Daily Archives: October 19, 2021

Cathie Wood Piled Up Another $994K In This Company Linked With Elon Musk’s SpaceX On Friday – Benzinga – Benzinga

Posted: October 19, 2021 at 10:57 pm

Cathie Wood-led Ark Investment Management on Friday bought 126,360 shares estimated to be worth about $994,453 in Velo3D Inc (NYSE:VLD), on the dip.

Shares of the 3D company, which went public last month via a merger with special purpose acquisition company Jaws Spitfire Acquisition Corp, closed 1.75% lower at $7.87 on Friday.

The Ark Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (BATS:ARKQ) bought the shares in Velo3D, a 3D printer supplier for SpaceX. Besides ARKQ, the Ark Space Exploration & Innovation ETF (BATS:ARKX) also owns shares in Velo3D.

Together the two ETFs held 4.41 million shares, worth $35.39 million, in Velo3D ahead of Friday's trade.

SpaceX is a space exploration company led byTesla Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk.

See Also: Cathie Wood Just Bought Another $402K In This Supplier Of Elon Musk-Led SpaceX

Here are a few of the other key trades for Ark on Friday:

Bought 48,448 shares estimated to be worth $6.55 million in Teladoc Health Inc (NYSE:TDOC). Shares of the telemedicine healthcare company closed 1.08% lower at $135.40 a share on Friday.

Sold 153,997 shares estimated to be worth $6.75 million in NanoString Technologies Inc (NASDAQ:NSTG). Shares of the biotech company closed 1.42% lower at $43.82 a share on Friday.

The rest is here:

Cathie Wood Piled Up Another $994K In This Company Linked With Elon Musk's SpaceX On Friday - Benzinga - Benzinga

Posted in Spacex | Comments Off on Cathie Wood Piled Up Another $994K In This Company Linked With Elon Musk’s SpaceX On Friday – Benzinga – Benzinga

Its not the heat, its the humidity that grounded Boeings Starliner – Ars Technica

Posted: at 10:57 pm

Enlarge / The Boeing Starliner spacecraft to be flown on Orbital Flight Test-2 is seen at NASAs Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 2, 2021.

NASA

NASA and Boeing officials said Tuesday that they have successfully removed two valves from the Starliner spacecraft and have shipped them to Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama for further analysis.

The forensic examinationthe two valves will be inspected with a variety of techniques, including a CT scanis part of Boeing's ongoing effort to diagnose the "stuck" valve issue that caused an abort of Starliner's uncrewed test flight on August 3. With less than five hours remaining in the countdown to launch, during a routine procedure, 13 of the 24 valves that control the flow of dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer through the service module of the spacecraft would not cycle between closed and open.

An initial diagnostic effort at the launch pad yielded no results, so the Atlas V rocket and spacecraft were rolled back to an integration facility. After more inspection and testing there, engineers decided to "de-stack" the spacecraft and return it to Boeing's spacecraft processing building at Kennedy Space Center. This eventually led to further dissection of the vehicle and removal of several valves.

Boeing's chief engineer for space and launch, Michelle Parker, said during a news conference with reporters Tuesday that the company has a pretty solid hypothesis for what went wrong. At some point during the 46-day period when the vehicle was fueledand when the valves were found to be stuckhumidity must have gotten into the spacecraft. This moisture combined with the oxidizer and created nitric acid, beginning the process of corrosion.

Parker said dew points at the launch site were high in August, and while the vehicle was designed to operate in Florida's humidity, there is physical evidence that humidity is nonetheless the culprit. Boeing and NASA engineers now want to try to recreate the corrosive reaction in similar test conditions so that they can be confident of the root cause and any countermeasures they implement.

The company and NASA will press ahead with work in Florida, Alabama, and at Boeing's test site in White Sands, New Mexico. All of this will take time, acknowledged Boeing's program manager for commercial crew, John Vollmer. He said Boeing is now targeting the "first half" of 2022 for the uncrewed test flight of Starliner. (One source told Ars the "no earlier than" date is May 2022).

This mission is formally named Orbital Flight Test-2, or OFT-2. The company is flying OFT-2at its own expense, $410 million, following an uncrewed Starliner mission in December 2019 that went awry due to software issues. The company's technicians and engineers worked long and hard after the OFT-1 flight to fix the software, only to have these new hardware problems crop up during launch-day checks on the pad in early August.

NASA is hoping that Boeing can get Starliner up and flying so that it can have a second launch system, alongside SpaceX's Crew Dragon vehicle, to get its astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Assuming that Boeing safely completes OFT-2, Vollmer said the company and NASA would like to have about six months to review data and prepare for a crewed test flight. That would put the earliest possible launch date for Starliner's first mission carrying astronauts toward the end of 2022. More realistically, the mission may not fly until early 2023.

After this flight, NASA will certify that Starliner is ready for regular, operational astronaut flights.

As part of its commercial crew program, NASA ordered six "post-certification" missions from SpaceX and Boeing. SpaceX successfully completed its demonstration crewed mission in 2020 and is set to launch its third certified crew mission, Crew-3, to the International Space Station on October 31. A fourth and fifth mission are scheduled to follow in 2022.

During Tuesday's news conference, NASA's commercial crew program manager, Steve Stich, said the agency is negotiating additional flights for SpaceXand possibly Boeing. He said details about those contract extensions could be announced within the next few months. Given the issues discussed Tuesday, It now seems possible that SpaceX could complete its initial six-mission contract before Boeing flies its first certified mission. But Stich is confident that Boeing will get there.

"I have no reason to believe that Boeing wont be successful in getting Starliner operational," Stich said. "We'll get this problem solved, and then we'll have two space transportation systems like we want."

