| > That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor. It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people. > You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual. I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?" >> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so. > There was a vote.. On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings. > Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information. No, not really. And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies. > People make up their own minds. So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism. > Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way. That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours. My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust. You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful. > We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something. Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason. > You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person. > People interpret facts depending on the context. And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.) > I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is. No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices. If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think. > Either way the perception is the driving force. Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus. It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us. |
Could be!
> It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.
How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.
>> People make up their own minds.
> So no, they really don't.
On this, I cannot agree, unless you want to argue for determinism and against free will, in which case I'd reconsider it. You feel people are puppets. I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.
> That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.
Eh, I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. I'm actually neutral here, and don't favor U/L or the city. Believe it or not, I'm just arguing for what I think constitutes the most effective strategy and methods. I think the city happens to have a better bead on good strategy than U/L in some ways.
> You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.
Actually, I don't believe that. All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.
> Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.
Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. I'm not privy to the financials of U/L so I really couldn't say what's reasonable. Plus as you note it's complicated since there could be a ripple effect. Again, I'm just speaking in support of tactics and strategy that I think are likely to be effective. I'm not necessarily siding with the city. I think the ripple effect could happen in either direction, and that by not discussing things with Austin, U/L are allowing that city to create their own version of a ripple. That ripply could go in a direction that U/L likes even less than one in which U/L were more directly involved. U/L could be more a part of the collective stone that's tossed into the water along with the residents and city officials. By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. If they want to come back they'd be best served working on the relationship first, however corrupt the officials are perceived to be, so long as it's legal. City officials cannot compel U/L to break the law.
I don't doubt there's shady stuff happening in Texas in regards to tech companies. The situation with patents there is horrid for many entrepeneurs. That said, it is what it is, and everyone needs to either work with the law as it is written, risk a bit of civil disobedience, campaign for some changes, or walk away from it like you say. In the case of software patents, they're tough to walk away from in the US. Walking away from the US is difficult from an investor perspective. I'd applaud anyone who does so to diversify their efforts. Personally, I'm in Taiwan. I think most people agree that the US is about as good as it gets.
> And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)
Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? I believe that's considered bad form on HN. Feel free to let the crap fly if you prefer. I'm not offended by any of it. You can call me spiritual, hand wavy, factless, ignorant, or whatever suits you. Names would not change my feeling about how effective campaigns are run. I'll do my best to listen to arguments despite name calling. Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.
> No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.
> If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.
I agree with that. You've changed my mind here. That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". Even far right republicans who want small government will spend a boat load on defense. The far-far right want a giant metaphorical wall inside which they can operate freely. In practice, for better or for worse, that doesn't happen in a democratic republic, or any other society I've seen. There are always internal regulations that some people hate and some people love.
> It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.
It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers they're not ideologues. It's tough. Even elected officials can't be certain of supreme court nominees. Nominees' entire lives are examined and it can still take weeks or months for officials to confirm them. I do think, on the whole, our democratic republic is better than the alternatives that exist elsewhere. What do you think?