i don't dispute that the "War on Drugs" was (is?) pretty much just a glorified jobs program for law enforcement but nevertheless some drugs are very bad. ironically enough alcohol, despite being the most readily available drug after caffeine, is probably the worst drug of all in terms of societal destruction.
> is probably the worst drug of all in terms of societal destruction.
We are yet to observe a society where the overwhelming majority of the population regularly uses fentanyl, crack cocaine or meth-amphetamine. I bet that if we try comparing apples to oranges alcohol would end up being relatively harmless.
If Crack was legal today would you light up a pipe ?
Maybe right after filing your taxes ?
The most dangerous part of any illegal substance is the illegal economy existing to support it. Drug dealers generally can’t sue each other so they resolve disputes via other means.
Law Enforcement has the right to suspend all your so called rights because someone you may or may not know might have an unauthorized substance.
Set the legal drug age to whatever the enlistment age is. I’d argue 21 for both.
> If Crack was legal today would you light up a pipe ?
I wouldn’t but I don’t drink either, while many ppl drink themselves to incapacitation.
The difference between crack and a bottle o’ Jack though is that consequence of a crack-filled weekend isn’t just a hangover.
Maybe a society with all drugs legal would eventually figure out tolerable dosages for heavy recreational crack use (I really did write this ha), but do you want to live through the couple of decades of that discovery phase?
i've been hearing this critique of new apple products for about two decades now and inevitably:
- apple's product "does the same thing" as [device sold at 25% of the cost]
AND
- apple's product "does the thing" at a level of polish that's in an entirely different league from every competitor.
siri is the great exception here. jesus christ what a piece of shit
a better analogy would be a toyota hybrid, which is basically the same as any other hybrid car, except for the one issue of reliability.
So yes, a toyota hybrid and a chevrolet hybrid should be exactly the same, but they are not, the price difference reflects it, as does the number of twenty year old toyota hybrids still on the road.
My wife has gone through a large number of iPhones in the past 14 years, where as I've had a total of 2 android phones. Way easier to repair, and add software well past the end of life date.
Why has she gone through so many iPhones? I’m typing this on my iPhone 12 from 2020. Before that I had an iPhone 6s from 2015. I’m considering upgrading this year, but I could hold off for another few years if I wanted to. My phone still runs like it did when it was new. I get through most days with 60%+ battery remaining.
The biggest problem with my phone is modern software bloat. I only have the 64gb model. Modern software - especially iOS itself - has gotten ginormous. Every time a patch comes out I’ve gotta delete a bunch of stuff in order to update. And running unpatched software seems pretty dangerous right about now.
I had a Galaxy S3 from 2012 to 2024, then got a hand me down Galaxy S9 for free.
I don't like that I can't remove the battery, but it's got a SD card so I don't have to worry about storage ever and a headphone jack, so I don't have to worry about my headphones running out of batteries.
I have an iPhone and an Android phone and I don't see the gap at all when it comes to software. Quite the opposite, I think iOS regressed a lot with iOS 26 to the point where I see quite a lot of render stutters on an iPhone Air and 17 Pro. Besides that, Android is much more configurable (especially OneUI).
Apple is still the indisputable leader when it comes to hardware though. Great SoC, great cameras, great build quality.
That gap isn’t closing when it comes to the total package software plus hardware, and fit and finish there is a huge gap between Apple being a vertical computer company and whatever PC, Linux, Android product you look at, someone else brought up Toyota or Honda when you look at those two companies and you compare what they make to what GM and Ford make there is still a gap and you can also still see a gap when you talk about some of the other German companies when it comes to fit and finish too.
apple is always "late to the party" and regularly takes existing tech, polishes it to a high standard of UX, and introduces a new paradigm for consumer tech products. if xiaomi has ever done that please let me know.
