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

Showing 25 of 252383 results for

domain:savenshine.com

Civ 4 for me as well.

There's a very-clear argument in favour of requiring prescriptions for government-subsidised medicine, because the state has much more of an interest in people consuming appropriate medications than inappropriate ones. As it happens, I just got some drugs here in Oz that are over-the-counter legal but which are far-cheaper with a prescription.

There are some drugs that you probably don't want in the hands of the general population due to third-parties being harmed (methamphetamine because murders, plus all the various drugs to pacify people that can be abused for rape or slavery); requiring prescriptions for those appears pretty logical as well (obviously, if you buy into recreational-drug prohibition as a whole, requiring a prescription for medical use is necessary to enforce that).

they would not be hurting others, at least not in any direct way.

Unless they're buying them for children.

There are practical factors, like maybe some medications are supply-restricted so it's necessary for doctors to prescribe them only to people who actually need them. But it's for similar reasons that there's no country where all drugs are legal - most societies have decided to operate with a degree of paternalism regarding what other people can and can't do to themselves.

Dursleys are middle middle not upper middle, they live in a barratt box in a new development with a tiny lawn and a small conservatory - expensive in the green belt today but relatively much cheaper in the mid 90s. Dursleys are people who say “settee” and “pleased to meet you” and so on. They scrimped enough to send Dudley to a cheap local private day school, but he would have been nobody special there. Hermione’s background is upper-middle.

Weasleys werent old money, even if we discount the weird Irish twins none of them speak in RP / upper class accents except for Ginny to some extent. If one had to place them in the British class system it would be as middle-middle rurals vaguely involved in county life but certainly not upper class. There’s no real evidence dad’s job is a sinecure and the ramshackle thing they live in is more quaint converted barn (or grain silo) than dilapidated dower house.

And then he was replaced by a lesbian, and many an article was written about it.

Surprised I never heard of this on the Motte.

I mean, there was a recent fiasco with a guy shooting his gun with the scope on backwards. And it wasn’t some low-ranking cannon fodder recruited for Operation Human Shield; he was captain of a big ship! And he wasn’t a diversity hire, either—he’s a white male!

Like, just ponder for a moment the level of smoothbrain it takes to do this: looking through the scope backwards would make your target smaller.

I would not trust these people to run a lemonade stand.

Can someone steelman requiring prescriptions to buy medicine? Why not just allow people to buy whatever medications they want over the counter? Obviously many people would seriously hurt themselves as a result, but I don't think that's a good argument in favor of prescriptions. People hurt themselves with cars, knives, and guns all the time but we allow people to buy those in part because cars, knives, and guns are useful. Why is medicine any different? If we stopped requiring prescriptions to buy medicines, then people who wanted to consult doctors about which medications to buy could still go ahead and do it. As for people who preferred to do their own research or consult alternative sources instead of doctors, in the vast majority of cases they would just be hurting themselves when they made mistakes, they would not be hurting others, at least not in any direct way.

That homeless/underclass are unlucky and just like anyone else.

Dursleys were middle class social climbers (the most universally despised class).

I always got the impression that JK was channeling Hyacinth Bucket when she wrote Petunia.

I mean, I agree directionally.

That said, there is such a thing as exploitation. The concept has been overused by the left but their dishonesty about it doesn't actually erase the subset of actual such cases.

the discrepancy between the market value of labour and what you might call the utility value

The utility theory of pricing suggests that potable water (critical for life) should cost more than diamond necklaces (not important). That alone suggests it needs at least some nuance if it wants to make contact with reality.

I think if you want to be more coherent about theories of value, you should probably think a bit more about the margin and factor in include both substitutability & elasticity. Food as an entire category is essential, but on the margin the farmer's product can be substituted for the fisherman's or the shepherd's. Truckers as a category are essential, but on the margin if prices go way up people will ship less stuff. PUHO's super-performant code could be substituted instead for buying a bunch more hours on AWS.

I suppose the welfare state is basically ‘we don’t owe you this money but we’re going to give some of it to you anyway’.

I think there is a key question of filling in the reason why it's given anyway.

Some will say:

  • ... because we want you to get on your feet and go back to being a productive member of society

Others will say

  • ... because we care for you as an irreducible being worthy of grace

Yet others will say

  • ... because otherwise the poor will degrade the quality of life for everyone

And so forth.

First time I read it was Googling it when I heard a line from it quoted in Civilization IV, I was probably 10. I don’t read much poetry but it resonated with me so much I’ve had the whole thing memorized since then.

Oh, Snape's wifebeating dad definitely was. His mom married down and Paid The Toll in American racial terms.

