site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 242252 results for

domain:x.com

Sure, but that makes the argument about "alcohol can't be outlawed because you can just ferment berry juices" rather silly and sophistic as a point of comparison. Sorta like what shinzo Abe zip gun is to gun control. Like yeah you can do it, but gangs in gun controlled countries aren't and haven't been killing each other with gizmos.

I'll always just return to my actual experience: as a teenager weed was illegal period while alcohol was illegal for me. I could text any of half a dozen people and get weed within a day. Getting alcohol was a process.

All of them actually.

I guarantee this has been well-studied somewhere, if only by the police. There’s a lot of papers on determining homicide vs. suicide via location and angle. That implies some sort of literature on homicide pathology. My searches weren’t very fruitful, though.

I'm left hoping that the winning candidate is not able to implement their policies.

The only sane point-of-view in modern American presidential politics.

This theory doesn't work unfortunately. PredictIt is not a real market. Betters are limited to $850 per contract. Also, to buy shares in both Kamala and Donald would cost you $1.06 right now. On Polymarket you can own both for $0.998.

So your 6% profit all gets eaten by transaction costs. And it's not possible to buy more than $850, so it's also impossible for a single whale to pump and dump. Polymarket is a liquid prediction market. PredictIt, on the other hand, is just a toy. That explains the weird behavior you are seeing.

If you are confident that Kamala has a greater than 41.7% chance of winning you can go on Polymarket right now and make real money.

My small-child self always read that as laser beams…

There's reputational risk for having his model diverge too far from the prediction market's call, if the markets end up looking more accurate.

And I've seen him offer various bets before.

I like Nate generally, but I end up with the feeling that the Presidential Election model is a bit too gimmicky for my tastes. As stated, he should display some factor that accounts for the inherent uncertainty of a long-term prediction, rather than making confident-seeming prognostications which get aggressively revised as new information comes in.

He's not calling his shot well in advance, he's just adjusting to the same information everyone else gets as it comes in. Credit for the model being reasonable, but what new information is it giving us?

I’d take it if you had one.

But I’d settle for an interview, or even rumors like we had for Obama and Biden.

Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck it up.

There's evidence suggesting some Russians are shooting Ukrainian soldiers after they've surrendered, which is a very stupid thing to do from a tactical perspective. Drawing a parallel, if this claim is true it needn't be for tactical benefit, it could be purely emotional and because they believe they are immune from consequences.

More effort than this, please.

Yeah, the posts on Philadelphi were pretty crazy. Rafah is split by the Egypt-Gaza border, so any kind of physical barrier there has to be right against the city - a pain for both the residents and the soldiers in the posts. It’s also a damned-if-you-do, dead-if-you-don’t situation, as we can see today, since leaving the area unmonitored just makes weapons smuggling into Gaza very very easy (but having settlers there was pure insanity).

IDF is back in the same spot now, and I hope we’ve learned our lessons from last time. Everything 1 km from Philadelphi needs to be razed.

BTW, you can see a bit of what Girit (badger) was like at the time here.

Overt racism has definitely gotten less acceptable. Opponents of civil rights have been fighting a defensive action since the 50s. Atwater probably said it best:

Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968, you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.

So, sure. Republicans didn’t implement anything as racist as the Southern Democrats. They just fought a rearguard action for policies more extreme and immoral than anything in today’s Overton window. Every now and then, they’d try something on a large enough scale to get slapped down in the courts.

On the other hand I do think NCAAF is in extreme danger of becoming NFL B league.

Not just an NFL B-league, but the crappiest form of NFL B-league. I'd kill for a true NFL B-league compared to the way this is going to look. No draft, no salary cap, players able to leave whenever they feel like it as soon as another team offers more money. I know I said I didn't want to get into it, but I'll probably make a post next week about why I think the sport is going to reach a breaking point some time within the next decade or so. Suffice it to say that, in addition to all the antitrust stuff that isn't going to go away, I think the networks have overextended themselves a bit with the size of these Power 2 deals. There's only so much money to go around, and God forbid if we enter into a recession, in which case (as my friends in video production always point out) advertising is the first thing to get cut. Even without a recession, comparable future deals just might not be that profitable, especially considering that the SEC has historically taken a lower payout than the Big 10 despite having larger market share. There's nothing I'd like to see more than Florida State negotiate a settlement that's still really expensive, go to the Big 10 but be limited partners for the duration of the existing deal (as are oregon and Washington, who only make about half of what the ACC teams get), only to find that the next deal isn't as lucrative as they had anticipated, which wouldn't be a problem except that they're already in hock to the private equity firm that financed the exit fee.

