Drugs not able to compete on quality / effectiveness; a therapy that might work for a patient may be off limits / they may be limited to an option that doesn't work for them, but is the one that's on the PBM formulary

This is also nuts - value/effectiveness of doctors in network may be limited by formulary

We live in a world where a patient's access to medication is determined largely by who they happen to work for and who somebody in HR [who may not know benefits] has selected as the PBM based on the advice of a Broker / financial pressure

Carriers Enclosable vs unenclosable Open-air speech - mostly egalitarian; limited by vocal range, education / intelligence / verbal ability of speaker

smarter people can develop / access / take advantage of amplifying broadcast mediums Access to broadcast still dependent upon intelligence / capacity of those receiving the message; can keep them deliberately uninformed / low-capacity for processing

Writing - communicate over time & distance, but requires specialized literacy, ability to verbally encode / decode meaning througfh precise use of language

The human element is meant to be as extracted as completely as possible

Antithesis of the open highway spirit; open-source vs close-sourced driving

AI is the slow withdrawal of pleasures from human life - driving experience, writing, art

So what is ownership if it entails built-in dependency?

Cars weirdly coffin-shaped; thinking about the death of distance, the impatience between points, and the necessity to kill intervening 'dead' time spent in transit

Every innovation drags a host of new concepts into existence with it. Ways it can succeed, fail. All clouding around its reputation and providing handles for people to wield it.

oof. but beautiful encapsulation of incentives (or lack thereof) to promote actual change, vs just "working with what we have"

Summary

Is it really a country if the competing groups are so incompatible? If becoming "stable" requires one or more groups abdicating entirely, is it really only trying to become a country of a particular kind?

Blend of conflicting interests masquerading as a single state; parasitized & pulled apart from within

There we go - bad then

Is this bad because its bad, or bad because it's hezbollah? Many "formal" responsibilities are ceremonial/performative?

Red light stop / green light go; living on pause, permanent hiccups

Fight over who gets to provide a solution to crisis: that is amazing perspective... if you try to help, we'll spend resources that could be pooled into helping to undermine your efforts to help and kill you for trying.

We back lebanon againt hezbolah/syriah; our way of saying "thanks for tolerating the sanctions?

Likelihood of foreign intervention?

Compared to what? We have NO IDEA what the standard of living is there, only that inflation is very bad.

Interesting; does this somehow keep it.. largely neutral? Preserves peace somewhat by not appearing to be an agent of any particular side?

Fuel arbitrage incentives; creates another security problem requiring additional resources (and fuel / water) to deal with (ie combatting smugglers (aka entrepreneurs))

Time preference not our strong suit

money is a theatrical prop

THIS is it - web 3 is making consumers mutiplicitous - opens marketts WITHIN games, subworlds that can be exploited / marketed to / fashion trends will sweep games, online subcultures (maybe) - people have markeable personas on and off the web, new context for targeted advertising / commerce.

Will cannabalize physical economies?

Accessorize for a zoom meeting - digital suits, etc digital costumes. Something to wear at digital concerts, in games; your Perona will not be birthed into the metaverse clothed, accessorized...

Assets will be portable across platforms.

Haha

The egg of thought that split into three separate paths

Very true, and yet, at least in tech, we are obsessed with "founder culture", read insights by successful entrepreneurs

Also agreed; measures how much, not how well

Hinges on a word / interpretation. But then how the regime decides to control social/cultural values matters a lot too - what fields of industry are even allowed to exist, for instances, dictates the culture of the society, the degree of choice & freedom. Gov could be perfectly humane in its implementation of what jobs there are, while being simultaneously freedom-limiting

Thank you.

A safety net, but assumes the parent entity is managing its finances

Enter the client who doesn't want to wait for the best person; the wealthy person can shop around, or might offer a premium to skip a month-long waitlist? Price adjustment happens on both the demand & supply sides?

Agreed

Define "good" & "bad" - is "bad" inexperienced? A black worker? Agree that people who shop on rates maybe feel higher rates, on average, are a proxy for quality, but this penalizes exceptional workers & stifles competition via innovation?

Really the wage of the bad is $0, not $x for good reputation, $x-y for not-so-good

So many companies taking the "robin hood" narrative, or of crusading for social well-being - all so much wolf-in-sheeps-clothing? Or is it sincere? Is it sincere and true?

