@DenpaEnthusiast's banner p

DenpaEnthusiast


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:01:58 UTC

				

User ID: 131

DenpaEnthusiast


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:01:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 131

That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false. I don't think there were any claims that were (provably) disbelieved by the person who made them. The argument was that executives/hosts had enough control over the claims of hosts/guests that allowing those claims to be made was tantamount to making them directly.

But in this case that means the podcast itself would be analogous to Fox executives/hosts, and the motte members would be the hosts/guests, so it's not a direct example.

Fox news was sued and lost almost $800 million.

This complaint only makes sense if you think of words as having intrinsic or "correct" meanings. If you instead treat words as just vehicles for conveying ideas, then you could just answer "who in the world could we call a racist, then?" with "nobody, using it to describe people is pointless because it doesn't mean anything". And I think that's a reasonable answer if you're not going around calling people racist. If the word "racist" doesn't have to mean anything, then you can just not use it if you think it wouldn't help people understand the idea you're trying to convey.

It’s fundamentally my job to understand what they mean

No it isn't. It's the speaker's job to convey their idea in an easy-to-understand fashion. If there was an argument on this site where people were conflating the philosophical concept of free speech with the first amendment, then when I make a post in next week's thread about the philosophical concept it's my responsibility to clearly indicate that I'm not talking about the first amendment. If there were posts saying that the concept of "free speech" is incoherent and meaningless, then it's contingent on me to specify what exactly I mean by free speech. If enough people are confused, then it's probably better for me to not use the phrase "free speech" at all, and replace it with something like "the right to not be punished for conveying my opinion about the election".

So to answer your object-level question, you could (and should) directly say that you think "BAP has an unconscious bias against black people, regardless of their individual intelligence or behavior". If you want to know how a poster compares with the average 1995 American, you could ask "Do you think the average American in 1995 would agree with that statement? Do you agree with that statement?". You don't have to specifically use the word "racist", especially when you know it won't help people understand your point.

Determining whether a couple is infertile in general is much harder than determining whether a couple is gay. It is entirely reasonable for the state to not want any marriages which do not produce children, but to allow the ones that it can't trivially detect.

That link does not specify time spent in school, it specifies "instructional time", which is not the same. For example, California says that instructional time is "when all pupils in the class are scheduled to attend". This does not include the time between different classes, or time spent commuting to and from school, or time spent eating lunch, but the kids can't go home and be with their parents during those times.

While I would disagree that that time is "most of their childhood", it's more than 1/6th of their childhood. Anecdotally, my childhood experience was the same as the other repliers': 8 hours each school day, and 180 school days each year, which totals to a quarter of the year spent "in school".

The obvious course of action there is to find a second child with the same wish and let them duel each other.

Good universities teach you to program?!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. For all their faults, universities do still offer Computer Science courses to their students, and most of them are useful. Even if those courses are optional, the fact that they are explicitly offered instead of something you have to seek out on your own means that graduates are more likely to have that knowledge than people who went to a quick bootcamp or were self-taught.

Is that per person or per plan? My mobile plan costs more than that, but it has 5 people on it.

The last time I tried this Google locked me out of my account, saying I had to sign in with the same browser I created my account with. I couldn't do this, because I had created the account using a temporary browser profile. It's there a better free provider that doesn't do this? I used to use sharklasers.com, but a lot of sites now block that domain.

For relatively unimportant stuff I just use RAID. If ransomware wants me to pay for my Factorio saves I can start a new game instead. My more important private stuff is all documents, so I keep an extra printed copy (and for the really important stuff I also keep copies with my relatives in case I lose everything in a fire). For important stuff that I don't need to hide, I use immutable storage on the internet (e.g. git, bittorrent, ipfs). That would be my advice to anyone who wants to hoard books electronically: find a like-minded community, make a torrent with everything you want to hoard, and ask them to seed it.

I disagree. The reason RAID is not a backup is because it does not protect against accidentally deleting data, and compared to an external backup the chance of something breaking both drives is greater because they're next to each other. However, it is not better than external backups in terms of capacity; the data is just as big regardless of where you store the drives or how you access them. It's less space-efficient than having a single external copy, but that's not a backup, that's your primary copy being stored elsewhere.

And practically speaking, RAID is more reliable than external backups because it's being constantly checked through normal disk usage. If your external backup has had an error, you won't find out until you access it, which is really bad if the reason you're accessing it is because your primary copy doesn't work. In a company you can make it someone's job to verify the backups by periodically restoring them to a test system, but most individuals won't be doing that.

