this article is a masterpiece @socialevol underthrow.substack.com/p/wh…

Dimostratemi che le agenzie immobiliari non sono il male assoluto

Prove me wrong 1)the vote of an unqualified immigrant counts as much as the vote of a professionally qualified one 2) unqualified immigrants are easier to attract because of their greater delta between current condition abroad and future condition in the new country 3) politicians favour low qualified, if not illegal immigration for reasons 1 and 2 4) low qualified professions are those that are more easily replaced by AI and automation with less investment than the total cost of immigration 5) Once they enter your country low qualified immigrants contribute a very little fraction to GDP but consume as much welfare as any other citizen 6) the current incentive structure of politics if fucking up nations with good welfare more than it is healing them through immigration

Il futuro è qui

Wow what a great democracy is Israel, removing the citizenship of two film makers is certainly a good way to show it.

We can all improve the quality of social media by refraining from commenting on posts that are purposely crafted to trigger polarised opinions.

Percentage of Americans showing basic geography literacy in reaction to posts about the Ceuta situation : 0.01%

I highly recommend listening to the recent confrontation between the editor of the Economist and Musk, because, beyond the contents, it is a masterpiece of dialectical confrontation between opposing positions, the likes of which we have not heard since the days when the good Christopher Hitchens was alive. Something that is completely missing in italian media, in which on the one hand journalists seem to have a visibility proportional to their ability to genuflection in front of the interviewees, and on the other hand the really important personalities tend never to expose strong ideas. Opposing strong and opposing ideas through a process of dialogue is the best way to produce quality information (the worst way is to adapt them to the narrator's idea of the audience), in the same way that the best way to produce quality decisions is to subject them to a process of proposal/objection instead of one of seeking mediated consensus.

Una buona legge sulla legittima difesa non può prevedere che uno agisca solo in reazione a ciò che effettivamente gli accade perché l’azione ha sempre precedenza sulla reazione e le sue conseguenze irreparabili potrebbero porre un’ipoteca standard sul risultato finale di ogni escalation che avvantaggerebbe sempre i criminali. Se mi punti una pistola per primo , e io ti sparo prima che lo faccia tu, quella deve considerata legittima difesa, anche se la pistola si rivelerà essere un giocattolo. Non vedo altro modo di concepire la questione ma sono aperto a suggerimenti