@ulyssessword's banner p

ulyssessword


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

				

User ID: 308

ulyssessword


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 308

How about a "right to retreat"? If you decide to leave and there isn't a safe route, that's the blockade's fault. They're still free to block the road, but they can't surround and attack vehicles.

Alright, so what would be a “good sign”?

Assuming that the evidence was genuinely unclear...

Communicate that in an unambiguous way, and find him not guilty. If necessary, explain the presumption of innocence and lay out exactly how and why the evidence was insufficient to convict him. That's how the system should work with genuinely unclear evidence.

Instead, he was found guilty, the rationale was not communicated clearly and effectively, and there isn't even agreement over how it should be judged.

What I'm confused about: why is this a story at all? Presumably, the main effects of this are to make him unemployable and perhaps cause some interpersonal issues.

The Guardian (Like the New York Times before it), was exercising its right to kick people in the balls:

suppose Power comes up to you and says hey, I’m gonna kick you in the balls. And when you protest, they say they don’t want to make anyone unsafe , so as long as you can prove that kicking you in the balls will cause long-term irrecoverable damage, they’ll hold off...

No! There’s no dignified way to answer any of these questions except “fuck you”. Just don’t kick me in the balls! It isn’t rocket science! Don’t kick me in the fucking balls!

In the New York Times’ worldview, they start with the right to dox me, and I had to earn the right to remain anonymous by proving I’m the perfect sympathetic victim who satisfies all their criteria of victimhood. But in my worldview, I start with the right to anonymity, and they need to make an affirmative case for doxxing me.


And yet it is a story, and a story that gets me emotionally invested,

It is a story. It has plot, characters, setting, conflict, and all the rest. It just isn't news.

They've pulled a great trick: they (often) write newsworthy stories, therefore (all) stories they write are newsworthy. Heck, they're even called "the news", so anything they see fit to print must be real news.

Try slipping the words "prisoner" and "dilemma" into a Rabbit and Stag game, and see how many humans can get it right. Or say "Monty Hall" but don't describe how the host chooses which door to reveal. Or "blue eyes" without establishing any common knowledge.

Go right ahead. What's interesting about those topics, where can we hear more about them, and what are your opinions on them?

Is there any great work that would be improved by the addition of choice, by the addition of alternate possibilities?

IMO, the core artistic advantage that video games have is that they force the player to experience the decision-making that goes into a choice, not just the rationale and consequences.

One argument in the Teaching Paradox series of blog posts is that the games embody a certain historical theory, and players are essentially forced to make the same choices as the nations did. That is to say, in the "Interstate Anarchy" themed game, you had to build an army, opportunistically raid neighbors, and build unstable alliances against stronger foes. If you didn't, your nation would be overrun and destroyed. If you have an argument against that ("Why can't we just be nice?" etc.), then you can try it in the game and see how well it works for you.

I'm not sure which great works would benefit from that treatment, but I'm guessing there are some. Or maybe those works are "great" because they're perfectly suited to their medium, and we can only make new, distinct ones.

the perfect level of trashy dumb progression fantasy

I'll recommend Dungeon Diver: Stealing A Monster’s Power. It thoroughly earns its 3.5 star rating with its characterization, plot, and prose, but man was it fun.


A few underappreciated positives of stories I'm reading (that wouldn't generally make it into other reviews):

The Calamitous Bob: The world and everything in it is as serious as reality, which makes it an excellent straight man. For example, the first group the main character runs into doesn't have a "V" phoneme in their language, so she becomes known as "Bob". Also, you know the the trope where you can tame a cute animal by acting nonthreatening and giving it food? And animal-like people (eg. cat-people, lizard-people, bird-people)? Well, some platypus-people tried to tame the main character with dumplings.

Markets and Multiverses: Death isn't final, so the stakes are higher. If the protagonists got into an unwinnable fight in any other story, I'd know they would survive (because otherwise the story ends). However, the worst-case scenario of having to reincarnate doesn't end the story, so it's a possibility: they lost plot-armor in exact proportion to their immortality.

Player Manager: It's set very much in present day London. In-story, it's mid-April 2024, and the earlier chapters included the Queen's death and its effects on English sports. It lends a certain amount of grounding to the story.

