MP. Views In My Yard Today
MP. Views in my yard today
More Posts from Trailsandt and Others
https://stocks.apple.com/AaIyqAP9BQvSuH2GdzJyFjQ
This is good, yet SO BAD. this will only add to more and more red/blue clashes. Because the gun lobby, although loosing strength, is still in the top 3-5 lobbyist money fountains in the halls of congress. Adding to the instructional corruption of the place.
Ha. !
That’s where it is.! I swear, just got distracted for a moment waiting on the modem to log in.
Some (older/ancient) peoples will understand.
I hate that this came from tictocky, but no better advertisement for physics and older people’s experiences.practical applications of their the knowledge. They drink and know things.
And he thought mom was naive....
Makes me smile.
Anybody in need of a pick me up.
Making more $$$ from practicing medicine is NOT better health care. That is just an elitist way of rationing healthcare. Pursuit of the almighty unbridaled profit $ is destroying this country.
10/04/2025 Doctor Beverly Crusher @SpaceDocMom Incoming Transmission…
Capitalism and good health care do not mix. emojis: black heart, blue heart, masked, spoon
The light was incredible this morning.
WHUUUUUUMMMPPPPHHHH. !
wait for it the concussive wave, (that would be the pressure wave you feel from lightning very close). OR I will truly hope ::::: happens in the minds of more peoples.
Been in this situation. It also took me YEARS to figure out, because Nobody talks above this stuff in the open.
As I sit here at my two hour Spravato treatment, I’m thinking about how we talk about depression and whose job it is to do scicomm and health comm about depression.
I’ve had clinical suicidal depression for 24 years, I’ve been in therapy, done inpatient, taken meds, done treatments. I know a lot about it and can help people with the process. I love being a resource for friends new to navigating the options.
But I don’t want to be The Depression Person. Depression is just some background noise that gets in the way of who I actually am. I wanna talk prairie and plants and history!
I hate talking about my depression and suicidiality. I don’t care about receptors and inhibitors and brain chemistry. I don’t want to make work about it. I get rip-roaring furious talking about anti-medication activism, discourse and stigmas around getting help. I have zero interest in getting into it about The Psychiatry Industry, pharmaceuticals, or insurance.
So what action should I take? As a beneficiary of this complex and nuanced field of depression treatment, as a person who uses images to communicate, what am I morally obliged to do? Should I use my experience to educate people? Wouldn’t that make me a corpo shill? A pharma shill? A psychiatry apologist?
I hate that objective, concrete quality of life improvements I have had will be met with hostility and bad faith responses. I’m afraid of the inevitable backlash any depression treatment educational material I make will have. This seems especially pertinent as we in the US are going to have RFK, a man who has explicitly targeted antidepressants, as part of our government. What is my obligation here? What is the right thing to do?
Idk man. I just want to draw and talk about plants. But it sure would have been nice if I had known any of this depression stuff like, a decade earlier.
It’s very difficult, when you begin to look at the basis of why you believe, of what it is that you believe, when you have believed that for a long or very committed period of time.
Where does “ the truth ” of a matter lie ?
In the unshakable belief of just “knowing” it’s “right” or “knowing” it’s based on confirmed irrefutable “science” that may be adjusted by other irrefutable “science” ?
What’s the Philosophy of this madness ?
Academic economists get big payouts when they help monopolists beat antitrust
After 40 years of rampant corporate crime, there's a new sheriff in town: Jonathan Kanter was appointed by Biden to run the DOJ Antitrust Divisoon, and he's overseen 170 "significant antitrust actions" in the past 2.5 years, culminating in a court case where Google was ruled to be an illegal monopolist:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/#extinguish-v-improve
Kanter's work is both extraordinary and par for the course. As Kanter said in a recent keynote for the Fordham Law Competition Law Institute’s 51st Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, we're witnessing an epochal, global resurgence of antitrust:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-jonathan-kanter-delivers-remarks-fordham-competition-law-0
Kanter's incredible enforcement track record isn't just part of a national trend – his colleagues in the FTC, CFPB and other agencies have also been pursuing an antitrust agenda not seen in generations – but also a worldwide trend. Antitrust enforcers in Canada, the UK, the EU, South Korea, Australia, Japan and even China are all taking aim at smashing corporate monopolies. Not only are they racking up impressive victories against these giant corporations, they're stealing the companies' swagger. After all, the point of enforcement isn't just to punish wrongdoing, but also to deter wrongdoing by others.
