@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Slavers who engaged in trade that was legal when they did it were generally not prosecuted; lawful slave-owners also were not prosecuted. And the prosecution of camp guards was, indeed, rather controversial and is better seen as vae victis than anything else.

It is a net exporter of food.

The US has been a net importer of food for a few years now (starting just before COVID)

"The country has limited space" is only true in the trite and meaningless sense that it is not actually infinite. But it is certainly not running out of space or even getting all that tight.

Most of that unused space is useless for living; the rest is off-limits for various reasons which aren't changing.

And the people most statistically likely to make anti-immigration the core of their politics are Red tribers. Funny that.

Not so funny; Red Tribers have their wages suppressed and employment prospects reduced by immigration, just not by H1-B abuse in particular.

I believe your distinction is arbitrary. And in any case I suspect the actual value of the thing you're trying to compute (probability of dying from the drugs instead of something else) is not something available, or even well-defined.

No, mere thrill-seeking is not "suicide with plausible deniability" nor is engaging in dangerous activities with more tangible rewards (e.g. tower-climbing as a job). Probably most addicts aren't trying to kill themselves either, they're just chasing a high. But since they aren't sharing the reward with the rest of us, I don't see why we should socialize the risk either.

Evidently, all those people offing themselves feel otherwise. (And given that the rest of them aren't reproducing, by and large, it's hard to say it's just them problem)

What would you want them to do?

Make Japan better. Not concentrate on those who are near the border of offing themselves.

No, they're trying to convince them not to choose oblivion despite not actually changing the conditions. That is, they're trying to get some marginal people from "life sucks so bad I'd rather be dead" to "life sucks almost bad enough I'd rather be dead", not generally improving conditions.

Tough love is giving someone Narcan, then immediately throwing them in the back of a paddy wagon to some farm in California to get clean and clear wildfire brush as punishment.

That's two things. They'll get separated, so they get the Narcan but not the punishment.

Which is good, because Japan needs every citizen it can get. Population is still dropping, and everyone who kills themselves can no longer contribute to society nor create and raise society's next generation.

Those people don't owe Japan their lives. Maybe if Japan wants them to contribute to society or create and raise society's next generation, it can make doing those things seem better than literal oblivion.

Classical liberalism can give rise to its own destruction without being logically inconsistent. Progressivism certainly doesn't deductively follow from classical liberalism; it pretends to, but it smuggles in new premises, puts heavy weight on subjective "lived experience", engages in equivocation as a matter of course, and relies much on the sort of postmodernism which destroys meaning entirely.

This is such a non-issue in my opinion. The correct analogy would be that you receive a phone call directly from the CEO's deputy, where he verifies his identity, and tells you "you're about to receive an email saying...".

Depends on if the CEOs deputy is in my management chain. If the CEO asks me for a status report it's weird, but sure, he gets it. But if e.g. the VP of a division not my own sends it, that's a different question.

I think it gives far too much credit to DEI and "political correctness" as examples of an "open society" and "individual liberation". They may well be outgrowths of such a movement for that, but they are cancerous outgrowths. Their tools and methods -- cancellation, punishment of speech, discrimination against individuals for being members of the oppressor classes -- are diametrically opposed to those goals. It may indeed be true, as many on the right say, that classical liberalism inevitably leads to that, but even if so, that means classical liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, not that those things are fulfillment of its goals.

Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett never will.

Giving a street junkie naloxone is specifically saving them from the direct consequences of the actions which make them trouble for others; in this way, it's purer than ordinary first aid or feeding someone. A "do-gooder" doing this for some stranger is not doing good.

I'd rather put the onus on society

If the onus is on society, it is on no one.

If a cardiologist operates on, and saves, someone who goes on to conduct a genocide in Angola, would you hold him liable?

Does he have any reason to believe this will be the result?

The result of saving some random street addict from his own overdose are pretty predictable: with high probability, more petty crime, maybe some major crime, until the addict manages to overdose again.

As for the yuppies, I'm not crying for them either.

If someone feels morally obliged to whip it out when they see an addict ODing, why on earth would I condemn the kindness of strangers?

Because their kindness results in more unkindness directed at others by the addicts they save.

Maybe you can give the 20 babies to 20 childless cat ladies

It is not actually possible to create catgirls that way.

The contentious element of "Ukrainian sovereignty" is not the right of ethnic Ukrainians to rule themselves domestically, it's about Ukraine's right to join the Western block via institutions like the EU and NATO.

Yes, that's part and parcel of sovereignty. To be able to rule yourselves domestically but to have another power control your foreign relations means you are not sovereign.

They're just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. For instance there was some post on dailykos proclaiming that the 150-year-olds on Social Security were there because that's how a missing birthdate was represented in COBOL -- 20 May 1875, the beginning of the international Gregorian Epoch. The article contains howlers like "Early versions [of COBOL] used the standards set in ISO 8601:2004." LOL; that 2004 is a year. That would be a very recent version of COBOL (which dates back to around 1959) indeed. The first version of ISO 8601 was from 1988, still far too new for Social Security. A little Internet research revealed that versions of COBOL which had an epoch usually used January 1, 1601. And if the epoch was a custom one, they sure would have picked something before 1875, since when Social Security was computerized, people older than that were still alive. And then data was released showing no, the records of very old living people didn't all have the same birthdate.

Did anyone change their mind? No, they just found other reasons Elon was "obviously" wrong.

You've stumbled on a problem with the system (from the tech guy's point of view). The skill that matters most for making money is not technical. Being a technical guy doesn't give you the skill to start your own successful business, and if you try to partner with business people to do it, they're almost certainly going to get most of the money in the success case. They'll be the ones taking private jets and entertaining celebrities in their multiple mansions, while the middle-aged tech guys are trying to stay current enough to keep a job to pay a mortgage on one house in the Bay Area and take a vacation (flying coach) once in a while.

All of the FFANGS discovered that the top performers from Land Grant Flagship universities were nearly as elite as CalTech/MIT years ago.

They may have discovered it, but they still focus their recruiting on particular universities (a slightly different set for each one, and some do include public universities), and getting their attention from another school is... difficult.

My objection isn't to the employee making money. It's to the system that makes them "comically undervalued"; they are hailed as heroes now but they will continue to be comically undervalued in the future.

AI development isn't about stopping a mortal enemy, like Bletchley Park or the Manhattan Project. It's a corporate endeavor, there to make money for the companies who make it. It IS the corporate rat race.

All of them? Probably not.