It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

To begin with here, I'm hesitant to write anything about this event. That is, in part, because I'm still processing thoughts about it, but also in part because of the uncertain environment around expressing viewpoints around it. There is a lot of crackdown on free speech happening at the national level, as the Trump regime tries to silence any speech which they do not like, and other organizations (such as employers) are firing people for expressing views online as well. There are endemic attacks on political discourse and free expression ongoing in the US, and any speech entails risk (up to and including moral risk, as per the example case here). That's the state of the union. However, I have thoughts, and I think it's important to express them regardless. First, I wholeheartedly agree with Bernie Sanders (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlIvH6ozvv4): political violence is unacceptable in the US. I would go a step further, and say that efforts to suppress free spe...

So, this is a topic I've been dwelling on a bit recently, and I have some mixes and nuanced thoughts, so apologies in advance if this post ends up a bit scattered. Also, this is probably going to be a more controversial take, so if you might be offended by controversial opinions, maybe skip this post. I have kids. My kids do activities. These activities usually cost money (some a little, some a lot). Almost all of these activities involve some sort of fundraising, to subsidize the costs of the activities for people and families with less money. Sometimes this is voluntary, sometimes this is compulsory, with a strong aspect of forced wealth redistribution (eg: the soccer club my son plays for requires parents to raise or directly pay around $500/year extra, to subsidize other families with less money, in addition to the roughly $4000/yr in club fees). All of this fundraising, donations, required donations, etc. is socialized wealth redistribution. Now, I'm torn on if this is ...

(Author's note: I'm feeling inspired to write more fiction, as-if the US had a semi-competent leader at present.) My fellow Americans, I'm here today to address some of the questions and concerns about the recent US military action in Iran, in which we participated in an effort to degrade the ability for the Iranian regime to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. I will try to answer some of the questions about this operation, so that the American people can be more informed. Initially, let me touch on the evaluation of success of the operation. From a military perspective, the operation ran successfully: the systems performed well, the targets were hit as intended, and no US military personnel were harmed. From an efficacy perspective, the global intelligence community is still evaluating, and this will take time. At this point, we believe we have contributed to delaying Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, but we do not know to what extent. I will also say, for refe...

There's a famous moral dilemma, where the person is forced to choose between inaction, and action which causes lessor evil. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. There is no "correct" answer for this problem, of course, just philosophical takes on the morality of each choice. This is somewhat related to the more general question of whether or not propagating a smaller evil is justified to prevent a larger evil (eg: killing one to save many, or causing some to suffer in the goal of reducing larger future suffering). I lead with this, because I feel like there's a variant of this problem which is applicable to a number of human populations in the world, where the human population is doing something "bad", and as a result are suffering... and others needs to decide to what extent to help them at that point. By rendering assistance, one would be indirectly supporting the "bad" actions which led to the current state, and perhaps indirectly...

(Note: This is more or less just an fanciful writing exercise, "If I was in charge".) A statement on US actions in Iran: The United States has a strong national interest in preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In addition to the regional threat this would pose to US forces in the region, the regime has been unequivocal in their desire to affect genocide on the people of various countries, including the United States, and as such there is a clear motivation for us to attempt to limit their access to weapons of mass destruction. On this goal we are aligned with all regional partners, the United Nations, and all other civilized and peace loving nations in the world. At the same time, the Iranian regime has been unequivocally working to acquire a nuclear weapon for at least the last few decades. From impeding inspections, to enriching Uranium far beyond the levels required for fuel, to building concealed and hard to target development facilities, to vari...

This week, Israel unilaterally attacked Iran, under the pretense of having credible intelligence that their genocidal adversary was close to manufacturing a nuclear bomb, and that military action was necessary to prevent that outcome. The two countries have been lobbing munitions at each other since (Israel is precision bombing military facilities, while Iran is firing ballistic missiles seemingly intended to inflict the maximum amount of civilian casualties, as per their stated genocidal national goal). As for the validity of the pretense, there's no reasonable doubt that Iran is building toward a nuclear weapon. They have been enriching Uranium far beyond what would be required for energy production, building hidden enrichment facilities in very secure underground locations, developing and acquiring missile technology, etc. Any claim that Iran was not working intently to produce a nuclear weapon is patently absurd on the face of all the evidence (Iran's transparent lies notwi...

Last week, the CEO of United Healthcare was shot in the street in New York. As I write this, the killer is still uncaught. Current ish coverage link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/08/us/brian-thompson-unitedhealthcare-gunman-search-sunday/index.html A lot of the media has been focusing on how people on social media are not exactly sympathetic to the victim, with many people having mixed feelings, and some clearly supporting the killing. In general, wealthy CEO's of large companies are viewed with a certain amount of disdain, and health insurance companies are generally perceived as evil. In this case, the intersection of both makes it easy for people to rationalize this murder as a "good thing", and sympathize with the killer. I have thoughts, which are somewhat more nuanced. The problems with the current health insurance industry in the US have been around for a while, but were sorta amplified by Obamacare (aka the very disingenuously named "Affordable Care Act",...