Until recently, companies hurled themselves into illegal schemes (mergers, predatory pricing, tying, refusals to deal, etc) without fear or hesitation. Now, many of these habitual offenders are breaking the habit, giving up before they've even tried. Take Wiz, a startup that turned down Google's record-shattering $23b buyout offer, understanding that the attempt would draw more antitrust scrutiny than it was worth:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wiz-turns-down-23-billion-022926296.html
As welcome as this antitrust renaissance is, it prompts an important question: why didn't we enforce antitrust law for the 40 years between Reagan and Biden?
That's what Kanter addresses the majority of his remarks to. The short answer is: crooked academic economists took bribes from monopolists and would-be monopolists to falsify their research on the impacts of monopolists, and made millions (literally – one guy made over $100m at this) testifying that monopolies were good and efficient.
After all, governments aren't just there to enforce rules – they have to make the rules first, and do to that, they need to understand how the world works, so they can understand how to fix the places where it's broken. That's where experts come in, filling regulators' dockets and juries' ears with truthful, factual testimony about their research. Experts can still be wrong, of course, but when the system works well, they're only wrong by accident.
The system doesn't work well. Back in the 1950s, the tobacco industry was threatened by the growing scientific consensus that smoking caused cancer. Industry scientists confirmed this finding. In response, the industry paid statisticians, doctors and scientists to produce deceptive research reports and testimony about the tobacco/cancer link.
The point of this work wasn't to make necessarily to convince people that tobacco was safe – rather, it was to create the sense that the safety of tobacco was a fundamentally unanswerable question. "Experts disagree," and you're not qualified to figure out who's right and who's wrong, so just stop trying to figure it out and light up.
In other words, Big Tobacco's cancer denial playbook wasn't so much an attack on "the truth" as it was an attack on epistemology – the system by which we figure out what is true and what isn't. The tactic was devastatingly effective. Not only did it allow the tobacco giants to kill millions of people with impunity, it allowed them to reap billions of dollars by doing so.
Since then, epistemology has been under sustained assault. By the 1970s, Big Oil knew that its products would render the Earth unfit for human habitation, and they hired the same companies that had abetted Big Tobacco's mass murder to provide cover for their own slow-motion, planetary scale killing spree.
Time and again, big business has used assaults on epistemology to provide cover for unthinkable crimes. This has given rise to today's epistemological crisis, in which we don't merely disagree about what is true, but (far more importantly) disagree about how the truth can be known:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/25/black-boxes/#when-you-know-you-know
Ask a conspiratorialist why they believe in Qanon or Hatians in Springfield eating pets, and you'll get an extremely vibes-based answer – fundamentally, they believe it because it feels true. As the old saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason their way into.
This assault on reason itself is at the core of Kanter's critique. He starts off by listing three cases in which academic economists allowed themselves to be corrupted by the monopolies they studied:
George Mason University tricked an international antitrust enforcer into attending a training seminar that they believed to be affiliated with the US government. It was actually sponsored by the very companies that enforcer was scrutnizing, and featured a parade of "experts" who asserted that these companies were great, actually.
An academic from GMU – which receives substantial tech industry funding – signed an amicus brief opposing an enforcement action against their funders. The academic also presented a defense of these funders to the OECD, all while posing as a neutral academic and not disclosing their funding sources.
An ex-GMU economist, Joshua Wright, submitted a study defending Qualcomm against the FTC, without disclosing that he'd been paid to do so. Wright has elevated undisclosed conflicts of interest to an art form:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/google-lawyer-secret-weapon-joshua-wright-c98d5a31
Kanter is at pains to point out that these three examples aren't exceptional. The economics profession – whose core tenet is "incentive matter" – has made it standard practice for individual researchers and their academic institutions to take massive sums from giant corporations. Incredibly, they insist that this has nothing to do with their support of monopolies as "efficient."
Academic centers often serve as money-laundries for monopolist funders; researchers can evade disclosure requirements when they publish in journals or testify in court, saying only that they work for some esteemed university, without noting that the university is utterly dependent on money from the companies they're defending.
Now, Kanter is a lawyer, not an academic, and that means that his job is to advocate for positions, and he's at pains to say that he's got nothing but respect for ideological advocacy. What he's objecting to is partisan advocacy dressed up as impartial expertise.
For Kanter, mixing advocacy with expertise doesn't create expert advocacy – it obliterates expertise, as least when it comes to making good policy. This mixing has created a "crisis of expertise…a pervasive breakdown in the distinction between expertise and advocacy in competition policy."
