I think the author comes to the same conclusion as you, but then rules it out because Labour themselves seem unwilling to do it.

You’ve worded it best.

My version of the take is; The world will be on average easier if more people are pleasant to each other. You can’t make everyone join in, but you can make the world better on average, which surely is good enough?

What was the Sheriff of Nottingham doing in St Albans?

Isn’t that a ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition though? I’m thinking principally of the struggles in Zimbabwe here.

I love how memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) work. Lots of people have enjoyed this, but I can imagine this being quoted as the original is lost to the sands of time.

Young people everywhere thinking that Aquaman was someone who just bought failing assets from everyone.

I’m hardly a biblical scholar, but that interpretation doesn’t feel like it fits with the rest of the passage…

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

It says turn them the other cheek also, after ‘do not resist’. So it’s about offering even to the worst, rather than resisting.

There’s another issue too. In perfect conditions, self-driving cars are a lot safer, but they aren’t 100% safe. So when an incident occurs it’s newsworthy. (In the same way that we hear about plane crashes anywhere in the world, but won’t necessarily hear about someone getting run over in the next city).

My hypothesis is that adoption would be throttled in even near perfect conditions. Just because we’ve internalised the risks of driving, but haven’t for the risks of being driven by a computer.

https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs?si=3voDpwaDOHr9UIsi This one?

Does nobody else find the framing of this article a little weird? I thought the argument for boosting the economy, was because it correlated well with people’s well being. (Not that I personally but that, but I understand the line of thought). Now instead we’re suggesting that human outcomes are important because it boosts an arbitrary measure? I feel like the cart is now dragging the horse along the ground.