This might be a long post, but in the context of the current election, and broader, I wanted to write up a primer on how inflation works. This is a hot topic at the moment, and one of the strongest talking points in politics, particularly within the right-leaning circles. It's also one of the least understood topics generally, and thus one of the easiest to inaccurately blame on people or actions for political purposes. Furthermore, actions related to inflation are the perhaps surprising cause of several pressing societal woes (eg: housing prices, wage stagnation, etc.), so it would be great if the general population better understood what was going on. So, hopefully, this will help. What causes inflation Milton Friedman (famous economist) once observed: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." This is, broadly, true: inflation happens when more money is competing for the same amount of goods and services, and thus the people with the goods ans services...

Something I've been thinking about recently: Often when someone (or a group of people) commit some heinously evil act, the media (and/or their supporters) will try to promote a narrative of the importance of focusing on why they got to the point where they were "compelled" to that type of action. They (the supporters) will insist that the motivating factors should be addressed if we (society) want to prevent that type of societally destructive behavior in the future, and that just focusing on the actions in isolation doesn't properly account for all those responsible. You can see this in numerous different situations; here are some examples. In Israel/Gaza, supporters attempt to justify the murderous terrorist actions of Hamas by pointing at the conditions in Gaza. In the case of mass murderers, supporters will often insist on asking why the deranged individual was driven to commit acts of murder, and if more societal support might be possible. In cases of ubiquitous ...

Every once in a while, I have occasion to reflect on the act of having children, and whether or not it can be justified in the existential sense. I have children, and have made the choice to have them, so for me it's more or less a post facto analysis, but still a somewhat interesting philosophical one. Some pundits have made a big deal about the idea that declining birth rates in first-world countries is a societal problem (eg: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/health/elon-musk-population-collapse-wellness/index.html). This is not, generally, a problem currently, as birth rates in poorer and less educated areas more than make up for declines in procreation among the wealthy and educated. There is, certainly, a valid but more nuanced argument that the shifting demographics as a result of who chooses to procreate is degrading the quality of the gene pool for humanity, but that's not a very politically correct argument to make in public, so most people steer clear. I'm not going...

Ben Shapiro has an interesting take on the current state of the Ukraine invasion, and what he perceives at the likely and/or necessary endgame for the war: https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1605899823491620866 Now, Shapiro is not a dumb person (even though he has plenty of viewpoints and opinions which I don't personally agree with), but this line of thinking exemplifies the idea that opinions are very often shaped by assumptions, and people can reach very different conclusions if they start with different assumptions (which may or may not be stated). In this case, Shapiro assumes that Ukraine cannot push Russia out of all of its territory (and/or that "defeating its invasion" is not inclusive of repelling Russia from all the territory which it has invaded, but only halting their advances). I don't know that either of those assumptions are accurate. Moreover, I somewhat disagree with the premise, in concept. The interests of the US, in a geopolitical sense, are mo...

 One of the more significant political moves which Biden has done, even if it's somewhat under the radar in terms of national news reporting, is the place extensive new restrictions on China's access to advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology. For a primer, see: https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/10/27/biden-s-unprecedented-semiconductor-bet-pub-88270 I've been trying to wrap my head around the motivation for this. After all, the status quo seemed fine from an outsider perspective, and aggravating China seems politically dangerous. It's also the kind of move which would traditionally be done by the more right-wing people in the US political sphere's (despite Trump's essentially "rhetoric only" approach to foreign policy, which was fairly damaging to the US efforts in general). However, I have another theory now, which I'll expound upon; no idea if this is accurate, but it's conceptually interesting. Currently, a lot of US semiconductor...

I don't care about Brittney Griner. That's somewhat inaccurate, I suppose. In relation to her as a human being, I care about her: I don't want her to be abused, or mistreated, or killed, etc. But in relation to the plethora of stories and attention that her situation continues to receive, I don't care as much, and I certainly don't think any of it warrants news media or Presidential administration copy. If you need to catch up, here's the latest as of today, for reference: https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/34982248/brittney-griner-moves-russian-penal-colony-exact-location-unknown I don't care about her (beyond as any other person) because she's largely responsible for her current situation. First, she's a criminal: she brought known-illegal stuff into Russia, without respecting their laws. As Americans, we project our views and opinions a lot on other countries, but Russia has their own laws, and if you're going to visit there and you ignore ...