Read more from the original source:

Its not the heat, its the humidity that grounded Boeings Starliner - Ars Technica

Posted in Spacex | Comments Off on Its not the heat, its the humidity that grounded Boeings Starliner – Ars Technica

Aaron Smith on the Value of Reading Widely in Philosophy – New Ideal

Posted: at 10:55 pm

Aaron Smith discusses the value of studying many different philosophers on The Don Watkins Show.

In this episode of The Don Watkins Show, I talk about why its important to study philosophy, including the works of philosophers you think are wrong in fundamental ways. We give special attention to the philosophic training provided by the faculty of Ayn Rand Institutes Objectivist Academic Center.

Among the topics covered:

Mentioned in the discussion is Ayn Rands lecture Philosophy: Who Needs It. Also relevant is my article Why Read Thinkers You Disagree With. If youre interested in learning more about the Objectivist Academic Center, you can find out more here.

This podcast was recorded on May 13, 2021. Listen to the discussion below. Or listen from your mobile device onApple Podcasts,Google Podcasts,SpotifyorYouTube.

If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

More here:

Aaron Smith on the Value of Reading Widely in Philosophy - New Ideal

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on Aaron Smith on the Value of Reading Widely in Philosophy – New Ideal

The Architect as Tragic Hero – The MIT Press Reader

Posted: at 10:55 pm

Artist and writer Justin Beal explores the way in which a literary and cinematic archetype has influenced the cultural role of the modern architect.

In a 1905 article, The Architect in Recent Fiction, editor of The Architectural Record Herbert Croly argues that modern fiction has recast the character as leading man. The old image of the architect, Croly writes, like the unctuous insincere Seth Pecksniff in Charles Dickens Martin Chuzzlewit or the joyless megalomaniac Halvard Solness in Henrik Ibsens Master Builder, has given way to an emerging class of character that demands a new accounting as a social and professional figure. The following excerpt from Justin Beals book Sandfuture explores the way in which this literary and cinematic archetype has influenced the cultural role of the modern architect.

The younger of the two men said, you dont look like an artist.

For the next few weeks this comment rattled around in my head. What did an artist look like? What did I look like? The more I thought about it, the more I came to understand how I had always avoided identifying as an artist by hiding behind the figure of the architect, a complicated two-sided image I had constructed from experience and fiction from professors and friends and characters in novels and films. I did not want to be an architect, but I felt comfortable in the archetype. It was an image that had currency in the art world at the time when I entered it, and I had used that to my advantage.

It was also an easy mask for me to put on, because it is one that is still, to an astonishing degree, almost uniformly white and male and inflected by one sort of privilege or another, which is to say, it was easy for people to look at me and see an architect. If this arrangement included a degree of artifice, it was not insincere.

I had studied architecture. I had worked briefly as an architect. I spoke the language. I was fascinated by what an architect was and was not, and part of the satisfaction of assuming this identity was the knowledge that it was only a mask. A real architect is stuck working in the realm of representation. She does not make buildings; she makes drawings and models and renderings and diagrams of buildings. She relinquishes control at the precise moment that idea becomes form, and I, at least until now, had been steadfast in my commitment to make objects.

There were architects I knew my mothers high school boyfriend who gave me a summer job building basswood models, and the kind, lumbering friend of my father who abandoned a career as a lawyer to design houses. There were also the more famous architects, but just like the not-so-famous ones, their personalities seemed predetermined by what everyone else expected of them, by a cultural preconception of their role and by a feedback loop of fact and fiction.

Ayn Rand imagined the uncompromising ethical egoist at the center of The Fountainhead as an architect and based Howard Roark on an autobiography Frank Lloyd Wright mostly made up. What better profession for an objectivist than the creative genius who must rely on capitalism for his own self-realization and what better metaphor for that self-realization than a building? A house can have integrity just like a man, Roark tells a client, And just as seldom.

E. L. Doctorow, knowing a compelling character when he saw one, wrote the real Stanford White charming, talented, ambitious, entitled into his historical novel Ragtime. Whites very public affair with the teenage showgirl Evelyn Nesbit and his murder at the hand of her jealous husband on the roof of a building of his own design helps anchor the tragic archetype in historical fact.

On the surface they are intelligent, ambitious, attractive, guided by conviction and purpose, but inside they are tortured, full of conflict and shame.

There is Anthony Royal, the vindictive mastermind of J. G. Ballards eponymous High-Rise and Querry, the disillusioned architect, from Graham Greenes A Burnt-Out Case. Shades of Querry haunt Simon, the beleaguered protagonist of Donald Barthelmes penultimate novel, Paradise, though instead of a leper colony, Simon finds himself in a sort of postmodern purgatory, passing his days in the company of three lingerie models, bemused, cooking elaborate meals and reflecting on his mediocre architectural achievements with a mixture of nostalgia and regret.

Together the stories tangle together into a knot. Architects are creative, but measured; passionate, but ethical; they project a righteous confidence and entitlement inflected with privilege. They are all adulterers. On the surface they are intelligent, ambitious, attractive, guided by conviction and purpose, but inside they are tortured, full of conflict and shame, their good intentions distorted into something monstrous.

Cinema reinforces the architect archetype with a specificity remarkable even in a medium enamored with stock characters Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men; Albert Finney in Two for the Road; Sam Waterston in Hannah and Her Sisters; Donald Sutherland in Dont Look Now; Paul Newman in Towering Inferno; Gabriele Ferzetti in LAvventura. The only black architect in a major Hollywood film Wesley Snipes character Flipper Purify in Spike Lees Jungle Fever is, as the name suggests, a caricature of assimilation given a profession that signals whiteness (as in, nothing could be more white than being an architect).

Like Ibsens master builder, these mythological architects are doomed to a tragic arc over which they have no agency. In Hiroshima Mon Amour, Eiji Okada plays an architect who has been conscripted into the Japanese army after the bombing of Hiroshima. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark blows up the Cortland Homes to prevent the subversion of his vision. In Peter Greenaways film The Belly of an Architect, Stourley Kracklite throws himself off the top of the Altare della Patria ending his life as Halvard Solness did, by falling from a building.

