I don't think this is a very compelling argument. The world always has more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean you're never allowed to mention less important ones. Otherwise we probably shouldn't be posting about anything that isn't the multiple ongoing genocides in the world.

I don't believe the account in question would defend chatgpt encouraging suicide nor would they defend every breathless prognostication from tech oligarchs. They're pretty clearly talking about actual AI researchers getting told to kill themselves because of innocuous stuff.

You'll have to take a break when dark heresy drops I hope

The world would probably be a better place if they had never been invented, but they are also very good at making my job a lot easier, so lord knows I use them every day.

I made a pretty narrow claim about the weight people put on PCE level changes from 1980 to the present, and you’re barraging me with a whole lot of stuff about politics that I never once mentioned. With respect, I do not have a desire to drift into conversations separate from the original topic.

This is not true. I’m afraid we’ll have to end the conversation here because this has drifted very far from my claim and I have no desire to find a bunch of Econ papers on mobile. Have a nice day.

That is an entirely different conversation! What we’re talking about is the pretty well demonstrated preference people have for low nominal prices. Everything you just mentioned is a separate issue from what people are expressing a preference for.

Having a preference for a different set of numbers on top of a material reality that does not change is an irrational preference born from human cognitive biases. I acknowledge that those biases will always be present but they are still irrational.

I think we should make a distinction between what is understandable for people to think and what is rational. People interact with nominal prices in ways that are objectively quite irrational, but are understandable.

I'm sorry that happened to you, and I understand why you would find that rhetoric frustrating.

Your personal experience is not really what is being argued about though. The question is about society as a whole, where the vast majority of people did not have the same experience.

People observably would prefer to make $100 with $50 in expenses than make $200 with $100 in expenses. I agree that that is true.

What is also true is that the strength of that preference changed around 2020.

Ok, I get what you're saying. I think that's a separate conversation from the discussion of whether people have observably changed the way they respond to nominal price changes.

Would love to see an example of someone saying people never cared about nominal prices.

I think there are multiple parallel conversations happening here. I've followed the debate pretty closely and I do not recall anyone denying that people dislike high prices. The contention is that people care much more about high prices now than they did prior to 2020.

OP got their result by truncating the data set to remove the data points that contradict the thesis. bsky.app/profile/aust...

That the change in information environment caused the population to view a historically good economy as the worst it's ever been is a pretty much what economists + Will Stancil have been arguing.

This is just retreading the well established problems. No matter what combination of measurable things you do, something except people's material condition changed between 1982 and 2022. That is the criticism and why people talk about a "vibecession".

In 1980-1982 inflation hit 15% and unemployment went to 11%. That is rather a lot more price rise and rather a lot more job loss than we saw during the pandemic.

It doesn't answer the question of why people care much more about rising prices than they did before. "People get mad when prices go up" is not surprising. "People get dramatically more mad about prices going up in 2021 than they did in 1982" is surprising!

I’m pretty sure eugenicists are a bigger problem than the people pointing out the eugenics

Engaging in eugenics tarnishes your own career, not people pointing that out, sorry!

And it was right! There was far more efficient ways to accomplish the task.

I recently had to deal with an issue where a css change in a supporting system was changing the layout of a small number of pages with no good way of finding all instances. I toyed with the idea of running a selenium script to automatically find them and Claude basically refused to write it.

Right outside town hall in Athens GA. When my wife and I ran down to the courthouse to get married we propped our phone up on it to take our wedding photos.

Notice how your claim is dramatically different from the original claim since the original claim is indefensible.

That oct/nov spike already looked pretty crazy. What happened there?

If you choose to spend all your non-working time on activism I understand and respect that. The fact that you are not required to toil in the fields for as long as the sun is up is the reason that you have the ability to engage in that activism though.

This is, factually, something that happens. You can be upset that people observe things that happen but that doesn't change the fact that it does occur.

Repercussions like people being able to rent those homes.

Tonight’s dumb napkin cartoon…