So I was watching Jon Steward recently, briefly discussing Kanye West's comments about Jewish people in the entertainment industry, and the resulting backlash. It's not the main focus of the podcast, but it was interesting to listen to that segment (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVTXI-G0g4c). To summarize, Jon was discussing how Kayne has asserted that Jewish people controlled a disproportionately large amount of the entertainment business, and how while people generally objected to the characterization as anti-semetic, there was an undercurrent among some who noted that Jewish people were overly-represented in those positions relative to general population demographics. Jon was discussing (along with two of his writers, one of which is also Jewish) how that put him in a somewhat uncomfortable position, where he felt like more of an outsider who people felt the need to stand up for, and that didn't seem necessarily appropriate. The conversation touched on the paral...

Much has been made over Elon's recent acquisition of Twitter, paying ~$44B to take the company private. Many of the hot takes are just hot garbage, as you would expect from various marginal "news" organizations; an abbreviated selection with commentary: "Elon disbands the Board" (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/31/tech/elon-musk-twitter-board/index.html). Note that this is totally normal, since he's taking the company private, no longer needs a Board to represent shareholder interests, and will save $3M/yr in the process. Also note that this was stated in April. Also note that Elon was very critical of the Board; arguably, this was one of the main motivating factors for the acquisition (ie: he thought he could run the company better). "Elon fires 75% of Twitter." This was a bogus story to begin with; current more reasonable take is that he's looking to reduce headcount by ~25%, which seems entirely reasonable. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/te...

I observed today that people's reactions to the verdict in this case is very reminiscent, to me, of people's reactions to the results of the last couple of presidential elections in the US. Each side had a perception of the events as they transpired in the lead-up, which was heavily skewed by the media reporting within the ideological bubble in which they resided. Each side thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and anything other than their desired outcome would be a catastrophic failure of the system; they could not fathom any other outcome being even thinkable. And in the wake of the actual outcome, each side's media outlets are skewing the coverage to feed the narrative which appeals to their base: either applauding the outcome as necessary and just, or deriding it as a symptom of a systemically broken country which need radical change. Neither of these narratives are either correct or productive, imho. Kyle Rittenhouse went to an area where people were protesti...

On March 25, 2014, about 7.5 years ago, Facebook announced that it was acquiring Oculus VR, the then-leader in the emerging market for VP hardware. Since then, Facebook has been integrating the technology, expanding the offerings, and generally touting the benefits of VR for the masses. Despite this huge investment and PR push, though, VR has not really moved beyond the domain of niche games, or into anything approaching mainstream adaption. Facebook persists in its push, of course, with their most recent offering being a pair of AR glasses reminiscent of Google Glass (which has since been essentially abandoned). I don't think they are going to succeed in their business goal, and I'll explain why I think this. First, we should consider what their business goal actually is, because that may not be evident to everyone. I believe that Facebook envisions a market for VR/AR applications as an emerging business, in much the same way that smartphone apps were an emerging market when t...

This post is motivated by a number of recent articles about advocacy in businesses; specifically, different companies' approaches to such. Some motivating examples: Basecamp sees an exodus of employees after CEO takes stand against advocacy within the company:  https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx58vx/basecamp-employees-are-leaving-after-ceo-bans-politics-at-work Shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway are proposing advocacy-related proposals, which Warren Buffet is opposed to, saying he prefers his company not have top-down political mandates:  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/business/dealbook/buffett-berkshire-climate-diversity.html Many companies are adopting internal advocacy programs, and/or devoting resources to such (eg: my current company has a pay-for speaker program for Diversity and Inclusion, with a new speaker for such every month, among other initiatives) The current political climate in the US is promoting the message that you are either an advocate for a cause or a...

I have thoughts on Biden's budget/tax plan (in a surprise to nobody). I'm going to just comment on a few highlights, and not the specific details, since the plan is still in flux. The Good The idea of upping the capital gains tax is something I have supported in concept for a long time. I do not buy the idea that people will keep money out of the economy if capital gains taxes are high, especially with real inflation consistently around 5-10% annually (and poised to be much higher in the short to medium term, as the economy picks up and the trillions in created money flood back into it). I think it makes for better socioeconomic policy to tax passive gains at a higher rate than earned income in general. The Marginal I don't have a strong opinion on raising the top marginal tax rate back to the pre-Trump level, and/or the specific tax rates in general. Of course these have a huge impact on people's take-home income, but tax rates should be set based on what's accepta...

Preface: This blog is called "It's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong"... I feel like this is probably one of the posts which will earn the moniker. There's an issue in today's society: people, and increasingly more young people, are deciding that the gender which they biologically have is not representative of the gender they wish to be. Now, before I even get to the main point of this post, in the interest of being more complete about my view on the baseline context, I'm going to break down that sentence, and clarify where I disagree with some of the "politically correct" views on the subject. First, I think people have a biological gender (generally speaking). I'm aware, of course, that biological gender is not 100% binary: there are people with extra chromosomes, there are varying levels of expression of gender (and genes in general), there are a small percentage of people with somewhat more ambiguous gender, etc. However, the vast majority of...