It seems very self evident to me (given what we now see with legalized gambling) that the harms of broadly legalizing it and creating an industry around it far outweigh any harms associated with black markets by a wide margin. Also, black markets for gambling still exist, so this kind of just feels additively worse. Just from a measure of utility, even if we went back to only having gambling performed with organized criminals breaking legs when people can't pay, that would still result in significantly fewer ruined lives, significantly better quality of life for the communities that are having wealth sucked out of them and into gambling syndicates. It's entirely unproductive destruction of wealth, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. If gambling made anything better in net for society, gambling syndicates would never attempt to legalize it.
A few things; one, even if it's not strictly speaking true that cocaine use always leads to addiction every single time, we know now better than in Victorian era England how often it does, and Doyle not having been a cocaine user may have lost some of the elements of how cocaine is addictive and what it looks like. I hate to say that there is some moral duty to show a protagonist using cocaine as having a problem with its use that needs to be overcome, but I do think it'd be strange too to keep what was effectively this SMBC comic (https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=191) as Holmes' use of coke.
Secondly, the stories that mention coke use are all written from the perspective of Holmes' best friend, who we'd expect to be biased towards writing about his friend in a positive light. I don't think this is accidental. Watson quotes him effectively saying "I just do coke because life is so mundane and boring, and not stimulating enough for me" which is nearly the exact same justification and thought process used by like, every addict and if not a word-for-word quote, then at least very similar for Chris Moltisanti's justification of his own addiction to Tony Soprano.
It may not be an exact rendering of what was in the books but it is extremely natural modification to make, where otherwise we'd have flat Marty Stu character who is talking in ways that seem very consistent with at least problematic use and yet who's not addicted. "Our own times" have dealt with at least 100 years of coke addiction, 50 years of crack so maybe we're just not naive enough to believe that a guy who's saying "my friend just takes it when he's bored, but he's bored all the time because his mind is too sharp for this dull world" isn't a problematic user or addict.
The definition of a monopoly basically resolves to "those companies that don't get pressured to meaningfully compete on price or quality", it's a tautology. If a firm has to compete, it doesn't remain a monopoly. What's the point you're making here?
What if the cops, the friend, and the consulate all said, "we do not care about a random mentally ill stranger, on a different continent, sending threats. You said he's been doing this for years and has done nothing yet? Sounds like you're safe. We have real crimes to solve. We have real murders to figure out. Call back if he shows up at your house, but he most certainly never will." Or maybe the FBI is like "oh, okay. Thanks. We'll keep an eye out but now this guy's part of an investigation so we can't talk about him to you." and then they do nothing, the friend doesn't reply, and the consulate is like "we're not obligated to reply." Those seem like super likely conclusions to the husband helping, too. So then would that have no longer been the "actual solution?" It seems that the "actual solution" is only determined after the fact once there is a success, and that's used as a proxy for whether or not the actions were really trying. If she had never replied and then the guy stopped texting after a year, would that have also been Actually Trying? Maybe it would've, because one could come up with a post-hoc explanation as to why that was an Actual Try. It feels sloppy to not distinguish what makes something a form of an Actual Try vs a successful try, because Actually Trying should be able to count failures as part of sincere attempts. Otherwise, Actually Trying collapses into being a synonym for success.
I know, the takeaway is so funny, because it's not actually up to the author whether or not the solution she took would've worked. To her, "Actually Trying" and "not trying" both hinged on the success of other people helping her out. To a more hard hearted individual, the only thing that would've qualified as "Actually Trying" would've been flying out to India in person and then finding the guy first when he'd least expect it. "Actually Trying" was only determined after the fact when the result was that there was a success. If the husband coordinating with a friend hadn't worked, what then? Did he "Actually Try" if the FBI, the Consulate, and the friend were all like "we don't give a shit about this random little troll sending death threats. Did you know everyone gets death threats all the time on the Internet? Log off." What then? Is that still Actually Trying, or do we only determine that after a success? Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, friends.
The husband was the social proof that this random junkie woman who's complaining about a guy on the opposite side of the planet was worth taking seriously. She might not have wanted to go to the cops because she didn't want to go to them, have them laugh it off and then feel both powerless and humiliated, and the conclusion is that another person who then manages the difficulty isn't even trying? Maybe not, but that's a different think from deciding that they aren't doing it because they're stuck in some old mindset.
The other example she gives is this: "These are people who could successfully launch a product in a foreign country with little instruction, but who complain that there aren’t any fun people to meet on the dating apps." Like, girl, it's not up to you whether or not there are any cool people on dating apps. There's a selection bias of who gets on dating apps going on here. You can do everything within your power and Actually Try all you want to have it be another way, but you can't really force cool people to socialize in the way that you want them to. It could be the case that there really is no one cool on those dating apps, because social climate being the way that it is means that no one feels comfortable showing their whole, unvarnished, "cool" selves and the coolest people are hidden.