As with White, the truth often helps to reinforce fiction. Gaud was run down by a streetcar as he looked up at a facade in Barcelona, Carlo Scarpa fell down a flight of stairs in Sendai, Japan, and Louis Kahn died alone in a mens bathroom in Penn Station, New York.

In chapter seven of Light Years, James Salter reduces the character of the architect to its tragic essence with eviscerating precision. Salters architect, Viri, believed in greatness. He believed in it as if it were a virtue. As if it could be his own. He is insatiable and unfulfilled, but his righteous confidence is never enough to overcome the inevitable disappointment of his unbuilt work there always, until the last, like a great ship rotting in the ways. As the novel draws to close, Viri, breaks down during a production of the Master Builder. It was like an accusation. Suddenly his life, an architects life as in the play, seemed exposed. He was ashamed at his smallness, his grayness, his resignation.

Justin Beal is an artist and a writer based in New York. This article is adapted from his book Sandfuture.

See more here:

The Architect as Tragic Hero - The MIT Press Reader

Posted in Ayn Rand | Comments Off on The Architect as Tragic Hero – The MIT Press Reader

Ch. 3: Ethical Egoism – Lucid Philosophy

Posted: at 10:54 pm

Unedited Lecture/Video Notes on Ethical Egoism

For the video, click below:

Ethical Egoism Video

Chapter 3: Ethical Egoism: should morality be based solely on self-interest?

Main Idea: Ethical egoists believe you should always act in your self-interest. So, is your morality solely based on self-interest? Should you try to live as an ethical egoist? What would that look like?

Ethical Egoism reminds us that self-interest is a virtue, but most philosophers believe ethical egoists are mistaken in arguing that it is the only virtue. To flourish, we should seek self-interest, but not just self-interest. Morality is more than pursuing self-interest.

My opinion: "Nor should you choose to live as an ethical egoist for you will miss out on the best experiences in life likethe deepest forms oflove, friendship, wonder, and beauty that destroy all conceptions of self and self-interest. The best experiences in life ecstatically transcend self-interested thinking. Still, it is your choice to be an egoist or not."

In the previous chapter on psychological egoism, we found that people are not always selfish or self-interested. We are capable of acting with regard for others; we are capable of acting altruistically. But should we act altruistically?

In this chapter, we will explore ethical egoism, which is the prescriptive theory that you should always act in your self-interest.

The Theory

According to ethical egoism, you should only act in your self -interest. Ethical Egoists do not believe you should pursue the interests of others as well as your own interests, rather they believe you should only pursue your interests. An egoist believes that What makes an action good is that it is good for ME.

It is important to avoid caricatures and straw man versions of ethical egoism. For example, the ethical egoist does not believe you should be a scrooge. Most egoists believe you should sometimes help others, but only because it is in your interest. For example, an ethical egoist may think it good to scratch anothers back, but only because this act is somehow in his rational self-interest (e.g. the other will scratch his back in return). According to EE (ethical egoism), the fact that an action is in my self- interest is precisely what makes it good.

It is also important to see that ethical egoists can live disciplined lives. For example, most ethical egoists will attempt to stop smoking because they recognize smoking is not in their long term self-interest and is therefore bad. Ethical Egoism does not support doing whatever you feel, rather it encourages you to follow your objective and rational self-interest.

Ethical egoists make moral judgments. For example, most ethical egoists will judge the murderer as wrong because it is rarely in ones long term self-interest to murder. There is, after all, a chance you will get caught and end up in prison. Or maybe some God will send you to Hell for murder.

**Some ethical egoists also argue its bad because the object of the murderers self-interest is bad. That is, the ethical egoist seems to believe there are good and bad forms of self-interested activity. As we will see later, this may be a problem for EE.

Some philosophers distinguish between individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. Individual ethical egoism is the idea everyone ought to serve my interests. An act is good only if it benefits me, and morality dies when I die. Universal ethical egoism is the idea that everyone ought to seek their own self-interest, not just me. Universal Ethical Egoism is stronger because it includes everyone, not just myself. This chapter will focus mostly on universal ethical egoism.

Why do people like ethical egoism? As you read, evaluate the strength of each argument for ethical egoism.

Many of these arguments come from Ayn Rand, especially The Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead. Some also come from Nietzsche, Thomas Hobbes, and my students.

Exercise and Criticism

Now that you have explored some of the arguments for ethical egoism, do you think it is a strong ethical theory? If it is, it should be able to: A) explain, or be consistent with, your core moral beliefs and, B) help you lead a meaningful and flourishing life. It should also be based on facts when facts are relevant. Discussing the following questions will help you analyze and evaluate ethical egoism.

No, almost every student says it is wrong to kill someone for money even if the student believes it is in his or her self-interest. This is a problem for EE because, according to EE, it should be good because it is in your self-interest. So, the existence of even one self-interested act that you think bad proves that ethical egoism is not the whole of your moral story, it does not explain all of your moral beliefs.

Now you may have some objections to the life insurance case, but the point is that you probably believe some actions are wrong even though they are in your self-interest. So, the first criticism is that ethical egoism is inconsistent with what you believe is right or wrong. Again, most people would say something is wrong with this killing in self-interested even if they arent sure what is wrong. But there is nothing wrong with it if ethical egoism is true. Therefore, most people hold beliefs that are inconsistent with ethical egoism.

Question: Survey your moral mind. Can you find examples of acts that you think are wrong even though they are in your self-interest? Are psychopaths more likely to be ethical egoists? Teenagers?