You can also try warm water. It works just as well as hydrogen peroxide for me, and doesn't tickle my ear.

if positions grew 168% but then fell 33%

This isn't what happened. If you read carefully, you'll notice that the 168% increase is for "chief diversity officers", whereas the one third decrease is for "DEI professionals". Furthermore, the increase is from 2019 to the end of 2022, whereas the decrease is during the year of 2022, so they happen in parallel, not in sequence. If you look at the chief diversity officer change for just 2022, it only went down 4.5%. So what actually happened is chief diversity officer positions almost tripled from 2019 to 2021, and then went down very slightly in 2022.

China doesn't allow dual citizenship, so this isn't a practical concern for children of Chinese immigrants. I suppose it's still cucked if you think they wanted to ban people who were ethnically Chinese but had to settle for less, but it seems more likely to me that Florida merely wants to ban people who are connected with the current Chinese government and don't want to require a full investigation every time someone buys land.

If you ask two people to change their behavior but you know in advance that one of them won't, that is equivalent to asking only one of them to change. If you think Clinton getting away with it was a one-off fluke, say that. If you think that it wasn't but now we're going to start getting prosecutions of prominent members in the current administration, say that. If you think the investigation into the server should be re-opened after 7 years have passed, say that. Otherwise, you're asking for rules which are going to be applied only to some politicians, which is equivalent to rules which are different for different politicians.

So argue your point. Why should the rules be different for different politicians?

No, you couldn't pay Counter Strike without someone baselessly speculating about your private life. There were no consequences for what they said, because none of it was real, they were just fishing around for insults. There is so much difference between "anonymous person makes something up to annoy you" and "being known as gay would get you barred from the military or most any normal person's job" that it's a difference in kind, not degree.

Because it means that "I'm trans" is a statement that lets us make verifiable predictions about reality, which points to a meaningful difference between people who make the claim and people who don't. And since it's unlikely that making the claim is the cause of the difference, it suggests that there is a shared underlying cause (which you can call "transgender identity") for both the claim and the difference.

no gender affirming care for you, unless the brain scan test comes back positive

That may or may not be reasonable depending on the specifics of the brain scans. As an analogy, if trans peoples' heights were typical for the gender they identify as that would be material evidence, but it would be unreasonable to say "no gender-affirming care unless you're shorter than 5'6"" since the height distributions for men and women overlap significantly.

Being in the back with her head down and her face obscured makes her look like the "before" part of an SSRI commercial. She's supposed to be looking at the baby, but it doesn't work because the baby isn't the focus of the picture. Either the baby should be the focus and all three of them should be looking at it, or the couple should stay as the focus but she should be looking at them and smiling. As it is, she looks unhappy and disconnected.

I did my own, less nuanced but better-sourced analysis:

3.9% is not that different from 4.5%. But the assumption that each murderer commits exactly one murder is suspect. The substack article says "the actual ratio of Victims:Murderers is near 1:1", but doesn't give any justification for this assumption, nor does it cite any evidence. I would intuitively expect this to not be true, but I also have no data on this, and it's harder to measure than any of the statistics I actually cite. Additionally, my assumption that arrest rates reflect reality may not be true. If whites are better at covering up their murders than blacks, we would be disproportionately arresting blacks for murder, which would skew my estimation. Plus, I just assumed away the possibility that women commit any murder. Overall, my number is probably an overestimate.

Finally, if you run the numbers for whites you get about 1%. If this also seems unusually high to you, consider that your priors are likely formed from the people you meet in real life. Murderers are disproportionately likely to be in prison, where you won't interact with them.

This is an incredible failure of public health messaging.

How so? The table you linked shows children ages 0-4 having higher death rates than children ages 5-17, but lower death rates than adults. The stats @Inflamed_Heart_Liberal linked shows children ages 0-4 having higher up-to-date rates then children ages 5-11 and 12-17, but lower rates than adults. This seems like exactly what we would expect from a well- informed population: groups with higher death rates are more likely to be up to date.

the straight male desire for sex is mostly about status

This is a ridiculous assertion. If sexual desire were mostly about status then substitutes for sex would also be about that. But the obvious substitutes (masturbation and pornography) do not confer status. Instead, they mimic the physical qualities of sex. I won't argue that status plays no role at all, but it plays much less of a role than the actual sensations do.

Because the stated goal is not to "improve outcomes", it's to "increase equity", and pulling down high performers is just as equitable and easier than boosting up low performers.

No. In that hypothetical we lack the information that the picture corresponds to something that exists in reality. I can ask a random number generator for 512*512 pixels, and the result can be equivalent to a picture of you, but unless I somehow find it that it is equivalent I am lacking information that I would have if I took a photo of you.