The Pull Request

well, he is actually Cuban who lives in US and follows the situation. I am willing to believe his take much more than random dudes from CA. Here's some of his writings on Cuba. https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-cuban-tank-man-will-be-an-influen…

The problem articulated by Antonio Garcia-Martinez: > The customer always gets what they want: In the case of an ads-driven business model where the advertiser is the true customer, that’s balanced political news alongside frivolous lifestyle stories as a canvas for ads. In the case of subscribers, it’s being flattered by having their own worldviews echoed back at themselves in more articulate form. Nobody actually pays for news, unless your livelihood depends on it, which is why outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg will still flourish, but nothing vaguely resembling news will otherwise remain in a subscription-driven world. Source: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/twilight-of-the-media-elites

Sounds like this pop view of Fukuyama is inaccurate https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/history-restarts?s=r Most people have a meme-level understanding of him and no idea what he has really said. This is relevant today as the pile-on of negative comments on his credibility are based on this meme-level understanding.

i could see author's guilt to have such a privilege. I am so happy that I am a first-generation Chinese living in North America. The "Culture Revolution" of America is not getting to me yet. but i know one day it will get to me, as what happened in China "Culture Revolution". No one could escape it. his writing reminds me what those self-confession letters people "in privilege" made in China from 50s to 70s. We are just at the beginning of something. Americans are abandoning their belief and values. We are embracing something half-truth and deceiving. So, they will own you before you know it. Please learn the history, my fellow Americans, you are the last defence before that ideology owns the whole world. https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-american-diversity-meat-grinder

This comment: The insane thing here: the _financial_ cost of the war in afghanistan, which lasted deacdes and involved hundreds of thousands of people, and logistical operations spanning the globe, is less than the amount of money we printed in 2020. https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-did-war-afghanistan-cost-1619687 Talk about 'reality being optional' - in the financial markets, it still very much is optional https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-people/com…

Antonio García Martínez of thepullrequest.com has been writing recently about Cuba and offering interesting perspectives. I like this article, in particular: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-contrarevolucion-will-be-livestre… In his most recent article Antonio states that there is a lot of opportunity to support Cubans with improved internet access. Articles like this one from 2014, however, do concern me that any support would be secondary to US political shenanigans.

I found a good articulation of this here: https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-holy-church-of-christ-without "Suddenly we’ve got numerical infinities on that ethics spreadsheet, inputs that win out against any finite moral optimization. Where to put the infinities on the spreadsheet is of course the entire point of this metaphysical endeavor. We need the axiomatic moral imperatives, whether they be human life or free speech or something else, to which everything else loses in the moral calculus. The rest is mere arithmetic. And this is precisely where the rationalist worldview grows mute: there’s simply no way to derive the absolute moral principles that should rule our lives from lab experiments, and any such proposal will necessarily require a faith-based leap--the ‘dignity’ of human life, the sanctity of private property, etc.—not very different than the tzelem Elohim or Imago Dei of Genesis. Science is absolutely mute here. There’s no such thing as a ‘scientific ethics’ or a ‘scientific foreign policy’, and the people who claim as much are precisely the same naifs who treat science as a body of knowledge rather than an epistemology, i.e., those who’ve never actually practiced it."