At what point is someone "Actually Trying"? Is it once they've succeeded? This feels like the self help, "The Secret", "Girl, Wash Your Face" of previous eras but dressed up in the language of people who use terms like "non-zero probability", "priors", and "local optimum". The takeaway should not be that someone shouldn't try, but that the serenity prayer's most difficult part is the "wisdom to know the difference". She had the power to change this, but the wisdom to know the difference here was not guaranteed. It would be a kinder message to everyone who is in a tough spot to at least acknowledge that having a husband to vouch for her, with connections, free time, and a motivated reason to help out kind of changes to what extent she personally could be responsible for Actually Trying.
The solar panels required energy to create, too. I don't think that it would take centuries for replacing Cray 1 with a Raspberry Pi 5 to pay for itself in carbon intensity, even if both are powered by solar panels. The Cray example is seemingly uncharitable, but the principal is the same because if the only relevant thing is solar power, then it should take centuries in that case too, right?
If a laptop costs 1000 dollars to buy, it couldn't have used more than 1000 dollars worth of hydrocarbons to create, unless firms are operating at a loss, right? Yes, the laptop required mining lithium, mining steel, turning hydrocarbons into plastics, growing silicon crystals, photolithography for the chips, running the conveyor belts for the assembly lines, etc and all those things required electricity and the electricity was mostly provided by fossil fuels, but the total amount of fossil fuels used (when considering price) couldn't have exceeded the cost of the laptop, because that would mean that some firms are spending more on fuel than they're receiving in profit, and such firms in the general case don't survive long. So if you take the cost of the laptop and then convert that to the mix of hydrocarbons used for energy at the time of the product's manufacture, that gives you an absolute upper bound of how much embodied carbon that thing must represent. It also gives you a lower bound of how efficient something has to be before you've paid for the old thing being thrown out and the new thing being manufactured.
So consider this: you have a desktop from 2010, it cost 1000 dollars, and operated at 150 watts. You consider getting a laptop today for 500 dollars, and it would have twice the nominal performance and operates at 50 watts. The total amount of embodied carbon for both of those devices has to be less than $1,500 worth of carbon dioxide produced by hydrocarbons. It can't be higher than that. Then you consider the running cost of 150 watts per hour vs 50 watts per hour. Well, back in 2010, 1000 (2010) dollars could buy you about 6000 to 9000 kilowatt hours worth of electricity when adjusting for conversion rates and electricity cost in China. Today, 500 dollars can buy about 3500 to 6500 kilowatt hours depending on whether you're buying in the US or China. So in order for the embodied carbon to be paid off for the laptop vs the desktop, let's take 7500 kilowatts for the desktop (a fair midpoint) plus 5000 kilowatts for the laptop, and then divide that by the running difference in power of the two systems: 100 watts. So if you plan on operating the laptop continuously for 13 years, the carbon savings from the efficiency gain of the new device would offset any possible carbon generated from the old device. But the laptop is twice as powerful, and what I gave was an absolute upper bound, and cannot be taken as a good ballpark estimate for how much carbon was actually produced. In the example that I gave, there was a 15-year age difference between the old system and the new system. Depending on how the devices were used, it's reasonable to assume that the right time to have replaced the desktop was back in 2023. Depending on how you use your device, it may never end up paying itself off before using less carbon than the older device. Waste is possible. But if the new device is on longer than 125,000 hours, it will have. It's just a sanity check, but it's good to have an upper bound.
Consider the Ultimatum game. Alice and Bob are part of a millionaire madman's experiment, and so Alice and Bob are told the following: they have won a sum of $10,000 and Alice will be given the authority to decide how to divide their winnings. If Bob accepts Alice's offer, then both of them get the money as decided in the offer. If Bob rejects Alice's offer, then both of them get nothing. In addition, they have no ability to communicate or negotiate the offer; it's a one and done thing. So let's say Alice offers 100 dollars to Bob, and she will keep 9900.
Now, most people would say that Bob is acting out of spite if he rejects Alice's offer, because he's causing Alice losses and he gains nothing, and the benefit he receives is that Alice is made sad by this. Is that a fair interpretation, though? He believes that he's acting out of a moral obligation to screw over someone who themself is (in his mind) acting unjustly. He's valuing punishing someone that he feels is breaking a social contract greater than the 100 dollars that he would otherwise have. What do you call what he is doing in this situation if not spite? And if he is acting out of a principled objection to an unfair situation, does it become something other than spite? And if it's actually principled, why does the principle seem to melt away when the offer is $7000 to $3000?