The problem is this argument supports utilitarianism, not ethical egoism. If pursuing my interest is good because everyone benefits, then its not good simply because I benefit. But if I dont believe its good simply because I benefit then Im not an ethical egoist. In this case, I am a Utilitarian.

For example, if I pursue my self-interest of earning money by building a convenience store, then your self-interest may also be served since you now have a neighborhood convenience store. But I am not an ethical egoist if I argue it is good because both you and I benefit. As an ethical egoist, I must say its good only because I benefit. So, ethical egoism may be true, but this type of argument does not support it because it presupposes caring for others for their own sake, not simply because it is in my self-interest.

In my experience, most ethical egoists are inconsistent because they believe such acts are good partly because everyone benefits, not just themselves.

They shouldnt. Ethical egoism says they should only care about their self-interest. An ethical egoist shouldnt care about the future and posterity because she will be dead in the future.

If an ethical egoist counters that their self includes their grandchildren, notice how the meaning of self has been greatly inflated to meet the posterity objection. If one allows this inflated definition of self, the theory is now closer to utilitarianism than ethical egoism.

In short, why should I care about posterity if there is nothing in it for me, nothing in my self-interest? But I do care, so ethical egoism is inconsistent with my core moral beliefs.

In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels argued this is the deepest criticism of ethical egoism. He believes the egoist thinks like racists and sexists because they believe their interests ultimately count for more simply because they are in the right race or gender. That is, there is US and THEM, and were better because we are Us and they are Them. So, we can treat them however we please.

Ethical egoists categorize people in the same way. They say, There is ME and EVERYONE else, and my interests count for more simply because they are mine. If you ask an egoist why their interests count for more, they say, Because they are MY interests. But this answer is no better than the racist answer that MY group is better because it is MY group.

Think of all the people you have encountered today. Do their interests not count? Dont you care about them? Dont others have feelings, goals, pains, pleasures, and interests just like you? Why should your pain count for more than their pain just because it is your pain? Isnt the starving child sometimes on par with your own interests? (Rachels)

Lets say you save some money to buy a video game, but then give it up to feed a starving child. Is this not a good act, and is this not a case of letting another persons interests outweigh your interests? Most importantly, dont you think this is a good act?

Now, lets say the child is not starving, she just wants a new bicycle. In this case, your interests may outweigh the childs because you choose to buy the video game.

The point is that it is too simplistic to say morality is always based on self-interest. When you think morally, you are considering your interests, but you are also considering the interests of others for their own sake.

Of course, it does not follow from these examples that you must always sacrifice your own interests, rather it only shows that their interests count too. As Lawrence Hinman says, Self-love is a virtue, but its not the only virtue.

In a way, this criticism shows that ethical egoism does not even enter the moral sphere of thinking because moral thinking begins when we start considering other peoples interests, not simply our own.

Self-love is a virtue, but not the only virtue (Lawrence Hinman).

Lets begin by exploring how the same act can be both altruistic and egoistic.

I may throw a grenade to save myself and my buddies. This act seems both self-interested (saving self) and altruistic (saving buddies). I may jump on the grenade, which seems altruistic, but not self-interested. I may watch the grenade explode, which is neither altruistic nor self-interested. Or, I may run away without warning my buddies, which seems very selfish.

The point is egoists present a false dichotomy because they believe actions (and motives) must be entirely self-interested or entirely altruistic. But this is too simplistic, morality and human motivation are more complex than this.

For example, I may help the old lady across the street because I care about her and because I want the nickel she will give me. I may become a teacher because I want to learn, help others, make money, and improve my reputation. Its rare to find an act or motive that is purely altruistic or purely self-interested.

Also, it is sometimes good to give up my interests (e.g. feed a starving child), and sometimes it is not good (e.g. staying in a toxic relationship). The point is an Aristotelian one; Morality is a mean between the extremes. Morality is not about always surrendering your self-interest, nor is it about always pursuing your self-interest. Moral thinking means you are weighing all interests and sometimes choosing your interests over others, and sometimes choosing the interests of others over your own. In short, ethical egoism is too extreme and presents a false dilemma. The choice is not between 1) always altruistic or 2) always self-interested.

No. Many ethicists believe morality begins with the common point of view, with considering other peoples interests for their own sake. If I believe only my interests count, I never enter the moral sphere. Of course, most ethical egoists are probably moral, but they are moral in a logically inconsistent way (i.e. ethical egoism contradicts their moral beliefs).

No, his act is bad because he was not acting in his objective self-interest. He sacrificed his self-interest and this is especially clear if he is an atheist and does not believe in a self-interested afterlife. According to ethical egoism, we should not think such an act is morally praiseworthy because we believe everyone should act according to their self-interest. The atheist soldier probably did not act according to his self-interest since he is sacrificing/killing himself. The egoist has to inflate the meaning of self-interest to argue he is seeking his self-interest by killing himself, by killing all his interests.

Perhaps. It depends on what you mean by friendship. However, the answer is no if you believe true friendship means caring about your friends good for her own sake, not simply for the self-interested benefit you receive from her. This type of true friendship seems to be beyond the reach of the egoist (Hinman) because it requires one to sometimes transcend self-interest.

Indeed, the logically consistent ethical egoist should view true friendship as bad because it causes a person to act in non-self-interested ways. Furthermore, a logically consistent ethical egoist may even seek to harm his friends if it suddenly becomes in his self-interest to do so.

So, as Lawrence Hinman states, ethical egoism may be good in a world where people are like individual atoms colliding with each other, but it is not so good if you believe in true friendship and love. Ethical egoism is not the philosophy for you if you CHOOSE true friendship and true love.

These words are ambiguous, and it is helpful to know how people distinguish them.

Some define selfish as that which is in your short term pleasure (e.g. smoking cigarettes), and self-interest as that which is in your objective long-term interest (e.g. not smoking cigarettes).

