domain:forecasting.substack.com
WhiningCoil
12m ago
Your right, i forgot to include the priest telling some wild yarn about how the kids actually want it. Despite everything we know about kids not being able to consent to that. Good call. Now its perfect.
Magusoflight
14m ago
Dems must really be counting on Trump crashing the economy to go with Newsom
Magusoflight
19m ago
He is also Gay
That loses too much of the crucial black and Latino vote.
I would bet more on Whitmer. They really want a female president, it’s pretty clear. They’re itching for it.
Wouldn’t Obama count as coastal due to his Hawaiian roots?
astrolabia
24m ago
Yes, I agree. I am just saying that looking dangerous is also usually necessary to get good deals.
astrolabia
25m ago
I didn't follow this closely, but didn't he order withdrawl from Afghanistan and Syria, but the generals slow-played it?
Quantumfreakonomics
31m ago
That's the glory of these judgements. They aren't punitive damages. They're compensatory damages. You can't put a dollar value on emotional distress, so who are you to say that "eleventy gazillion dollars" isn't appropriate compensation for mean phone calls?
NewCharlesInCharge
35m ago
I would not be surprised if someone on the federal circuit asserted that punitive damages aren't punishments.
DuplexFields
Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.
38m ago
#Procrastination thoughts:
(As always with Wellness Wednesdays, if you have never suffered from this problem, please don’t proclaim How Easy This Has Always Been For Me, You Just Need To Buckle Down And Do It.)
On ADHD-style time-blindness: Some moments are a destination, others a path to other moments. Learn to differentiate these, not mistaking a path-moment for a destination-moment… or vice versa. Playing with your sister’s kids is a destination moment, not something just to get through. Playing games on your phone with as little depth as Cookie Clicker out of boredom is a path-moment; don’t build a life around it.
On the states of mind of procrastination: I find my personality shifts depending on the state of my distractions, not the state of my work:
- I don’t want this Now to end, because I’m harvesting Fun, even of the worst and most boring sort. Or maybe the best sort, because I’ve got a schedule but yeah, I’ve got time. I am “Not Done” playing. I am in Freud’s id mode, and my name is Not Done.
- I don’t want people to stop me from completing my procrastination activity, because it cost me too much hassle to get to this point and I’ll be damned if I give up the progress, but time is summoning me out of Now-mode, and I know I have responsibilities to get to, and I am “Almost Done” with my distractions. I’m in Freud’s ego mode, and my name is Almost Done.
- I am doing the needful and my distractions are outside the warp bubble of flow mode. Time and I are partners here, I am digesting time as fuel. Whatever I was distracted with, it’s in the past and “I’m Done” with it whether I finished it or not. I’m in Freud’s superego mode, and my name is I’m Done.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
39m ago
phailyoor
40m ago
Pumping only didn't work out in my ime, but we had a bunch of things that complicated the entire process. I remember reading some paper saying that mothers who try exclusive pumping fail to establish sufficient production more than mothers who breastfeed.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
51m ago
Neither of those is an example of "mutilation"
To be fair, the parent poster only talked about a "path towards mutilation". I assume that the "mutilation" in question is gender reassignment surgery, which typically involves cutting off external sexual characteristics. Is it not fair to say that this is a typical or at least commonly desired endpoint of transitioning, so actions that make it more likely that someone will reach this endpoint in the future could be fairly described as putting them on a "path towards mutilation"?
Can you provide a source for the claim that schools are forcing uninterested, non-consenting children into transition?
I figure the assumption of the anti-trans side is that children can't meaningfully consent, nor be held accountable for their interest or lack thereof in the context of a managed social environment like school that may encourage or discourage said interest. Either way, the poster you are responding to didn't claim anything about interest or consent, did they? They are only talking about secrecy, presumably from the parents.
Mind you, it also seems strange to first claim that the driving concern is parents disowning the kid, but then to also defend a forced disowning if they refuse to let the kid access transition-affirming medical interventions. In a scenario where the parents find out anyway and are not willing to "own"/support a transitioning kid, your preference is evidently for the kid to be separated from the parents anyway. If you are willing to use deception to make the parents make a sacrifice (of money? time? support?) that they would not make willingly, why can't you instead support a policy that at least respects them as adult citizens and simply says that they will lose visitation/influence rights if they interfere with the transition but will still be compelled to provide financial support for the kid?
Tinted
55m ago
Which would be more compelling if people weren't still getting fired because "this was obviously written in bad faith by a man."
Oh well.
CanofWorms
1hr ago
It’s not reconcilable with what happened in 2020. And that is because there was no election fraud. Those who believe there was have been duped.
cartman
1hr ago
It's preposterous and totally insane sounding because you analogized a situation where a child is raped without consent to one where the child willingly undergoes a medical procedure (regardless of whether you think it's warranted or not). That is a preposterous and insane analogy to make so it's no wonder that's what your conclusion is.
Gaashk
1hr ago
It may not be good for the babies. Hormones around childbirth and breastfeeding are fairly complex, and show up in the milk.
