What Kind of World Do We Live In?

I’ll occasionally reply with some evidence.


Brainstorm about whistleblower:

  • the scientist is being attacked for trying to debate to objective merits of a product
  • instead of reacting with curiosity or interest the company responded by slandering the scientist’s reputation and suing him for a very large sum of money
  • no paths forward in the situation so it escalated to legal disputes (last resort before violence)
  • broken error correction; maybe the scientist’s claims are right or maybe they’re wrong but the way the conflict is being handled prevents anyone from finding out
  • abuse of the legal system hurts everyone
  • company could have tried to learn how to make a product that actually improved things; aiming way higher so that it would be very clear that their product was making a positive difference
  • he has raised $179k so there are some people who want to help stop this particular abuse
  • there are multiple problems on display with this situation: irrational purchasing decisions by administrators, irrational self-interest from the company, irrational conflict management
  • some people want to exploit legal loopholes to offer inferior quality goods, or even negative value products
  • everything looks really bad for the company and the scientist appears to be 100% in the right but would need to do more research to know how to judge the situation; how can I tell when all the relevant details have been exposed? I don’t know.
  • maybe the scientist’s are behind and doing really low quality research with scholarship issues but the company is in wrong there; if that was the issue, the company should have focused on exposing the lack of quality research by the scientists and contrasted it with their own high quality work
1 Like

Note that the creator who was defrauded and is owed $38426.15 says in comments:

  • i’ve already sought legal counsel and gotten a second opinion. it’s not looking good. it’s probably not something i’ll be pursuing.

In what kind of world do people get away with this kind of egregious breach of contract and fraud because the legal system sucks too much to handle it? (Although the international aspect makes it worse and is a somewhat avoidable problem, I’m skeptical that if Barny was American that would change the outcome.)

Hospitals Are Allowing Medical Students to Perform Pelvic Exams on Unconscious Women — Without Their Consent - HealthyWomen

I saw this issue months ago and wanted to add it to this topic. I skimmed this article.


There’s a lot of context but I’m not going to explain it.

Summarizing two things from the video.

SouthWest Airlines knew their software sucked, didn’t fix it, and waited for a predictable disaster to happen, which cost them 800 million dollars. Now they’re going to try to fix the software after losing all that money instead of doing it earlier.

Airline computers often say a customer can’t reach a destination today when there actually are possible solutions that the computer system can’t suggest. High skill airline employees can make a huge difference with creative problem solving. My thought: I bet the better employees who do this are not paid appropriately to reward what they’re doing and incentivize others to do it.

Here are two sides of the same issue. Click here and it will randomly say either “1” or “2” near the top under “Result”. Then look at link 1 or 2 first accordingly. This will reduce bias in the reactions between different people.


My Wife Every Valentine's Day - YouTube



Each side has meaningful information about what the world is like by itself, and considering them together enables additional analysis.

The woman in the reddit post (2) seems to be very happy that her husband chose to get her things anyway despite talking about being annoyed. I wonder if it’s a humblebrag. Something like “oh I’m not greedy or vain I don’t want anything but OH NO I GOT NICE THINGS SO HORRIBLE ¬‿¬”.

Looking at the comment section there don’t seem to be many people aware that sometimes a husband gets his wife nice things to wear because he wants to see her wearing them or he wants other people to see her wearing them. Or maybe they don’t want to say it because it’s not socially acceptable. A lot of the comments are from people saying how they’d be so unreservedly mad about being in that situation (unlike the OP who is giving mixed messages). There’s a lot of fine-tuned non-verbal individual reading in very close relationships, and situations like this where it’s talked about publicly shows a lot of people who don’t really understand that and try to analyse it based on how they’d feel about being in that situation without really knowing the deep context.

Where the game is being played (i.e. saying they don’t want anything but being excited about getting things) I think the uncertainty of it is a big aspect of the excitement. It could be kinda like gambling, where people who think about it much know the house is stacking the odds against them but play anyway because they might win and they find that exciting. The enjoyment is inversely related to how much they think about it.

The YT link (1) seems much more of a wife roast/playful/self-analysis and doesn’t express much explicit annoyance or irritation (not in the current wife, as opposed to the husband acting his wife). Again lots of inexplicit reading of partners in romantic relationships. It seems more like a private language than an actual conflict between them. As the wife wrote the script, it might be there was some real conflict over it (not sure how realistic the husband’s recreation is) and she’s used that to improve her self-awareness.

Not clear how they plan to proceed, so they might continue doing it in a more self-aware way or switch to something with more explicit communication.

From the comment section the YT video is a lot more positive/shared amusement over it. At least in part I’d say that’s in response to the more playful context. Also the real feeling can be read more easily with the inclusion of body language and expression, whereas the reddit post being just text means it’s more open to interpretation whether it’s genuinely mad or tongue-in-cheek . Though my rough sense of reddit vs YT (rough as I’m not a major user on the comment sections of either) is that reddit generally has a lot more negativity which would also play a part.

I guess if I were to take lessons about people and the world from it:

  • People in romantic relationships spend time trying to excite/entertain each other and surprise can work in some cases.
  • Lots of people find gambling exciting.
  • Romantic relationships have a lot of trial and error with inexplicit stuff that can play a part in making it exciting.
  • People who want to be mad about stuff/have an axe to grind will ignore mixed messages and just be mad.
  • Communication is hard.
  • It’s probably not good to seriously air very personal/romantic stuff on reddit as responders wont be able to understand enough inexplicit context and results will be more negative.
  • People don’t care to make all (or even much of) their communication explicit, but don’t think about the problems that can result.

I watched link1 first based on the random assignment, then read the Reddit post.

I the conext of the question, what kind of world do we live in?, I think both angles show how there are common patterns in social interaction that make honesty and communication more difficult.

The Reddit post shows how the lack of honesty and communication makes cooperating on goals, like saving money, more challenging. The gift that made the Reddit poster happy in the end, the coat, was an item that she really valued and wanted. I think she wanted it but didn’t feel comfortable buying for herself because she and her husband were trying to save money. Maybe more open communication with her husband would mean she could get more stuff that she really values without having to rely on gifts.

I thought the video was highlighting how the perception of a thoughtful, romantic gift is related to getting something that someone didn’t explicitly ask for. The bare minimum gift is supposed to be something well-known and conventional but beyond what was ever discussed or hinted at. I guess this shows something about how much of what people say isn’t what they mean. People say one thing and mean another and the other thing they mean is often some sort of convention or social expectation.


not capitalism: