So I see what you’re saying, and of course there’s ways to argue this killing could accomplish something good. But let me ask you this - based on the history of society and the typical results of assassinations, violence, and instability, what do you predict will actually change from this?

When I look at this, I see parallels to past emotional leftist movements like Occupy Wall Street and BLM, that did garner a lot of attention and lead to a lot of discussion, but in terms of policy change were only followed by political defeats for those movements. It seems to me that yes these movements get attention, but it’s the wrong kind of attention.

I fail to see a definition of murderer that includes this CEO and doesn’t include literally everybody. I mean how many future people do we all murder when we drive our cars or even order a package delivered. Unless you’re just sitting in a corner eating rice and beans and washing it down with water, you’ve probably contributed to someone’s death by now.

The real murderer is the capitalist US health care system, and that’s still very much alive and well. This CEO’s death is negligible compared to the problem, instead it’s just a second problem.

It’s the same mistake that all of society has made for about 5000 years now. Punishing individuals for preventable deaths that are caused by bad systems at best causes suffering for a steep cost and virtually no actual benefit while providing an opiate that keeps us from confronting the actual problem, and at worst actually contributes to those preventable deaths.

A large number of us CAN be millionaires.

It’s actually technically correct that we all can be millionaires, at least on a household basis. The mean household wealth in the US was $1.06 million as of 2022, by now it’s undoubtedly higher. So with a full redistribution of wealth every household would have over $1 million.

In reality though the median household wealth is just under $200k as of 2022, and doesn’t rise as consistently so who knows where it is now.

In my experience:

• A lot of people do this with 401ks and such because many times there aren’t many other options.
• People I know who are serious investors with a lot of money tend to not invest much in the S&P 500 because they think of themselves as superior investors, but I don’t know of anyone for whom this is actually true based on past performance.
• I invest some 20% of my money in the S&P 500, which is probably not as much as I should. It’s some combination of the above hubris, which is natural, wanting to be diversified, and enjoying gambling on individual stocks.

I’d be curious about what makes him different from the others. There’s been some research regarding fluid intelligence* vs. crystalized intelligence, where liberals tend to be more on the fluid side. It kind of makes sense because rather than trying to figure out what they can’t understand off the bat, conservatives tend to rage against it.

As far as gifts, I dunno. Maybe a puzzle game? I don’t know what’s big in the puzzle game world now, if anything. The idea is make your son more comfortable with the idea of tackling novel problems instead of trying to cram them into an existing framework.

*it’s called “intelligence” but I tend to think of it more like a thinking strategy. Fluid intelligence being “can I think of a way to solve this?” while crystallized intelligence is “what strategy that I’m familiar with already can solve this?”

The whole point was to put this in your cubicle so you could pretend you had a personality that was more than being a cog in the machine. Then the pandemic happened.

They’re a convenient political target because it makes insecure men not want to be associated with them. Believe it or not, a similar thing happened last time Republicans won the popular vote in 2004 - back then the issue was gay marriage. Bush went hard on opposing that and it helped him win.

Twitter is dumb as fucking fuck. Political leaders shouldn’t be there. If you shitpost, you shouldn’t be in charge of anything but shitposting.

Imagine if there was a hack so bad that it caused everyone to become unable to develop in C and C++.

Classic “let’s just make the cure worse than the disease” mindset among security enthusiasts.

Sunk cost fallacy is definitely a subtype, but I’m going for I guess the more general concept of an idea that becomes more popular the worse it does