Or to bring it back to the original context... Reducing volatility would be reducing the impact of bad weather on your harvest, absorbing volatility is finding someone to cover your losses. (presumably by giving up some profits on the good years. It's like a financial low pass filter)
Volatility is a natural consequence of weather, blight, etc., etc.
To reduce volatility you would need to actually stabilize the supply of onions.
What futures do is allow traders to shift risk from the future to the present. By pricing that risk, it's possible for people who depend on onions to pay a little more now in exchange for a guarantee about the future.
It's not magically going to make onions less volatile (although high risk prices can spur investment which might) but it can reduce disruptions caused by volatility.
The classic example of this is futures on jet fuel which allow airlines to weather random wars in the middle east, OPEC shenanigans, etc. Ticket prices are higher this way, but the existential threat of being forced to cancel a bunch of flights is gone.
It's nice when you can set an impossibly high bar before which you can dismiss all your personal responsibility.
Does this argument work equally well for human slavery for you? We haven't met that bar for humans either. Is wondering about my consciousness waffle or do I get a pass in your book?
Your arguments seem bad faith but I'll take the bait...
> an impossibly high bar
Not impossibly high. An imperfect testable theory is achievable, agreeing upon it might be the challenge.
> dismiss all your personal responsibility.
You are staking a moral position. Be careful, you are probably guilty of mistreating other unknowably-conscious entities whilst casting judgment upon others for their position. And the person you are a responding to probably is conscious.
It's not bad faith but it certainly is pointed. Parent says it's not worth discussion until there is a test. I stand by my sentiment that refusing to engage with the morality of something just because we don't all have a clear, agreed upon test is a shirking of responsibility.
I think you agree somewhat in that based on your softening to an imperfect, testable theory.
I'm not sure what your goal is with the rest - even if I'm the world's most evil hypocrite casting judgement on all the conscious beings out there I don't see what that changes about the point that we can and should engage with the morality of a concept even if we don't have a perfect test for that concept. If you think I'm doing that and you think that is bad then I guess we agree again on the point but are just adding friction for fun?
Unrelated: I'm quite certain OP is conscious but I guess on the internet nobody knows you're a ~dog~ ai.
No, I would say that any for or against slavery that is rooted in arguments about the presence of absence of consciousness is meaningless pseudoscience. It is the modern equivalent of Phrenology. If you want to make those arguments you need a genuine science of consciousness. Or you need to base your morality in something other than the presence of consciousness.
I'm not sure I agree that consciousness (or sentience if we're making that distinction) is worthless when considering the morality of exploiting something/someone. I do agree there are more angles than that but they seem on top of something's ability to perceive not instead/despite of it.
Do you have some examples of other things that go into your own moral opinions about slavery?
We need people to stop internalizing that the government and the rich somehow deserve access to private data just because they want to use it. Seeing a way to make money using enough to make you entitled to it.
Force businesses to add value if they want to exist instead of extraction or rent seeking.
The posts above claiming design and content are inextricably linked are probably blessed with all the standard senses.
As usual it's a bunch of folks talking past each other. Style and content together is a nice simplification when you want to conform to a particular vision. Separation is a nice abstraction if you want to enable multiple views of the same content (like a pdf version or a colorblind version or a vision impaired version) without having to change/control the content.
Like most things in this space, different tradeoffs make one better than the other in different scenarios. Taking a hard stance of "one true way" is probably missing some imagination or experience.
Accessibility certainly requires a content-first approach, I agree with you there. If you view each part of an application solely in terms of what it looks like to a sighted user, it's easy to miss the subtleties of what the underlying structure ought to be.
But when you start layering on the presentation, you're still generally binding that presentation layer tightly to the current content. If you, for example, were to restructure the links in the Zen Garden footer for some reason, most of the styles would break because they're bound to the current structure of the content. The separation you talk about only exists in one direction.
By comparison, when I talk about separation and decoupling in terms of code, I mean that there is a single, explicit, and tight API that acts as a clear boundary between two units. By explicit, I mean that I've designed the units specifically so that they expose this API - this is almost exactly the opposite of what I should be doing with content and presentation, as you point out! By tight, I mean that the API is as minimal as I can make it - two units interacting via an API need to understand nothing of each other except that API, and that API is as small as possible.
None of that is happening when it comes to the interaction between content and presentation. The content is not explicit - I'm actively trying to write the content for the design, which precludes making it an explicit API surface. Nor is the content tight - again, I want to build the content without worrying about how I will layer the design on top, and I don't want to limit myself to just a small surface area here.
So to me, it makes sense to see the content and presentation as being coupled together, even if that coupling ideally goes in one direction only. And if two systems are coupled together, it makes sense to do that explicitly by co-locating those systems. Therefore, I tend to prefer systems like Tailwind that let me apply the presentation layer directly in the content layer. (In practice, I mostly prefer other tools that still let me write real CSS syntax, but Tailwind is pretty damn convenient a lot of the time.)
As an aside, talking about accessibility, I'd forgotten how inaccessible some of the Zen Garden designs are with their addition of extra content in the presentation layer alone.
Except HTML is already a presentational markup language. People lose track of this.
Consider: MathML has a presentational schema and a content schema. The whole point of presentational MathML is the intermingling of concerns. If you want interoperable data, you use content MathML.
Interoperability is a noble goal, but if you want HTML to do everything you're already barking up the wrong tree.
I worked for Boeing designing aircraft parts. I am not a pilot. I worked at the direction of my boss, who was a pilot. He was the gatekeeper of my work.
He'd also take me up flying, and would let me try the controls a bit. I trusted and valued his pilot's judgement.
Many other engineers at Boeing were also pilots. Friends of mine are pilots. My father was a combat pilot in two wars.
Airplane mechanics have very little decision making power. They go strictly by the book. I worked on writing instructions for the mechanics who would be maintaining and checking my gearbox design. It went into excruciating detail.
I would wager that the better mechanics were ones who were pilots, as they'd know in their bones how important their job was.
I have some patents, and I worked with patent lawyers to file them. The patent lawyers didn't understand diddly squat about my inventions. They knew how to fill out the required forms, though.
Depends on if you're referring to experience defrauding the American public, or protecting the American public. That can have different answers depending on what which side of the transaction you sit.
reply