Some define selfish as seeking your own good without regard for others, being excessively concerned with yourself (e.g. killing my way to the top). They then define self-interest as seeking your own good, but not at any cost to others. A self-interested person values justness and fairness.

Some use selfish and self-interest in equivalent ways.

Finally, others equivocate between all of these meanings, which makes for difficult reading.

As always, define your terms clearly before you begin a discussion on this topic.

Perhaps not, it depends on whether it is in your self-interest. It might not be in your self-interest to tell others (or even yourself) that you are an egoist. This may be a problem for egoism because it seems to imply that nobody should reveal their egoism.

Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher created The Prisoners Dilemma in 1950. Think of it as a puzzle that has moral implications.

Imagine you and Mr. Jones have been arrested. The jailor gives you the following options:

Jones Confesses

Jones doesnt confess

I confess

5 years for both of us

Jones gets 10 years, I am free

I dont confess

Jones is free, I get 10 years

1 year for both of us

The jailor tells you that Mr. Jones is being offered the same deal, but you cannot communicate with him.

Now, the point is to think like an ethical egoist. When you think like an egoist, it becomes clear that you should confess. Here is how James Rachels explains it:

On the other hand, suppose Smith does not confess. Then you are in this position: If you confess you will go free, whereas if you do not confess you will remain imprisoned for a year. Clearly, then, even if smith does not confess, you will still be better off if you do.

Therefore, you should confess because you would get out of jail the soonest, regardless of what Smith does. Notice then that wanting everyone to pursue their own self-interests is not in your self-interest. Rather, you should want others to sometimes give up their interests. But to achieve that, it seems you should give up self-interest as well (so they will trust you). Paradoxically, pursuing your self-interest involves sometimes giving up your self-interest. You should cooperate.

Nor should you choose to live as an ethical egoist for you will miss out on the best experiences in life like experiencing a love, friendship, or sense of wonder and beauty that destroys all conceptions of self and self-interest. The best experiences in life ecstatically transcend self-interested thinking.

Sources: Many primary and secondary texts. The clearest and most logical overview is in Russ Shafer Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics.

See original here:

Ch. 3: Ethical Egoism - Lucid Philosophy

Posted in Ethical Egoism | Comments Off on Ch. 3: Ethical Egoism – Lucid Philosophy

Pepe the Frog

Posted: at 10:52 pm

Pepe the Frog is a cartoon character that has become a popular Internet meme (often referred to as the "sad frog meme" by people unfamiliar with the name of the character). The character first appeared in 2005 in the on-line cartoon Boy's Club. In that appearance, the character also first used its catchphrase, "feels good, man."

The Pepe the Frog character did not originally have racist or anti-Semitic connotations. Internet users appropriated the character and turned him into a meme, placing the frog in a variety of circumstances and saying many different things. Many variations of the meme became rather esoteric, resulting in the phenomenon of so-called "rare Pepes."

The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted. However, it was inevitable that, as the meme proliferated in on-line venues such as 4chan, 8chan, and Reddit, which have many users who delight in creating racist memes and imagery, a subset of Pepe memes would come into existence that centered on racist, anti-Semitic or other bigoted themes.

In recent years, with the growth of the "alt right" segment of the white supremacist movement, a segment that draws some of its support from some of the above-mentioned Internet sites, the number of "alt right" Pepe memes has grown, a tendency exacerbated by the controversial and contentious 2016 presidential election. Though Pepe memes have many defenders, the use of racist and bigoted versions of Pepe memes seems to be increasing, not decreasing.

However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes.

In the fall of 2016, the ADL teamed with Pepe creator Matt Furie to form a #SavePepe campaign to reclaim the symbol from those who use it with hateful intentions.

Continue reading here:

Pepe the Frog

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Pepe the Frog

Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s coronavirus response …

Posted: at 10:51 pm

Imagine, if you can, what its like to make decisions on which the lives of tens of thousands of other people depend. If you get things wrong, or delay deciding, they die.

Your decisions affect the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, resulting in huge economic disruption, mass layoffs and business closures. Imagine you must act quickly, without having complete certainty your decisions will achieve what you hope.

Now imagine that turning your decisions into effective action depends on winning the support of millions of people.

Yes, you do have enforcement capacity at your disposal. But success or failure hinges on getting most people to choose to follow your leadership even though it demands sudden, unsettling, unprecedented changes to their daily lives.

This is the harsh reality political leaders around the world have faced in responding to COVID-19.

As someone who researches and teaches leadership and has also worked in senior public sector roles under both National and Labour-led governments Id argue New Zealands Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is giving most Western politicians a masterclass in crisis leadership.

When it comes to assessing New Zealands public health response, we should all be listening to epidemiologists like Professor Michael Baker. On Friday, Baker said New Zealand had the most decisive and strongest lockdown in the world at the moment and that New Zealand is a huge standout as the only Western country thats got an elimination goal for COVID-19.

But how can we assess Arderns leadership in making such difficult decisions? A good place to start is with American professors Jacqueline and Milton Mayfields research into effective leadership communication.

The Mayfields research-based model highlights direction-giving, meaning-making and empathy as the three key things leaders must address to motivate followers to give their best.

Being a public motivator is essential for leaders but its often done poorly. The Mayfields research shows direction-giving is typically over-used, while the other two elements are under-used.

Arderns response to COVID-19 uses all three approaches. In directing New Zealanders to stay home to save lives, she simultaneously offers meaning and purpose to what we are being asked to do.

In freely acknowledging the challenges we face in staying home from disrupted family and work lives, to people unable to attend loved ones funerals she shows empathy about what is being asked of us.

The March 23 press conference announcement of New Zealands lockdown is a clear example of Arderns skillful approach, comprising a carefully crafted speech, followed by extensive time for media questions.