True, largely, but do not underestimate the length to which money talks & breeds convenience, complacency, tolerance (though not loyalty)

Care not only for economic dimension but for people's well-being. Unfortunately neither are often satisfied. Perhaps because at the end of the day, the personal welfare concerns are so much window dressing; qualitative nebulous wisps that are never considered, let alone measured and "tracked"; it really is all just business, despite the platitudes.

genealogy of belief

Can't "soul" be the blend of all? Economy, politics, social, etc?

Good theory, if point of society is to extract as much labor out of people as possible. Among other questions - is their labor useful? Does it enable the lord of the household to accomplish extremely valuable things he otherwise wouldn't be able to?<br> But these are not the right questions, because, in addition to being economic machines, people are other types of machines, simultaneously

Vanguard / oligarchy of powerful elites ruling society, governing wishy-washy, fickle masses

When nobody has a clean conscience, cleanliness must be relative? [Fatal reasoning by itself; must include holding gov to higher standard]

Everybody wants all this accountability & responsibility, but nobody has the time / expertise; if division of labor specialization works in economic matters (broadly), does it also not work in matters of social organization & political economy?

Deference to the "expert"; however none exist in those times; ie the industrial phenomenon was so new that who could have extensive knowledge of what "worked best"?

In context, watching the transformation of London, from slum to industrial society taking slum population as largest input for labor

In that sense, he could be a capitalist, focused broadly on improving society through other means; being useful in non-material/consumerist terms that are nonetheless "valued" by consumers

What ideology would find this person useful?

There - opens up GIGANTIC barter economy possibilities - will shut out old middle men & create new ones - swap airline tickets / hotel reservations for concert tickets or memorabilia

Skeumorphism

What people don't get - it's not images, it's property rights. The image aspect will subside, but other use cases are coming (we'll see)

Power generation metaphors; peak vs off-peak demand; can off-peak generation be stored / repurposed? What would a computing power battery look like?

Data streaming rates, computing power, video displays, etc, all the technologies will progress at different rates, and this differential will play a role in determining the best solution for advancing

Democratizing access > sharpening the experience for a few

Keep in mind all the improvements in reliability, bandwidth, latency, just since Netflix went to all-streaming, that have happened behind the scenes in the last 10 years.

Lolz, but true... just don't associate gamers with "muscle"... (sorry)

Data/bandwidth/access inequality will be among the next big concerns/issues: areas offering high speed reliability will enable residents of those markets opportunity to transact & experience things off limits to "underserved" data markets (solvable via satellite internet?) in ways that pose a severe disadvantage to the latter

Control over the distribution & availability of this technology will be extremely vital (and will hopefully be egalitarian, but... it means $$$ and vested interests will seek to establish gatekeeper roles).

Per the chart below, it appears some markets will remain substantially ahead of others (who knows how the tech will ultimately be deployed), but the rollout of web 3metaverse technology will likely NOT be an egalitarian digital immersion accessible by all people, not even close.

Did he get it? Scary thought; program had very little accountability as it was.

To contextualize, you can still spend a hell of a lot on development, but if you don't have costly mobilizations it can make it look like you aren't spending as much as others; in fact, you are arguably making 'smarter' investments?

Financial crisis? Only 10 years ago?

By making sure renters stay where they are and that landlords cannot get market rent for their properties, it will discourage the building of rental units and encourage the selling of existing rental units.

Why only first time buyers? Why not renters? If they have been actively disadvantaged by predatory policies in the past, aren't they likely to need more assistance? Also, is this what she means by 'reparations'?

In circumstances where it makes more sense to rent, and there is a potential renter, why prevent that transaction from taking place?

Isn't it the owner's property? Why shouldn't they get to decide the highest value use of the property? The bank would sell or rent the foreclosed precisely TO profit from it, especially if the previous owner is no longer able to make payments on the bank; they are losing money on the property if nobody is paying...?

this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

All statements are boolean: T/F

Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

Dangerous?

Make them more particular; less general

Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

Involve the:

• creation of relationships
• creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
• involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
• must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
• also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
• the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
• involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.

"A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

When in doubt, defer to authority.

Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

pre-conceived view or bias

Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

"denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

Qualifying / conditional factors?

And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

Fund-raising conducted by satellite / affiliates

Examples here are more oriented toward personal freedom / libertarian values; points out that the same action applied to the same person, can be either potentially just or unjust depending on the circumstances, and also that there will be local conflicts and differences in opinion (e.g. in preventing a friend from committing suicide, they may be angry and disagree that your actions are just, though others may support your decision and think it is indeed just).

There is no universal sanctity of property rights or freedom from bodily restraint by others; violence is in some cases justified, and in others not.

In removing the context, the actions become effectively neutral, in that they are simultaneously good and bad; the actions themselves exist without judgment, and the judgment is only the product of the culture in which they take place (or are regarded)

Depends perhaps upon in whose eyes we are judged; to consider the judgment of all would result in paralysis, and goes back again to "the right thing" being dependent upon its context and actors.

One is maybe always simultaneously appeasing certain gods and transgressing against others.

The right occasion = the opportune moment; context-specific.

No universal truths, however this wisdom is not universally regarded as true, and many would argue that universal truths or laws do exist.<br> Paradox of claiming that there are no universal laws is that in doing so, you are making a claim of a universal law.

As examples rise in degree of 'extremity', they brush up against norms and laws, an act that may be celebrated in one culture is punishable by death or ostracism in another, simply based on the geography or time in which it takes place. By keeping location and temporality intact, the author is able to refrain from making absolute claims about any of the actual behaviors and just cite them as things that are, irrespective of judgment. The degree to which the reader judges them may be dependent upon the reader's interpreting the behaviors not as context-specific acts, but as archetypes(?) or fixed representations of those acts which stand outside of time and place.

Shifts to more 'extreme' examples, but points out that this perverse (to the greeks) act is BEAUTIFUL and an act of love to others; perhaps their reverence is inversely proportional to the Greeks' horror.<br> Also, in using such 'extreme' examples, the author shows that in fact nothing is truly extreme, because it is all a matter of context, and concepts of extremity introduce limits or constrain these things to a spectrum which is not necessarily accurate; it all depends on the context, and something cannot "depend" strongly or weakly based on the actual act, but only on the context.

Switches to point out arbitrary differences in culture; be born in one area and you believe x, be born in another and you believe y, but largely it is a matter of the random happenstance of one's birth. These beliefs are human creations, and vary depending on where the humans live.

The "good" and the "bad" can be seemingly arbitrarily different between identity groups. Why is it seemly for person of type x and unseemly for person of type y?

Not trying to identify a moral absolute, just point out that it is relative and therefore that there is no absolute.

Is this sarcasm? Is he saying that such a duality would be extraordinary in that it would violate the philosophers' attempts to categorize and assign general rules? Not sure...

This serves as a sort of refrain in the verse/chorus structure of the text. It is constructed like a song in some respects.

Use of the progressive method of providing examples; in this case, linear from health to death. Further on in the text from mundane to extreme.<br> Examples here shift from the personal (the sick individual) to a class (professions); there is a hierarchy and blending here of sorts in that any member of any of the professions listed could find themselves as the individual afflicted by the example condition/problem, and as such we find that the same person could potentially hold these conflicting opinions at different stages in their life, and that neither is necessarily wrong nor contradictory.

i.e. it depends on who you're asking; all are likely to express sympathy, but also their livelihoods depend on the decline of the other.

Not fixed

Good & bad, or things with which we agree and disagree. They are sometimes put forth as absolutes or dividing lines, but in reality, there may be disagreement about whether things are in fact, good or bad. Instead of arguing back and forth over who is right, the interesting discourse may be in where the differences lie.

How do these "fish out of water" statements compare back to previous examples? Seems to imply that, if you took an Athenian and placed them in Sparta, that they would consider the Spartan culture still foreign and would be at a disadvantage trying to operate within the context (which is likely)? They would see things through the lens of an Athenian, which, on the other hand, may provide certain perspective that the Spartans take for granted. Perhaps it is a reminder that opportunity is not democratically distributed, and that the moments and circumstances conducive to certain results cannot be manufactured by moving the pieces around, because they depend so much not only on the context in which they happen, but the experience and history of those who find themselves within the situation?