TheDemonBuer

I think most reasonable people would agree that there are many objectively good things about the modern world, but progress isn't a strict good/bad binary. Often, progress results in both good and bad circumstances.

For instance, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern medicine is a very good thing. Vaccines and antibiotics have saved countless lives. Also, more advanced agricultural technology has allowed us to grow more food and feed more people. However, progress has also resulted in significant ecological damage, depletion of natural, nonrenewable resources and a significant loss of biodiversity. I think most reasonable people would agree that these are very bad things.

I don't think the point is to ignore the very real, important positives about the modern world, but to point out that there are still things that need to improve, and unintended negative effects of progress that need to be dealt with.

I appreciate that for you the modern world is overall good, but that's not necessarily everyone's experience. Some people do feel purposeless, depressed and worn down, despite being relatively wealthy and comfortable, especially compared to humans of past eras.

"Well in those days Mars was just a dreary, uninhabitable wasteland - much like Utah - but unlike Utah it was eventually made livable"

The national urban poverty rate plummeted from 52.9% to 38.1% in six months, while extreme poverty halved to 8.2%, marking the sharpest decline in decades.

President Javier Milei’s administration achieved this while slashing public spending by 5% of GDP and navigating a 1.7% economic contraction in 2024. Key drivers included targeted welfare programs and inflation control.

The government expanded the Universal Child Allowance (AUH) to cover teens up to age 17 and increased food card coverage, directly aiding vulnerable households.

So they cut spending overall, but expanded their Universal Child Allowance. I mean, that right there is probably what did most of the poverty reduction. The article doesn't really say where the spending cuts came from. Could be they just cut a lot of waste, but it could be they've made cuts to important government services, and the effects haven't necessarily been felt yet.

The IMF projects 5.5% GDP growth for 2025, fueled by rebounding consumption and investment. This turnaround challenges conventional wisdom that austerity inevitably harms vulnerable populations, showing market-oriented policies can coexist with poverty reduction when paired with precise safety nets.

Does it? Again, we don't know what's been cut and we don't know what the long term effects of those cuts will be. All we know is that they made significant cuts overall, while also expanding two specific safety net programs. Admittedly, that has resulted in a significant reduction in the urban poverty and extreme poverty rates, for now, which is undoubtedly a good thing, but only time will tell if those will last.

This reads like neoliberal propaganda, but honestly Javier Milei is right of even most neoliberals. I seriously doubt the expansion of the Universal Child Allowance and the increased food card coverage will last. I'm certain Milei will want to cut those programs, at some point. He is anarchocapitalist adjacent, so I'm sure he wants to get as close as possible to no government spending at all, eventually.

We live in a rural area, outside any city boundary. The county doesn't have any building codes, and there were only a handful of state codes we had to adhere to.

I should have paid for a home inspection before we took the keys, but we were in a hurry to move in. The build took so much longer than we had planned for that the construction loan matured, went to long term, so we were paying both rent and a mortgage.

The problem is these builders don't want to pay for competency. They'd rather pay immigrants pennies on the dollar for shoddy work. They charge the same for the houses and just pocket the difference. We get a shitty house and the builder gets greater profits.

Oh man, let me tell you. We built our house a few years ago and it was an ordeal. After a while I just stopped asking the builder to fix things because I knew it would be faster and better to fix them myself or get someone else to fix them. It has added tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of the home, and all of that has come out of our own pocket, we didn't get to roll all those extra costs into the mortgage loan.

Some of the corners they cut were unbelievable. They didn't put any insulation in our attic. None. Our master shower drain was just draining directly into the crawl space, not hooked up the drain pipe at all. There was also no insulation in the crawl space, nor was there a vapor barrier. Poor workmanship everywhere, the floors especially are ass.

Several people have told me I should sue the builder, and I probably should, but I'd have to pay for a lawyer, and it would probably take months and months. It's an expense and a hassle I don't want, so instead I just tell everyone to never, ever use Taylor Homes of Nashville. Ever. Even though, every other builder is probably just as bad.

It's not just about winning, it's about ideology. Embracing demsoc candidates wouldn't just be a change in strategy, it would be a change in the party's core ideology. Ideology is why political parties exist. Political parties are usually based in ideology, that's why in other democracies there are liberal parties, conservative parties, socialist parties, Libertarian parties, etc. But here in the US we don't have a system of political ideology plurality, so the two parties that we do have are often fighting internally to determine what the core ideology of the party will be.

You know why so many Democrats don't like demsoc candidates? Because they're not demsocs. They're social liberals or neoliberals, and they want the Democratic party to remain an ideologically Liberal party.

If our democracy were more like most every other democracy on the planet, the neoliberals and the demsocs would each have their own party, and they wouldn't need to be engaged in this constant, zero sum fight for control of one party.

"Settlers"

Because the pro-Israel lobby in the US is just that powerful.

No major kernel decisions were made,” jokes Russinovich in a post on LinkedIn.

Man, wouldn't that be wild, though?