[solveit]

I don't understand the point of replying like this. Clearly we agree that the Singaporean government is very good at getting things done, and we agree that the things it wants to get done are horrible. Why are you speaking as if our opinions differ? Why manufacture conflict where none exists? Is calling something a quasi-Orwellian dystopia now too subtle an expression of disapproval?

[ValentineC]

> Clearly we agree that the Singaporean government is very good at getting things done, and we agree that the things it wants to get done are horrible.

Singaporean here. The government's mainly effective for tasks that are on a happy path. If your particular case falls through the cracks, it often takes phone calls, printing, postage, and weeks or months of waiting to get stuff done.

(Personal experience trying to get business stuff done not as a Private Limited company.)

[cuddlybacon]

> If your particular case falls through the cracks, it often takes phone calls, printing, postage, and weeks or months of waiting to get stuff done.

That sounds like the happy path for dealing with the Canadian government. Well, except the months part.

[sethammons]

sounds like lots of govt. and corporate interaction in the US.

[barrkel]

The "but" negates any disapproving effect it may have had, because structurally the latter part acts as a justification for tolerance.

"The tool is squeaky but it gets the job done" - you wouldn't expect the speaker to do anything about the squeaks. Squeaking is tolerable.

"The tool does the job but it's squeaky" - you would expect the speaker to do something about the squeaks. Doing the job isn't good enough.

Your comment is most easily read as not disapproving of authoritarian government when it is effective.

[exhaze]

Comments like this are part of the reason why people like Sam Altman stopped posting here. Can you just give the poster the benefit of the doubt that they just admire the efficiency of the Singaporean government, not that they're endorsing authoritarianism as long as it's effective?

[loup-vaillant]

Never acknowledge any quality of the Enemy. The Enemy is Bad, therefore it is also weak, stupid, lazy, cowardly… Because the risk of being perceived as praising the Enemy always trumps the consequences of underestimating it.

Not the best example of crowd wisdom.

[rfrey]

>Can you just give the poster the benefit of the doubt

Perhaps you should do the same for barrkel? I read your parent as a simple explanation to solveit why their comment may have been misconstrued by bsder -- a question solveit directly asked.

[solveit]

You're probably right. I just get frustrated when people insist on reading value judgments in literally everything. Sometimes the curtains are just blue, you know?

[bsder]

I replied that way because, if we moved this to a tech subject, people here would be horrified at your definition of "effective".

If someone produced an insulin pump that you implanted, worked perfectly for life, but killed 1 person in 1,000 randomly, people would be screaming for the head of the CEO of that company rather than calling it "effective".

[icebraining]

But that wouldn't be effective because it's random, not because it kills people. A better analogy is if the pump worked perfectly, but killed anyone who the CEO disliked. That would be effective, yet monstrous.

Effective just means it achieves the intended outcome, it's not a value judgment on the goodness of that intention.