Would you call "...openly carry military weapons..." a broad interpretation of that part? From my point of view, that's about as narrow as you can get before you start chipping away at the text. A broad interpretation would exempt American citizens from nonproliferation treaties.

Do you think the cost of self-driving car insurance would be higher than human-driven car insurance? If so, would that cost be spurious or would it reflect genuine harms?

Ideally it should be fine, but I don't trust that the ideal case would happen.

I do not think 'enabling someone to accuse a 5 year old of sexual harassment' is a problem the median therapist has.

I think that's the wrong standard. It's a problem that one therapist that hasn't been stripped of their license has, and that's concerning enough on its own. Given that this story comes from a relatively small pool (compared to swarms of journalists searching the entire nation for one example to prop up their story), I'd guess that there's more than one.

Any decent self-regulating professional body would immediately (or possibly preemptively) distance themselves from charlatans like that. And yet, there they are.

Here are some general arguments for why women are choosing bear over men, trying to not strawman to the best of my ability:

I think I can do better: The framing of the question sets it up as an obstacle, so the respondents are treating it as one. If the question was "Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a man or a guidebook to local plants?" then people would recognize it as a choice between types of assistance, and (more likely) choose the man. If the question was "Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a bear or a guidebook to local plants?" then they would just be confused because it's obviously trivial and arbitrary. If the man could help you in this hypothetical, then why are you even asking the question?

...on a word-by-word level it’s pretty clear.

I didn't even finish the first sentence before finding "...his thought is more than ever enabling us to see in a new way the horrors of..."

What are your standards for unclear writing??

I'll admit that I have done that before, but I'd still rather have an easy way to return to "fit page to window" zoom level than going way over to the edge of the screen and clicking a button.

Why did anyone make zooming in go in increments of 25% (100% -> 125%) and zooming out go in increments of 25% (100% -> 75%) without having them be discrete steps between states? Nobody wants the 93.75% size that you end up with after zooming in and out once each.

It's visible now, but yes, it was filtered when I commented.

Should the mod-UI be altered to make filtered comments more obvious? I'm seeing more and more responses to them.

Perhaps the government and Amazon could strike up a deal that with enough workers, Amazon could lower the throughput per worker (to increase livability) in exchange for a tax subsidy to offset the cost of having to hire a non-optimum amount of workers.

Let's say that the government sets an annual wage of $31200.01 (just above the poverty line for a family of four). How much would they need to subsidize Amazon to make it worthwhile?

I'm guessing substantially more than $31200 per worker.

A worker that doesn't get any wages (or benefits, or payroll taxes, or etc.) from the company still requires a locker, parking lot space (or rather a bus seat), HR paperwork to keep them organized, training, supervision, and an assigned task in the workflow. Once they show up and start working, they have the opportunity to work unsafely, make mistakes, steal, fight, or otherwise do worse than nothing.

Since your proposal is scraping the bottom of the barrel of people who aren't employed, I suspect that a significant fraction can't be gainfully employed as they are.

You just need to accept that program state and file state do not need to be correlated.

Or I could continue to tilt at windmills.

I just have an odd feeling that, when you're using a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get style editor, when you see something you should also get it.

On the other hand, walking while openly Jewish will get you threatened with arrest in the UK. After all, he could have caused a breach of the peace if he was attacked.

Your view (which I share) is not the consensus in the West.

It was Notepad. I'm comfortable with the synecdoche, but could have been clearer.

clearly marked as unsaved!

Are we using the same program? I can't imagine anyone calling a small grey dot "clearly marked", never mind "clearly marked as...".

For reference, the only visual difference between a saved file and an unsaved one is that the "close tab" location goes from [ ]/[X] to [•]/[X]. If your mouse is hovering over the X then there's no difference.

Windows 11 may have my least-favorite feature ever. Try this:

  • Open a file.
  • write some new stuff in it.
  • close the file.
  • reopen it.
  • confirm that the changes were kept.

Did you notice a missing step? I never said to save the changes, so the file was never updated. Instead, the changes were kept in a sort of suspended animation by the editor, and reappeared (in the editor only) when I reopened it.

Such as...

Let's go with "Non- or anti- woke Americans". Which examples are as good as redirecting COVID vaccines to the less-vulnerable?

Care to provide counterexamples? Preferably the official policy of a multibillion-dollar system.