In contrast, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pre-recorded his March 24 lockdown announcement, offering no chance for questions from the media, while framing the situation as an instruction from government, coupled with a strong emphasis on enforcement measures.

Where Ardern blended direction, care and meaning-making, Johnson largely sought compliance.

Read more: As NZ goes into lockdown, authorities have new powers to make sure people obey the rules

Arderns approach also strongly reflects what well-known Harvard leadership scholar Professor Ronald Heifetz has long argued is vital but also rare and difficult to accomplish when leading people through change.

Ardern has used daily televised briefings and regular Facebook live sessions to clearly frame the key questions and issues requiring attention.

Also consistent with Heifetzs teachings, she has regulated distress by developing a transparent framework for decision-making the governments alert level framework allowing people to make sense of what is happening and why.

Importantly, that four-level alert framework was released and explained early, two days before a full lockdown was announced, in contrast with the prevarication and sometimes confusing messages from leaders in countries such as Australia and the UK.

The work of another leadership scholar, the UKs Professor Keith Grint, also sheds light on Arderns leadership approach during this crisis.

For Grint, leadership involves persuading the collective to take responsibility for collective problems. Much of the prime ministers public commentary has been dedicated to exactly that and its been overwhelmingly effective, at least so far, with a recent poll showing 80% support for the governments response to COVID-19.

Grint also argues that when dealing with wicked problems which are complex, contentious and cannot be easily resolved leaders must ask difficult questions that disrupt established ways of thinking and acting.

Its clear this has happened in New Zealand, as shown in the suite of initiatives the government has taken to respond to the pandemic, including its decision to move to a national lockdown relatively fast compared to many though not all countries.

Read more: Where are we at with developing a vaccine for coronavirus?

Of course, not everything has been perfect in New Zealands or Arderns COVID-19 response. Ongoing, independent scrutiny of the governments response is essential.

But as my own research has argued, expecting perfection of leaders, especially in such difficult circumstances, is a fools errand.

Its never possible. Nor should we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good when speed and enormous complexity are such significant features of the decision-making context.

Whether youre comparing Arderns performance against other Western leaders, or assessing her efforts using researchers measures of leadership excellence, as a New Zealander I think there is much to be grateful for in how she is leading us through this crisis.

Stay in touch with The Conversations coverage from New Zealand experts by signing up to our weekly newsletter delivered to you each Wednesday.

Continued here:

Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern's coronavirus response ...

Posted in Jacinda Ardern | Comments Off on Three reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s coronavirus response …

Jacinda Ardern an agenda-driven autocrat? | The …

Posted: at 10:51 pm

Its hard to keep up with ouradroitPrime Minister who apparently doesnt like answering questions,such as the one about where does life begin, put to her when she was enthusiastic about making abortion more readily available. We are still waiting.

And now, a notunexpectedsequel to the extraordinary tractor protest, organised by Groundswell New Zealand,whichsaw thousands of farm vehicles travelling the length and breadth of the country. Through 55 towns and cities, farmers protested at ongoing interference from our hard-left government, including unworkable regulations and unjustified costs.

These protests took place in July from the bottom of the South Island to the top of the North, crossing through Auckland, from Southland to Kaitaia. The leader of the Green Party, James Shaw, disgracefully dismissed this extraordinary event at the time as a group of Pakeha farmers down south. Yet an estimated 60,000 people were involved, hardly what Shaw dishonestly claimed. And why the disparaging Pakeha, long objected to by many New Zealanders?

We are used to politicians not telling the truth which no doubt contributes to their being among the least respected sectors of the population. But any blatant misrepresentation of a fact rather gives the show away, bringing home to us how little we should trust those makingstatements they must know are untruthful, particularly if they do not want to face up to what is actually happening, or when their extremist policies are being challenged.

More slipperyare the politicianswho manage to simply avoid answering a questionif they dont think the answer will reflect well on them or dont want to acknowledgeits implications.Ardern has shown herself adroit at such evasion, refusing torelease informationin relation tothefarmer protest group.A complaint has now been made to the Office of the Ombudsman abouther decision to withhold thisinformation.Groundswell NZsco-founder,Bryce McKenzie,said the group hasnot heard from Ardern before or since the protests,buthad requested ameeting with her while memberswere in Wellington to address the environment select committee.

We got an email back fromher office saying she was busy, he said. We have not heard from any Government ministers, only opposition MPs. It is disappointing, because we think an estimated 60,000 people deserve a response from the Government about the things they are concerned about.

How extraordinarythatArdern,constantlypreaching toNewZealanders tobe kind to one another, isdelivering such a snub to representatives of the farming communitynationwide. She is too busy to listen to them basically an insultinganswer,given that sheis apparentlynever too busy to listen tothe small minorityof dissident part-Maorispushing for constitutional change to achievenotjust co-governance, buta veto over decision-making by the majority of thecountry as with thenow signed-off healthlegislation. He Puapua, thedocument planning for this apartheid policy,had to be prised out of her governments hands, originally heavily redacted. But then, our elusivePM claimed she had not readit although her cabinet ministers were reportedly working to see how its provisions could be implemented.

Our determined Prime Minister must know very wellNew Zealanders dont support racial separatism.It did not stop her passing legislation to implement two health systems one forpart-Maori New Zealanders and one for all other New Zealanders.Inspite of thedefinitionofwho can legitimately call themselves Maori conveniently removed some time back, the Maori Health Authority now has a veto over any decisions of theparallelhealth systemrepresentingthe majority of New Zealanders.

Sheis also tooseemingly toobusyto explain why sheinaccurately claimsthat the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi established a partnership between Maori and the Crown which she uses to justify the divisive racist policiesshe is implementing. He Puapuashows Labours plan to establish two governments in New Zealand by 2040. By thistime thehierarchiesi.e.the governing bodies of our most powerful andwealthyneo-tribes (as a result of the never-ending hundreds of millions of dollars diverted to themfrom taxpayers these recent decades)willpreside over all aspects of New Zealands policy-making.