Unless he got a very good match Snape's children would have fallen out entirely, which is one reason him being in love with Lily in spite of his class anxiety was so meaningful.

The problem with Gaetz is that, if you're gunning for people, insubordination isn't even the determining factor, since who suffers the consequences of prosecution isn't within the control of the Justice Department. He can order an investigation, and his subordinates can comply, but if they recommend against prosecution, he has the dilemma of believing them and dropping the matter or forging ahead anyway. He doesn't have the sufficient prosecutorial experience to even know if he's being bulshitted or not. So if he says he wants X to be indicted and the US Attorney comes back and says there isn't enough evidence, he's in a bit of a bind. He can fire whoever was in charge, but that doesn't really solve the problem — if there really wasn't enough evidence and the subordinate was being honest, he's just fired a good prosecutor for no reason.

But suppose he says he wants the prosecution to go forward anyway, and the subordinate complies. Now it's out of the hands of the DOJ entirely. The grand jury can refuse to indict. If he gets an indictment, the judge can dismiss the charges. If the case goes to trial, the jury could acquit. And in all of these cases Gaetz, as the public face of the department, is going to be the one left holding the bag. If Gaetz fails to serve up the necessary convictions, I don't see any scenario where Trump just gives him a pass; he's going to be publicly blamed and fired. If he believes his subordinates are loyal and takes their recommendations to heart and declines to pursue prosecution, he's going to be fired and publicly branded a member of the deep state.

This tendency to scapegoat is a large part of what makes Trump such an ineffective administrator. He promises his constituents certain things regardless of whether there is any realistic chance of accomplishing them. When his department heads explain they aren't magicians, or that his proposals are really bad ideas, he gets pissed and blames them. He expects loyalty but doesn't give any in return. If you expect people to deliver the impossible, competent subordinates will tell you why it can't work, and firing them and publicly castigating them for not plowing ahead anyway won't change that. Sycophants will attempt to achieve your goals, but since loyalty is their only asset, they'll bungle them. Trump's image among his base is nearly Christ-like, so he's never going to be the problem among his own "bosses". The only people who can survive in such a system are savvy political operators like Bill Barr who have the ability work Trump and pretend they're achieving his goals and gain enough of his trust that they can talk him out of truly stupid ideas.

Gaetz has neither the political savvy nor the requisite experience for the job. He's made alienating other politicians his life's work, and his legal experience is limited to three years he spent working on pennyante cases 15 years ago. He's bounf to make a hash out of anything Trump wants him to accomplish, and his loyalty isn't going to save him. Even if he somehow gets confirmed, I don't see his tenure lasting very long unless he can pull some rabbits out of hats.

(impossible to determine which comments may be valuable on ACT, for instance)

I can't even read comments on ACT. Every time I try to scroll down the website shits itself, goes blank and then tries to recover. It still blows my mind that a website in the modern day like ACT/Substack provides a much worse experience than a php forum from several decades ago.

All of the things you mentioned (except high levels of consumption, lol) existed under communism in the USSR.

Also hilarious when people assume that Southeast Asians are more progressive than Westerners based on essentially 'The resort staff in a very narrow slice of Bali didn't say anything negative about my gay relationship, therefore progressive country'

I've often heard "faith > religion" in various media and opinion outlets, but I don't think I ever heard "religion > faith". Not even from the most contrarian types.

The lowest of upper/upper middle class, from what I've gathered if I'm not mixing it up with fanon. The kind that have to brownnose people like Malfoys to stay at their level.

Senior Crabbe/Goyle are in the Death Eaters so they couldn't have been too lowborn.

More like Voldy eating them out of house and home :P Like Elizabeth I who destroyed political enemies by turning up with her retinue for two months.

People from big countries and open spaces seem to be more open and positive than people in more cramped conditions.

There is a sentiment I’ve heard many times from Americans abroad which boils down to, “don’t worry, I’m American, it’s fine to be informal”.

It’s well-meant but often comes off as demanding unearned intimacy, or worse as, “I’m not interested in playing your silly provincial status games”.

My new head cannon is that Harry Potter's wealth comes from his parents both having taken level term life policies and used Voldemort to have a legitimate insurance claim. Voldemort spend the next 10 years trying to get his payout from Harry Potter. The unreleased book Harry Potter and the Insurance Claims Adjuster is about the lawsuit and encroaching poverty as Harry Potter is faced with ever increasing lawyers' fees.

There was probably a scholarship boy hanging from a bannister by his underwear

Snape, I think. I can’t remember the flashback well but I think it’s implied that child!Snape comes from the bad end of town.