I feel like spite is a huge motivator behind a lot of cultural issues nowadays but it can only come from people who feel as if they are coming from a place of weakness or victimization. There is always a moral indignation. The gratification is in seeing their vision of justice meted out. It isn't always a psychopathic, sadistic behavior but it can be in those cases where a vision of justice is distorted and psychopathic. Consider this: isn't imprisoning people often a form, ultimately, of societal spite? In isolation it may be cheaper to just give petty criminals whatever they want rather than paying the cost for them being jailed. Amortized cost, it's probably a lot cheaper to pay a drunkard's taxi home from the bar every single time he goes drinking than to lock him in jail for 3 months for a second DUI. Is spite the reason that we don't just give him that? Again, the justice thing.
The mathematically correct way to distribute the winnings is 50-50. In a situation where value is created only if 2 entities come together, the only fair way to distribute the winnings is 50-50. If Alice provided $1m dollars of startup capital, but can only achieve her goal having Bob on the team. Mathematically, Bob should be entitled to half the profits. In your game Bob is clearly being disadvantaged. Real life doesn't typically have the constraint "In addition, they have no ability to communicate or negotiate the offer; it's a one and done thing". Without this constraint, Bob can act rationally by threatening and following through with spitefulness in order to negotiate better terms. If Alice is not willing to negotiate until the fairness mark is reached, they are just as liable for the net loss in value.
Maybe Jean Luc Picard should've lost that court case. Obviously we as the audience want to have our heroes win against some super callous guy who wants to kill our hero (and audience stand in for anyone who is neurodivergent) Data, but the argument was pretty weak, because Data often acted in completely alien ways that jeopardized the safety of the crew, and the way that those issues came up was due to him doing things that were not compatible with what we perceive as consciousness. But also, in that episode, they make a point of trying to prove that he was conscious by showing that he engaged in behavior that wasn't goal oriented, like keeping keepsakes and mementos of his friends, his previous relationship with Tasha, and his relationship with his cat. That was an attempt at proving that he was conscious too, but the argument from doubt is tough because how can you prove that a rock is not conscious - and if that can't be proved, should we elevate human rights to a rock?
First of all, Data never willingly jeopardized the crew.
Second, they work alongside actual aliens. Being different is not a disqualification. And Maddox isn't callous, he just doesn't regard Data as anything more than "just a machine". A position he eventually changes over the series as he becomes one of Data's friends.
Data is also not a stand in for the neurodivergent. He's the flip of Spock. Spock asks us what if we tried to approach every question from a place of pure logic and repressed all emotion. Data asks us what if we didn't have the option, that we had to approach everything from logic and couldn't even feel emotion. I also feel that equating data to someone who is neurodivergent is kind of insulting as neurodivergent people do have feelings and emotions.
But Data was capable of being fully autonomous and could act with agency. Something a rock can't. Data exhibits characteristics we generally accept as conscious. He is not only capable of accessing a large corpus of knowledge, but he is capable of building upon that corpus and generate new information.
Ultimately, we cannot prove a rock is not conscious. But, as far as we are able to discern, a rock cannot express a desire. That's the difference. Data expressed a desire. The case was whether or not Starfleet had to respect that desire.
> First of all, Data never willingly jeopardized the crew.
This presupposes that he has consciousness. He can only "willingly" do things if he is conscious. If the argument is that there was an external influence that changed his behavior thus making it not volitional then you have to distinguish why the external force makes his Lore behavior unwilling, but Soong's initial programming willing. If I set a thermostat to 85 degrees, would you say that the thermostat is "unwillingly" making people uncomfortable, but at the factory default of 70 degrees, it's helping people feel comfortable? It's difficult to distinguish what is willing and unwilling if consciousness is in question so this feels like begging the question.
> I also feel that equating data to someone who is neurodivergent is kind of insulting as neurodivergent people do have feelings and emotions.
I'm stating it as an aside / justification for why we want the story to go a certain direction because I see so many articles elevating Data as a heroic representation of neurodivergence. My goal wasntt to be offensive. There are a ton of episodes where Data is puzzled by people's behavior and then someone has to explain it to him almost as if someone is also explaining to the audience it as a morality tale. Remember when Data was struggling to understand how he was lied to? Or how he lost in that strategy game? Or how to be funny? We don't just see him struggle, someone explains to him exactly how he should learn from his experience. That appears to be for the benefit of the android and the people behind the fourth wall.
> A rock cannot express a desire.
It can if you carve a rock into the words "I want to live" and even though the rock didn't configure itself that way, it's expressing a desire. Noonien Soong built Data, so it's possible that he designed Data to state the desire to be human. Data does seem to have an interiority but he also seems to not have it based on the caprice of outside forces, which is problematic because the way that he is controlled is not very different from the way he is built.
On the Data question I'm not saying that Maddox should've won but that the fact that Picard won is more about it being narratively required rather than "prove that I am conscious" being a good argument.
