the CIA.

Okay, so I'm reasonably neurotypical I guess, but I'm browsing All. And a neurotypical perspective may help, or maybe it won't. And I'll warn you in advance, this may be a bit harsh.

The first basic fact is that the agenda is set by the people who actually do the work (and to a lesser extent, the people who fund the work). The quoted post says the poster is not a developer. So what we're talking about here is "backseat driving," someone wanting to impose direction without providing either work or money. I don't use the term "impose" lightly; the quoted post accuses everyone else of not being open to discussion, of being narcissistic.

The other basic fact is, unless you're in the thick of it, you don't know what's really going on. There are usually reasons things are the way they are. Sometimes those reasons are bad, sometimes they're good. But particularly when we're talking about complex engineered systems, and doubly so when we're talking about computer software, even modest changes usually ripple out and have systemic effects, or require systemic reengineering.

But this is why advice usually isn't welcome, because an advice giver doesn't know the details of what they're advising on. Unless they begin by learning the problem inside and out, obviously, but that takes a ton of time and effort.

Finally, speaking as someone who knows programming very well, the gulf between "why don't you just do X" and the actual work required to do X, if X is even feasible and possible, is enormous. Furthermore, everything comes with tradeoffs, and someone suggesting X is unlikely to understand the tradeoffs, or the tradeoffs that have already been made, and how X might affect those.

All this said, yes sometimes suggestions are ignored or rejected because of ego. This is doubly true when someone is part of an institution, government for example, and wants to defend their turf or they don't wanna spend "political capital" on something outside their personal agenda. This is also true of open source software; if you really wanna see some gnarly shit, try and figure out why LibAV split off from ffmpeg.

If you want the real answer to the question, it is possible to be in charge. The danger with being in charge is that you become accountable for the things you've overlooked. You have to be able to survive your mistakes, then figure out how to avoid them in the future. Being in charge is incredibly taxing, but this is a choice we're all condemned to make: accept things more or less as they are, or put yourself on the line.

It's worth paying attention to what the UMKC people say, they're about the only economists who are actually connected to the real world.

Of course, they'd charge you $300 for having to make the effort.

They should just start posting rules. You know, screenshots of laws, photos of stop signs, warning labels...

No future but what we make for ourselves—and we sure have done a shit job.

The actual goal of political economy should be the well-being of the people. Price stability can be a means to that end, but it can also diminish standards of living. Certainly, price stability is not an end in itself.

To clarify what I mean, this current inflationary period is being caused by transient supply disruptions. They'll clear up on their own. Apart from Japan, what are the central banks of the world doing? They're trying to throw their economies into recession. Because of transient inflation that was not caused by runaway demand.

It's tricky to talk about actual gold standard days, since economic data aren't very reliable that far in the past, but historical accounts don't exactly paint a rosy economic picture. Whether there was price stability, I'm really not sure, but I do know there was mass unemployment, frequent economic crises, and widespread poverty.

Finally, the Eurozone... Their recession following the global financial crisis lasted longer than other advanced economies, because the Stability and Growth Pact is the opposite of sensible economic administration. Indeed, Europe is in a downward binge-purge spiral of—crisis happens, better ignore excessive deficit rules and let the ECB buy sovereign debt at its discretion; well the crisis is over, time to fuck up European economies again; oh no there's another crisis, better ignore the SGP again.

At some point I might have to leave the US, so it's a shame that Europe isn't a viable alternative.

Nothing has inherent value. Inherent value shouldn't be confused with practical value. Anyway, while gold has some practical value nowadays, being a corrosion resistant electrical conductor doesn't explain why people wanted gold more than a hundred years ago. Thinking there's something special about gold that makes it valuable irrespective of social beliefs or practical uses is just... the world's least interesting religion.

The fact is, money has value because it's the only thing that can be used to pay taxes. So for the next level, I've never quite understood what "social construct" means. Is being punched for cosplaying a Nazi a social construct? Not the justification, but the fist, is the fist a social construct? Is being harassed by the IRS because you're a sovereign citizen who uses self-issued Freedom Dollars and doesn't believe the Sixteenth Amendment was duly ratified so income taxes are illegal, is the harassment from the IRS a social construct?

It's a shame they didn't go for that goofy andorian costume.

"I'm saying that, when a communist does it, it's not an atrocity."

If we wanted to mess up scansion for the sake of correctness, "when someone who calls themselves a communist."

One time someone told me that paper money is worthless, so I said, fair enough—I'll take that worthless paper off your hands.

He, uh, didn't take me up on it.