The point of an independent academia, enshrined in the American Association of University Professors' charter, is to "advance knowledge by the unrestricted research and unfettered discussion of impartial investigators." We need an independent academy, because "to be of use to the legislator or the administrator, [an academic] must enjoy their complete confidence in the disinterestedness of [his or her] conclusions."
It's hard to overstate just how much money economists can make by defending monopolies. Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner gives the rate at $1,000/hour. Monopoly's top defenders make unimaginable sums, like U Chicago's Dennis Carlton, who's brought in over $100m in consulting fees:
https://prospect.org/economy/2024-09-24-economists-as-apologists/
The hidden cost of all of this is epistemological consensus. As Tim Harford writes in his 2021 book The Data Detective, the truth can be known through research and peer-review:
https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/04/how-to-truth/#harford
But when experts deliberately seek to undermine the idea of expertise, they cast laypeople into an epistemological void. We know these questions are important, but we can't trust our corrupted expert institutions. That leaves us with urgent questions – and no answers. That's a terrifying state to be in, and it makes you easy pickings for authoritarian grifters and conspiratorial swindlers.
Seen in this light, Kanter's antitrust work is even more important. In attacking corporate power itself, he is going after the machine that funds this nihilism-inducing corruption machine.
This week, Tor Books published SPILL, a new, free LITTLE BROTHER novella about oil pipelines and indigenous landback!
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/25/epistemological-chaos/#incentives-matter
Image: Ron Cogswell (modified) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George.Mason.University.Arlington.Campus.jpg
CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Anyone else remember :
“Electricity will be too cheap to meter “
that’s what preceded :
“ The internet will always be free “
I don't know I'm not done talking about it. It's insane that I can't just uninstall Edge or Copilot. That websites require my phone number to sign up. That people share their contacts to find their friends on social media.
I wouldn't use an adblocker if ads were just banners on the side funding a website I enjoy using and want to support. Ads pop up invasively and fill my whole screen, I misclick and get warped away to another page just for trying to read an article or get a recipe.
Every app shouldn't be like every other app. Instagram didn't need reels and a shop. TikTok doesn't need a store. Instagram doesn't need to be connected to Facebook. I don't want my apps to do everything, I want a hub for a specific thing, and I'll go to that place accordingly.
I love discord, but so much information gets lost to it. I don't want to join to view things. I want to lurk on forums. I want to be a user who can log in and join a conversation by replying to a thread, even if that conversation was two days ago. I know discord has threads, it's not the same. I don't want to have to verify my account with a phone number. I understand safety and digital concerns, but I'm concerned about information like that with leaks everywhere, even with password managers.
I shouldn't have to pay subscriptions to use services and get locked out of old versions. My old disk copy of photoshop should work. I should want to upgrade eventually because I like photoshop and supporting the business. Adobe is a whole other can of worms here.
Streaming is so splintered across everything. Shows release so fast. Things don't get physical releases. I can't stream a movie I own digitally to friends because the share-screen blocks it, even though I own two digital copies, even though I own a physical copy.
I have an iPod, and I had to install a third party OS to easily put my music on it without having to tangle with iTunes. Spotify bricked hardware I purchased because they were unwillingly to upkeep it. They don't pay their artists. iTunes isn't even iTunes anymore and Apple struggles to upkeep it.
My TV shows me ads on the home screen. My dad lost access to eBook he purchased because they were digital and got revoked by the company distributing them. Hitman 1-3 only runs online most of the time. Flash died and is staying alive because people love it and made efforts to keep it up.
I have to click "not now" and can't click "no". I don't just get emails, they want to text me to purchase things online too. My windows start search bar searches online, not just my computer. Everything is blindly called an app now. Everything wants me to upload to the cloud. These are good tools! But why am I forced to use them! Why am I not allowed to own or control them?
No more!!!!! I love my iPod with so much storage and FLAC files. I love having all my fics on my harddrive. I love having USBs and backups. I love running scripts to gut suck stuff out of my Windows computer I don't want that spies on me. I love having forums. I love sending letters. I love neocities and webpages and webrings. I will not be scanning QR codes. Please hand me a physical menu. If I didn't need a smartphone for work I'd get a "dumb" phone so fast. I want things to have buttons. I want to use a mouse. I want replaceable batteries. I want the right to repair. I grew up online and I won't forget how it was!
-
trailsandt reblogged this · 1 year ago
