They're not really getting a leg up though, it will bite them later in life.

Young adults are less competent and resilient than ever for exactly this reason

The story of Israel is both poetic in a weird way and also profoundly depressing.

A state founded to protect a group of people from national socialism ends up... implementing national socialism itself 70 years later.

I guess we'll see if it also ends in the same way

The story of Palestine is also weird and profoundly depressing, a group supporting the national socialists in world war 2 and still pretty much supporting national socialism 70 years later. Good consistent track record there.

You're not allowed to talk about Jewish xenophobia.

Guys like Ben Gvir and Smotrich talk pretty openly about it all the time, people just don't want to listen for some reason.

They're not and never have been our friends, they detest us

The data in the UK says GDP goes up, GDP per capita and salaries go down (which is exactly what you'd expect to happen from first principles...).

So the trade is your country gets (sort of) richer overall and the elites get richer while the average person gets poorer.

If you're okay with that outcome, then yes no need to worry about the data!

"He has toothache" or "he has a toothache" are both correct (and mean exactly the same thing), but "he has the toothache" is just wrong, at least in modern English (in the sense that no native speaker would say that)

Yes I have ruled out stupidity in the past but I am actually starting to reconsider.

For example consider FTX: Sam Bankman Fried by all accounts was not stupid in the sense of lacking IQ or mental sharpness, quite the opposite.

However the way he ran FTX the company was very stupid and almost inevitably lead to huge problems.

And also... of course he was another effective altruist cult member. It's almost like that belief system directly causes bad decision making

The older I get the more I realize the deep wisdom in the simple words of Forrest Gump, ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’

One of the most corrosive effects that money has on society is that it can shelter people from the consequences of their stupidity.

People can luck into a shitload of shelter for their poor choices whether through inheritance or random chance of their actions and then don’t ever have to face consequences proportional to their stupid actions.

Or someone can start out smart and then suffer cognitive decline that is at first imperceptible until they become kookier and kookier until they’re blathering on about the antichrist and some people still take them seriously because they’re blinded by money.

The end result is a society where stupid people are surrounded by stupid people riding their coattails and everyone becomes confused about what smart and smart action actually is.

This is only part of the question though, the other question is is it actually good for the EU to continue growing and becoming more heterogenous indefinitely, which to me isn't at all clear.

You could make a good case that the EU is still trying to deal with issues from the 2004 expansion for example. Doesn't mean it was a bad idea, but it's not cost free

That could be a european Nato though, doesn't mean you need literally one EU army

Yes, and it might be a good idea. It should probably not be part of the EU though - there are a number of non-EU countries you would want in a European NATO such as the UK, Norway and Iceland.

The missing part is that traditional building used to be cheap (in fact the cheapest way of building things).

What changed is labour costs in western countries relative to the cost of materials and other physical things

It's not just that, but that too. E.g. a cottage like this https://www.superkul.ca/projects/double-island-cottage/ vs a "traditional" cottage. I'm sure people have preferences for both, but to me this is still a beautiful design where all the examples in the article are just low cost ugly designs.

Or on the flip side, go with cheap "traditonal design" like https://mcmansionhell.com/post/809937203073581056/mctuscan-h... and no, sorry, that's ugly as sin.

I think it's true that construction in general has become cheaper over time, so comparing older buildings to newer ones often results in comparing more expensive design to cheaper design. But that's different than aesthetic. To properly compare aesthetic they should normalize for cost at least, if not also execution.

I suppose they did have the expert vs non-expert study, but the only example they showed from it had a hideous buildings in both types so I'm not sure what that's supposed to really accomplish.

> The missing part is that traditional building used to be cheap (in fact the cheapest way of building things).

This is only partially true.

Traditional building used to be cheaper than it is now, yes, but things like ornate decorations and facades were still expensive additional work. It's worth considering the survivorship bias here - the traditional buildings people know and love are the ones that were well built and cared for.

> but things like ornate decorations and facades were still expensive additional work

This again, is partially true. A lot of ornamental decorative elements in public facades were, essentially, mass produced using molds --- very few were hand-made in the way they are done now.

They would degrade over time, however they could also be repaired or replaced relatively easily.

Your point about survivorship bias is also somewhat more nuanced. The buildings that have survived were often, as you said, made with more expensive materials, and they lasted longer; but there was also a change in tastes over time, in particular against ornament and decorative elements, and a change in the idea that certain buildings should be maintained. In the past, people were just way more accepting of tearing down or replacing buildings. Conservation as a general approach was not as common, nor were people as inclined to see certain buildings in particular as uniquely worthy of conservation. It is those buildings which were deemed "appropriate" for conservation and "historically significant" which have largely shaped our understanding of "traditional" architecture, a somewhat snapshot idea of architecture on the cusp of modernism,

Material costs changed too. Hardwood slats over a raised perimeter foundation used to be the cheapest way. Nowadays that would be a premium build.

I actually wish all social media companies would do this aggressively so I have no choice but to stop using social media

New Balance were Dad shoes 10 years ago but somehow they are now fashionable in the UK (also Asics).

I'd literally never heard of Hoka or On in my life though before this thread and they do not look fashionable