At a court hearing Thursday afternoon in Houston, the trustee who oversaw the auction, Christopher Murray, acknowledged that The Onion did not have the highest bid but said it was a better deal overall because some of the Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to pay Jones’ other creditors. First United American Companies, a business affiliated with one of Jones’ product-selling websites, submitted the only other bid. The trustee said he could not put a dollar amount on The Onion’s bid.
...
“This was a auction that didn’t happen, with a bid that was lower, with money that wasn’t real,” he said.
Is this legal? At this point it's not an "auction" anymore but a free handing over of the property to whatever grift the trustee desires. In the previous thread on this, I predicted that Jones's supporters would be able to snatch up the assets at a relatively cheap price, but I never guessed that Jones's enemy would win, not by outbidding, but by manipulating the process.
Of course this AP fake news drivel says "the judge in Jones’ bankruptcy case said Thursday that he had concerns about how the auction was conducted" but didn't post the name of the judge or what the judge actually said. I'll follow up on this but fuck AP. The judge had a video call with the interested parties and possibly the AP reporter and others where invited to listen. I'm not sure if a recording is available.
As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1hr ago
Terry Nichols could meet Jones’ penalty at only $7.70 an hour.
I don't know if this is a fun fact or unfun fact, but it is amazing either way and I say thank you for it.
HaroldWilson
1hr ago
I mean the last two charismatic nominees the Democrats put up won two terms and by pretty handy margins in all four cases.
Gaashk
1hr ago
If you prefer pumping every two hours day and night to cuddling a baby. But, also, it’s pretty hard to pump enough, since babies are more efficient after the first week or so, and they cluster feed to increase production. Mixed pumping and formula is, of course, an option, but less convenient, at night especially.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1hr ago
Ah, but what if it was a full moon? I don’t want to break out the tide charts, but I bet you could clear a billion, easy.
HaroldWilson
1hr ago
A much worse echo chamber than I remember
An odd criticism to make on here of all places. Pots, kettles etc. Not that there isn't lots of disagreement on here, but you'll find that on places like /r/neoliberal too - but in both places it tends to occur within pretty narrow confines.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
OJ Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages. Adjusting for number of victims and inflation, our hypothetical Alex Jones would have been ordered to pay $922.41 million - far short of the $1.48 billion the real Alex Jones was ordered to pay.
That's not how this works. First, the civil suit divvied up damages in a non-intuitive manner. OJ was found liable for $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the parents of Ron Goodman, and for $12.5 million in punitive damages each to the estates of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 581, 614). The compensatory damages for a single victim's murder, adjusted for inflation, would be $16,717,408.10 today. Multiplied for the 26 Sandy Hook victims, that's $434,652,610.60 in compensatory damages in a hypothetical Sandy Hook case.
However, there's significant reason to think that the Sandy Hook per-victim compensatory damages would be significantly higher than the California damages awarded against OJ. compensatory damages, per the California standard at the time, reflected the "loss of love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, or moral support suffered as a result of the death, but not for their grief or sorrow or for the decedent's pain and suffering." Notably, "pain and suffering" are two concepts which routinely factor hugely into the size of jury verdicts in tort cases. There also was no reference to "economic damages" like lost wages, which are also a large driver of compensatory damage awards. I'm not a CT lawyer, and none of this is legal advice, but a quick google turned up these civil jury instructions which, on page 121 (Instruction 3.4-7) lays out the types of damages permissible in wrongful death cases:
Wrongful Death Damages We have a statute that governs damages in cases such as this where there is a death. It allows for just damages which includes:
Economic damages of :
- the reasonable and necessary medical and funeral expenses and
- the value of the decedent's lost earning capacity less deductions for (his/her) necessary living expenses taking into consideration that a present cash payment will be made, and
Noneconomic damages of:
- compensation for the destruction of the decedent's capacity to carry on and enjoy life's activities in a way that (he/she) would have done had (he/she) lived and,
- compensation for the death itself, or
- pain and suffering.
The inclusion of pain and suffering and economic damages (if accurate) indicates to me that the per-victim award of compensatory damages would likely have been much higher in a hypothetical Sandy Hook wrongful death suit than in the OJ case, let alone the increased sympathy a jury would likely feel for the parents of murdered children versus the elderly parents of a middle-aged adult victim.
As regards the punitive damages, $12,500,000 in 1997 dollars is worth $24,584,423.68 today. Thus, a hypothetical Sandy Hook case awarding the same amount of per-victim punitive damages as the OJ case would have awarded $639,195,015.68. However, Connecticut handles punitive damages oddly, and in common law counts appears to restrict them to the prevailing party's attorney's fees, less taxable costs. (CT Jury Instruction 3.4-4). In other cases CT statute appears to mandate double or even treble damages. Frankly I'm too lazy to dig into what amount of punitive damages would have been available in this case, but this should demonstrate that calculating damages really is not as simple as just extrapolating from a different case in a different jurisdiction.
Do you actually not understand the difference or did you just want to get a cheap dig in?
Do you see all medical interventions in under-18's as 'grooming'? No? Just the one you already have a prior about not liking?
If I'm wrong please tell me how. There's a huge host of reasons why they are different, but I'm only going to bother explaining them if you're not going to respond with another sarcastic one liner that is indistinguishable from an inflamed partisan spouting nonsense about 'the transgenders grooming my kids to want to be raped'.
More options
Context Copy link