OnArderngoes,hercoalition pushingher Three Waters Plan toconfiscate waterassets from local communities, andhand over all water management to four mega-authorities underjoint council andneo-tribalcontrol. While she is far too busy to meet with representatives of our farmers, there have been 60 consultation meetings with Maori groupsover this Three Waters Planbut littleor no consultation with everybodyelse, inspite of provisions in the Local Government Act requiring councils to consult widely with all members of thepublic,not justpart-Maoris - (intermarriage was so successful that there are nolonger full-blooded Maori).Needless to say, each of theproposed four new entities of would have a tribal veto hanging over their heads.Yet 40 of New Zealands 67 councils are against,or undecided about,this $120 billion plan. Sotaxpayers are now payingfor infantilised cartoonson television to bepersuadedit would be an excellent idea for local councils to be robbed of their assets.

I am reminded ofTakisobservation in a recent Spectatorof how successful a country Switzerland is.Itspeoplespeakfour different languagesGerman, French, Italian and Romansh,with no animosity towards oneanother and that the tribalismthatexacerbates and fuels mistrust in othercountries does not exist here.He goes to the heart of the matter, when he points out that this is because the Swiss practise direct democracy,havingno intention of being governedby agenda-driven autocrats.

Such a descriptioncanarguably be applied to Ardern,when her ministers havenow been told to avoid answering questions aboutdumpedCovid-19documents. Aleaked email, sentto Beehive staff,has directed them to issueonly brief written statementsin response to media queries about the documents.Donotput minister(sic)up for any interviews on this,itinstructed. The directive stated that the Government,because of its overwhelming public support,hasno need to respond, and shouldinstead leadthe changing conversation.The Prime Ministers office has directed all ministers not to give interviews on thisCovid-19document dump, saying there is no real need to defend themselves.So much for a government answerable to the people of the country.

What we are undergoing isa revolution by stealth. The Swiss would nevertolerateanArdern ordering her ministers to do as she says. Well awarethat power corrupts,theywould not have allowed herto presideforlonger thanone year, virtually ruling the country.

On the contrary, the President of the Swiss Confederation, elected forthatyear of office by the United Federal Assembly, is primus inter pares first among equals. Chairing the Federal Council meetings,and mediating in the case of disputes. in urgent situations, he/shecan order precautionary measures.

Thanks to the damage that our dominating Prime Minister is inflicting upon New Zealand, including the shocking imposition of an apartheid system of racial preference, New Zealanders are perturbed about what is happening, including very probably the majority of part-Maori, no more supportive of racist agenda than the rest of the country.

Given a largely lacklustre National opposition led by an unpopular leader who shows no sign of stepping down for the sake of the party, but with dubious contenders ready to challenge, our outlook is bleak.

Without adopting the very successful controls that the Swiss people fought for, to determine their own directions seewww.100days.co.nz we have very little hope of winning back this country. With them, it is an entirely different matter, as the most successful democracy in the world shows us.

Continued here:

Jacinda Ardern an agenda-driven autocrat? | The ...

Posted in Jacinda Ardern | Comments Off on Jacinda Ardern an agenda-driven autocrat? | The …

10 times Jacinda Ardern was a true leader – NZ Labour Party

Posted: at 10:51 pm

Jacinda Ardern's first term as Prime Minister has been recognised at home and around the world as a masterclass in leadership. Open, honest and authentic, Jacinda is a new type of leader - one that unites strength with kindness, boldness and compassion.

As we head into the 2020 election, we're taking a look back at some of the key moments that have characterised Jacinda's leadership during her first term in Government.

Jacinda Ardern's leadership throughout New Zealand's COVID-19 response has been globally recognised. Many people praised her daily televised COVID-19 briefings with Ashley Bloomfield and her Facebook Lives for keeping the New Zealand public up to date with the latest developments and information regarding alert level changes.

The Prime Minister led the Government in going hard and early to stamp out the virus, keep New Zealanders safe, and cushion the economic impact.Herfocus now is on getting the latest resurgence under control and making sure we put in place more financial supports to recover and rebuild.

Were in a position to safely open the economy back up (much quicker than many other countries), and Jacinda is leading the charge in our recovery through Labours five point plan to rebuild New Zealand, which includes creating jobs, getting people into training, and helping local businesses recover and rebuild even better than before.

On March 15 2019, a lone gunman opened fire at two mosques in Christchurch, killing 51 people. Jacinda Ardern moved swiftly to denounce the gunman and his actions, stating in a press conference: "You may have chosen us, but we utterly reject and condemn you."

Jacinda also moved quickly to tighten New Zealands gun laws, banning military-style semi-automatic firearms just six days after the attacks, and removing over 62,000 prohibited firearms from circulation through the gun buy-back scheme. On top of this, in May 2019, Jacinda joined France's President Emmanuel Macron to lead the Christchurch Call to Action, a coming together of 48 countries, the European Commission, two international organisations, and eight tech companies with the goal of eliminating terrorist and violent extremist content online.

Another tragedy hit New Zealand when Whakaari/White Island erupted on December 9 2019, eventually taking the lives of 21 people.

Jacinda Ardern met with first responders in Whakatne following the eruption, where she recognised the emergency service personnel for going above and beyond the line of duty: "They have done an incredible job under devastating circumstances."

Later, in an address to Parliament, speaking to the families of victims, she said: "I say to those who have lost and grieve you are forever linked to our nation and we will hold you close."

The Government provided assistance for the Whakatne communitys immediate needs through the Whakatne District Council Mayoral Relief Fund.

