The rule "90% of everything is garbage" applies, but recent moral values are rejecting any sorts of hierarchies, even between functional and dysfunctional countries, cultures, cities, religions, values, etc.
When society suppresses attempts to evaluate concepts or situations as objectively better or worse than alternatives, is it any surprise that polarization increases?
If there are no commonly agreed upon benchmarks to calibrate against it becomes a war of whoever can shout loudest/most convincingly.
I think a significant contributing factor that makes 'simple' questions in some contexts prohibitively difficult to answer is the lack of True Availability of the information being requested.
In this case, I'm defining True Availability[1] as the requested content being already prepared and organized into the correct format and grouped together, needing no further processing other than finding it. Conditional Availability would be when you know how to obtain the information, but it requires some degree of processing and filtering to be ready for consumption.
In computer science, this is similar to a lookup table. Lookup tables typically contain a collection of pre-calculated results for common computations, because looking up a result in a table is generally faster than calculating it from scratch.
Anything you have in a LT is Truly Available, whereas anything you have to calculate is Conditionally Available.
In your example of freedom of information requests, the questions are hard to answer because they are only available on the condition that someone filters the requested information from everything else and then prepares it into a usable format for releasing.
If I was tasked with refining the information availability of a large organization, I would attempt to prepare publicly-releasable copies of everything that COULD legally be requested via freedom of information act and publish a public database of that. Let them knock themselves out. Individual request processing and answering sounds like a terribly inefficient method of sharing information.
There are probably legal/bureaucratic/practical difficulties to my proposed solution, but my point is merely that there are in some contexts systemic barriers making answers disproportionately expensive rather than answers being intrinsically more difficult in every case.
I suspect there already exist more conventional terms for the concepts I'm referring to, but I'm making do with what I already have Available.
If you want to be generally skilled at the type of challenges D&D Sci provides, putting some points into the data science and statistics proficiencies would be a good way to start.
In particular, some related skills:
As a software developer who works on object-level automation every day, I'm intimidated by the difficulty of attempting to definitively quantify 'profit from automated tasks' in a useful way.
For example, how do we define 'automation'? "A task that formerly needed to be done by a human that now doesn't need to be"? A printing press is automation by some interpretations of that insufficient definition.
Some changes in efficiency also have similar effects on productivity without being 'automation' (although much less scalable), for example a user that becomes highly proficient in the hotkeys of a complex platform may see massive improvements in their productivity, and subsequently eliminate jobs that would have been needed if they hadn't become more productive.
I suspect if additional taxes were levied on 'job automation' it would merely create large incentives for companies to skirt around whatever the legal definition of automation was, and potentially hide it in things like the above example.
In the case where there was no 'automation tax' created, I would anticipate a NIT to be reasonable but not sustainable because I expect automation to continue to remove jobs at an accelerating rate in years to come. I do not expect tax revenue to increase at the same rate because my current understanding is that the most wealthy tend to also be those most proficient at exploiting loopholes in the tax system to evade as much as possible.
My takes here are almost entirely conjecture and I'd appreciate someone more informed to correct and/or clarify.
I'm in a similar situation. I have very little self control with sweets/candy if I have them available. I can far more easily stop myself from buying them in the first place.
If I allow myself to buy a bag of candy I've already lost and I will consume all of it in a matter of hours/days.
How much of the developed world's economy is devoted to aesthetic personalization of products rather than accomplishing the essential functions of [product here]?
I am not saying aesthetics or personalization are 'bad', however I suspect that if the cost were quantified and demonstrated to people along with examples of more productive things that could be done with that money, many people might prefer forgoing some of our more wasteful things.
Example:
The cost of having thousands of different styles of sink faucet, instead of a small number of highly efficient and optimized faucet designs for distinct use cases [small household kitchen, large household kitchen, small form factor, high throughput restaurant]. These costs are created via the overhead caused by the redundant costs of engineering, design, manufacturing, and logistics.
These same factors apply more or less to every product where variations are sold primarily for aesthetic rather than functional purposes, particularly when they replace existing functional versions.
I believe the root cause of this inefficiency is our psychological tendency to overvalue ephemeral utility such as using possessions as social status tools rather than trying to optimize how we collectively use our limited economic output. For example, if a sizeable portion of the money in the market for functionally useless decorations were able to go towards medical research.
I do not know how a more efficient allocation of resources could be practically enacted. According to my understanding most attempts at centrally planned economies have even less success than the free market, as inefficient as it is.
If a large portion of people decided to prioritize their purchases better that would work, but that's obviously a very challenging coordination problem.
There's soft skills in "communicating to others without hurting them", (i.e. "tact")
What about the situation in which:
Yes, but it thankfully for me only lasted a couple of hours and they didn't start keeping track until near the end.
I had a very similar experience as a teenager after a mild concussion from falling on ice. According to my family, I would 'reboot' every few minutes and ask the same few questions exactly. It got burdensome enough that they put up a note on the inside of my bedroom door with something along the lines of:
"You are having amnesia"
"You hit your head and got a mild concussion"
"You've already been to the ER, they said you're likely to be fine after a few hours and it is safe to sleep."
The entire experience was (reportedly) very stressful to me due to disorientation.
You're right, "objectively" doesn't fit as well in that statement as I thought.
That is how I intended 'convincing' to be interpreted.
It depends on if X is a demographic/group or a variable. "I don't want to date people who are [uneducated/from a drastically different cultural background]" sounds a lot less politically correct than "I want to date people with whom I estimate a high probability of mutual relationship satisfaction." because you don't have to explain your criteria to everyone.
I admit that's more semantic obfuscation of judgement risk markers than it is mitigating the problem.