Counterpoint: legal cannabis has resulted in higher potency products. Highly concentrated cartridges and resins easily available, and higher potency flower as well. Granted, the higher potency flower has been the trend for longer than we've had legal cannabis in this country.

Reminded of the story about … was it Leonardo? … who said that he wrote everything down because once he wrote it down he would remember it and never need the piece of paper again.

(Aware of the irony that I have half remembered a story about memory.)

Making alcohol illegal results in more distilled liquors and less lighter stuff, for the same reason illegal opiates results in stronger opiates being preferred.

Yes but you can't get it in volume from the local corner store, which was the qualifier I put on it. Nobody drinks 64oz of spontaneously fermented homebrew and beats his wife.

We know this because even in countries with significant illegal alcohol problems, no illicit alcoholics are drinking homemade wine or beer in a problematic way. They're going blind from moonshine or bathtub gin.

It was revealed to me in a dream

Sure. No disagreement, even. Consider this an assent.

...I'm not sure how else to add 'that is a sound and valid addition' without coming off as sillier than I mean to.

Beer of course is not distilled. Even spontaneously fermented beer can have ABVs above 6% (which is a pretty normal beer abv), so you don't even need special yeast to hit this ABV.

Thank you for demonstrating your continued retreat from your opening positions. I look forward to seeing how much of a motte you retreat to over time.

And no, for others, 17 year olds is not the limits of what one can find regarding Hamas child soldier reports.

This is barely intelligible. If you make a surprising and significant claim, you should provide a source.

And if you wish to claim that Israelis shoot children, and then launch screeds on the jews being uniquely evil, you should provide a source that accuses the Israelis of shooting children, instead of claims that children were shot without an attribution as to by whom.

Which serves as another basis of the non-linking, since the lack of relevant sourcing to support a surprising and significant claim (like 'the Jews are deliberately one-shotting children') has been a reoccuring theme of this thread.

And yes, that was left for you specifically to walk into.

You can, but only if your side has a principled, self-interested commitment to truth as an asymmetric weapon married to a genuine, shared concern for the mutual welfare of its adherents.

So in short, it's impossible for any group larger than Dunbar's number and also impossible for most of the groups smaller than it.

i suspect this advice is for people where 'variety' means that protein needs are exceeded by animal protein alone

I suspect you did not watch even fifteen seconds of the clip I posted, because this is the very first thing discussed.

a lot of plant foods are deficient in lysine, so it can occur so 5 foods in a meal are all deficient.

Unlikely, unless you never eat legumes (see advice above about eating a variety of food groups).

as it makes almost every decision made at least potentially political.

It's darkly hilarious to see this complaint because it's such a horseshoe moment. The rightwing has fully embraced the idea that the person is political-- along with all the annoying drawbacks thereof. It's like a carcinization of politics... every ideology descends inevitably identitarian marxist populism, including the ones that hate all three of those things.

The way you write is… interesting to say the least. Is it strategically vague, or a sort of wailing wall of text defense?

We are not speaking about “child soldiers” the legal category, which includes teens. We are specifically talking about below-teens children being used by Hamas. Especially being used in a way that would lead them to being shot approx daily. What I can find from HRW is that Hamas once used a 17yo but that they made commitments to not recruit below 18. That was back in 2004. Something similar was published by Amnesty in 2005.

The reminder of the existence of such reporting isn't just the function any link would provide- it is remind the reader of past reports they've heard of and can easily find again (thus appealing to their own understanding of the conflict), and thus the contrast to the OP's dogmatic dismissal of contrary evidence published over the last decades

While nominally the target doesn't work as well on people not as experienced in the topic, the prompt that they could easily search for it serves a second level of argument, in which if they do look they will find, and their ability to find evidence of child soldiers if they choose to look for it will be contrasted with the OP's dismissal

This is barely intelligible. If you make a surprising and significant claim, you should provide a source. That’s a combo of obligation, politeness, and efficiency. If Hamas is equipping 12yo with IEDS then obviously it’s not a big deal if they are shot by Israeli soldiers. This does not appear to be the case.