Under Jacinda Ardern's leadership, our Government passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. This landmark legislation is at the centre of the Government's work to reduce our net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and protect future generations of Kiwis from the potential impacts of climate change. The Act passed with unanimous support. In the House, Jacinda told MPs New Zealand was on the right side of history.

Jacinda worked with Finance Minister Grant Robertson to deliver New Zealand's - and the world's - first Wellbeing Budget in 2019. The Budget signalled a new approach to the way governments work, by placing the health and wellbeing of people at the heart of what we do.

Todays Budget shows you can be both economically responsible and kind. We are turning the corner on issues others have written off as too hard for too long while keeping the books in order.

Following the positive reception to our 2019 Budget, in 2020 Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson delivered the second Wellbeing Budget, focused heavily on supporting New Zealand's recovery from COVID-19 by creating jobs, helping people into training, and backing businesses.

In 2019, in the wake of the March 15 terror attack, Jacinda urged other world leaders in attendance at the UN General Assembly to shift away from attitudes of nationalism, to instead recognise how all nations depend on one another. "What if we no longer see ourselves based on what we look like, what religion we practice, or where we live," she asked, "but by what we value? Humanity. Kindness. An innate sense of our connection to each other."

Addressing pay inequity for women was something Jacinda campaigned on before we entered Government. With the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in July 2020, she made good on Labours campaign promise by making it easier for employees to raise a pay equity claim.

Under Jacinda Ardern's leadership, the Government also has begun providing free period products in schools for those who need them, starting with 15 Waikato schools and expanding to all state and state-integrated schools on an opt-in basis in 2021.

Jacinda Ardern attended the 2018 Pride Parade alongside Finance Minister Grant Robertson.

She said: "Lets all recommit to keep doing the work thats required and make sure that we show that international solidarity so that everyone can celebrate who they are, no matter where in the world they live."

Among the long list of achievements under Jacindas leadership are the Families Package, child poverty reduction legislation, the Winter Energy Payment, extended paid parental leave and rolling out free, healthy lunches in schools.

These are only a few examples of the many ways the Government has made progress for New Zealanders. The full list is so long that when Jacinda was challenged to run through the Governments achievements in just two minutes after two years in office - even she couldnt get through the list in time!

Watch the video here.

In May 2020, Jacinda Ardern was doing a live TV interview when a 5.8 earthquake hit the Beehive in Wellington.

When asked if she was okay to continue with the interview, without flinching, she glanced at the still-wobbling flag stands and coolly said: "Im good. We're just having a bit of an earthquake here."

Do you have more examples of Jacinda Ardern's leadership to add to the list? Share to your friends on Facebook or Twitter and let us know!

Original post:

10 times Jacinda Ardern was a true leader - NZ Labour Party

Posted in Jacinda Ardern | Comments Off on 10 times Jacinda Ardern was a true leader – NZ Labour Party

Everyday activities won’t be available to the unvaccinated – Jacinda Ardern – RNZ

Posted: at 10:51 pm

If you are not vaccinated, there will be everyday things you will miss out on, the prime minister says.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the framework will provide people with greater clarity moving forward. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

A new Covid-19 response framework is being finalised and will be released on Friday, providing people with greater clarity, Jacinda Ardern said.

"It will become very clear to people that if you are not vaccinated there will be things that you miss out on, everyday things that you will miss out on," Ardern told Morning Report.

"It's about both rewarding people who have gone out and done the right thing but also keeping away people who are less safe."

She said by the time the framework is ready to move to, the government is confident vaccine certificates will be ready.

It's like an alert level system, she said.

"We've always said once we're vaccinated it will be different, so we need to therefore design what that looks like."

Ardern said the government is drawing some distinctions though, they don't want an environment where people can't access necessary goods and services to maintain their lives.

"We can't say someone can't get health services, medical needs, pharmacies, food."

The government is supporting providers who are providing incentives for people to get vaccinated, she said.

"Anything that they identify will work for their community has our backing."

Ardern said domestic travel is being looked at separately from the framework to be announced Friday, and work is being down to see if there is a way to safely allow movement.

"But that would have a number of checks around it - is there a way that we can use vaccine certificates but also acknowledge that even if you're vaccinated it is still possible for you to have asymptotic Covid."

The border is putting a lot of strain on Auckland the more time is it needed, she said.

"At the same time, the rest of New Zealand wants to remain... Covid free or be in the position to extinguish Covid cases as they arrive. So we've got to balance those two needs."

Epidemiologist Rod Jackson told Morning Report the government needs to go hard on those who just haven't yet got around to getting a vaccine - "With no jab, no job, no fun".

The second group of people who aren't vaccinated however, don't trust the system, he said.

"And for those we have to find the people that they trust.

"The only game in town is to buy time until we get everyone vaccinated."

The government has signalled a vaccination target will be part of the soon to be announced framework.

Jackson says if 95 percent of the population is vaccinated, there will be death, disease and hospitalisations for the last five percent.

"Those were the 5 percent who were the first to get Covid in Europe last year, those are where most of the deaths are, those are where most of the hospitalisations are...For the rest of us, we're all going to get Covid again.

He said people don't realise that.

"There's two ways to get vaccinated. You either get vaccinated by the virus, and that's brutal, one in 10 hospitalisations in this latest outbreak. If you get Covid after you've been vaccinated it will happen slowly because the vaccine is fantastic for dealing with severe disease but it only slows down infection."

Slowing down infection is the key problem a vaccinated population faces, he said.

"Because Covid spreads so rapidly, even if the vaccine has reduced your risk of going to hospital from one in 10 to one in 100. That is still one in 100 of a lot of people if Covid is spreading rapidly."

A flexible approach is needed, he said.

Read the rest here:

Everyday activities won't be available to the unvaccinated - Jacinda Ardern - RNZ

Posted in Jacinda Ardern | Comments Off on Everyday activities won’t be available to the unvaccinated – Jacinda Ardern – RNZ