not to mention that chinese consumer goods companies are largely siloed to the east anyways
Yeah I posted in another comment, but I'm quite confused by the corners. It's described like they solved some giant UX pain point on other foldables, but as far as I can tell it's a solution to a problem they created to make the corners have like a 50% radius? The screen is still so small I don't understand why that's desirable but maybe I'm missing the purpose.
apple has been quite good at treating their "economy" products with the same level of respect as their premium ones, as far as I've experienced. the Neo is significantly more powerful than the Pro I bought four years ago and $100 cheaper, pre-inflation accounting. A brand like Apple introducing a highly-capable "discount" product goes against all common sensibilities for a company whose branding is anchored on prestige. Plus the extended support window for older devices vs. their competitors in the smartphone space.
false dichotomy, no? critical consumption is an entirely separate matter than mindless consumption. great filmmakers watch great, historic films to learn technique, just like great chefs eat different cuisines to learn new elements of flavor. great music is often a delightful gumbo of genres, artists, styles that came before.
we're not talking about watching whatever happens to be on netflix.
personal taste is developed by... actively developing a sense of taste.
holy hell I enjoy an acerbic takedown as much as the next guy but this is beyond the pale.
given that we do now live in a society with a universal right to vote the need for an educated populace esp. regarding matters of civil society is more important than ever.
You've also misinterpreted the parent comment as they wrote nothing about contemporary intelligence. They're instead referring to structural forces that negatively impact critical thinking. See: the glut of commentary from otherwise highly intelligent and accomplished people reporting their own ability to focus being negatively impacted by social media and short-form content.
Furthermore, this is why the old school shared media outlets (the whole "back when everybody watched Walter Cronkite every night" thing) was so valuable. Few of us have the time to consider the issues with any degree of nuance or accuracy. So it's a real problem when the collective "source of truth" is poisoned by a horde of uncertified, often anonymous, charlatans spewing outright lies and incendiary half-truths, distributed at scale via algorithms designed to divide and inflame.
disclaimer: i'm fiercely anti-democracy, esp. with universal suffrage, for the exact reasons you cited.
> See: the glut of commentary from otherwise highly intelligent and accomplished people reporting their own ability to focus being negatively impacted by social media and short-form content.
Many people have long abandoned these platforms. No one is making you engage with them. These are not new problems. Famous example: Zuckerberg keeps his own family off his apps.
Your fourth paragraph is misinformed. Valorizing the Cronkite era is profoundly simplistic and boring. Humans always come up with alternative media. Conspiracies and half truths pervade every age. This entire internet ecosystem came up when the mainstream lied about the rationale for the Iraq War. Manufacturing Consent was written pre internet.
This paragraph also contains a contradiction with a statement you raise in your second paragraph as self-evident, given you offer no justification:
> given that we do now live in a society with a universal right to vote the need for an educated populace esp. regarding matters of civil society is more important than ever.
But in the fourth paragraph:
> Few of us have the time to consider the issues with any degree of nuance or accuracy.
So the populace must be educated but we need someone to tell us what to think because we have no time? Why is it so obvious that a society with universal suffrage requires an educated populace, vs say a populace simply capable of comprehending the instructions of an educated Cronkite?
Disclaimer: these are the contradictions raised by your own manner of framing the debate. The fact you missed this tension among neighboring paragraphs is something you have to account for. This is not the only such contradiction in your response fwiw, but hopefully you will grasp the nature of my point.
Do you not hear in your own arguments the same echoes of the uncritical pablum - the "glut" you also describe in contradictory terms - that passes for social commentary on "social media and short-form content" these days?
I merely suggest that you are just not thinking about these problems hard enough. Sorry, I'm not trying to cross some line, it just reads as obvious to me, on a critical evaluation of your statements. Why holding your statements to a high standard would be "beyond the pale" I'm not sure. You should spend less time online and reading more history. You would know better.
Here is something that may encourage you along these lines:
"I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus & Thucydides, for Newton & Euclid; & I find myself much the happier."
