EvanTh
4d ago
it would imply that trauma is something very different than people generally think.
Yes, absolutely.
How your mind reacts to things is generally up to your evolutionary optimiser with no real constraint besides complexity
It's also up a lot of other things! Like your attitude, like the sort of things you do after the things, and so many other things. Historians have speculated that maybe the reason WWII caused less PTSD in US soldiers than Vietnam was that there was a longer time returning home on ships to process things together and get mental distance from it. I think our postmodern society has lost a lot of helpful rituals like that.
EvanTh
4d ago
Nothing about what happens if the electors choose an ineligible candidate.
Answered much later by the 20th Amendment: "If the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified."
EvanTh
4d ago
This seems to imply large fractions of human history where everyone was psychiatrically disabled.
I would not be surprised if that's true by modern standards.
I would also not be surprised if that wasn't the case because historical societies had rituals and other customs for dealing with stresses like this which we've forgotten.
EvanTh
5d ago
Also, statistically, a bad thing for everyone else because it promotes antibiotic resistance.
EvanTh
5d ago
The Commonwealth doesn't get legal say, but the Commonwealth realms absolutely do.
Currently, Charles is King of the United Kingdom, King of Canada, King of Australia, King of Barbados, et cetera. Each of those offices is legally a separate office, governed by law in each of those separate countries, so any abdication would require a statute law passed in each of those countries. (There're several like Papua New Guinea where it wouldn't, but several more where it would.) Similarly, any change to the royal succession would require a law in each of those countries.
That's rather difficult, so I don't expect it'll happen unless it's very much needed.
EvanTh
15d ago
Nothing special indeed; FDR's New Deal checks about half the boxes too:
- The cult of action for action's sake
- Disagreement is treason
- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
- Obsession with a plot
- Enemies (the rich) are at once too strong and too weak
- Pacifism (after WWII started brewing) is trafficking with the enemy
- Selective populism
- Newspeak (in tons of agency and program names)
EvanTh
19d ago
Even granting that, don't you need rare earths to produce lower-grade chips for ubiquitous drones and all sorts of other things too?
EvanTh
19d ago
At the end of the day, the American people will survive if China will refuse to sell them the latest iPhone, after all.
Modern military equipment also uses high-performance computer chips. We need some way to get that even if China doesn't want us to expand our military.
EvanTh
22d ago
but personally I don't see how adding "...by the government, after a trial (in which my desired outcome is the just one)" to "I hope my political opponent is executed" makes it not support of violence.
Do you oppose capital punishment in all cases?
If not, where do you draw the line?
EvanTh
22d ago
Do you believe it is a moral duty to resist government agents every time they are doing something you believe immoral?
If so, how do you believe this is consistent with having a functional government? If not, what makes ICE so especially immoral that you believe it is a duty to resist it?
EvanTh
29d ago
You hear stories all the time of people having to put essential home repairs like a water heater or an HVAC system on a credit card because that's all they had. And yet, I have literally never heard that story end with "And then next month I scrounged up the money to pay it off".
That's because if we do, it's a nonissue and not something we talk about.
Last year, my car needed some repairs. As I tell the story, I paid for them - with some grumbles, but I paid it.
To tell it with some more detail... I didn't have a lot of money in my checking account at the time. But that was a nonissue: I just put the repairs on my credit card, and then a few weeks later I transferred enough money to my checking account to pay off the bill when it came due. So a credit card was rather handy then. Except I don't tell that part of the story, because it was rather a nonissue in my life.
EvanTh
29d ago
What makes you think their voting requirements were closely associated with IQ?
EvanTh
1mo ago
You're sounding like the people of March 1861, all convinced that their side would whip the other side in one single battle and win the civil war.
And then it stretched on for more than four bloody years.
EvanTh
2mo ago
(or a play instead of a film in Lewis's time)
Lewis was writing during WWII; film was very much a thing.
You can fill a theater with a film about romance
But they'd be coming for the story, for the actors, for the poetry of the lines, and for many other things besides just seeing a couple kiss. Remember that you can also fill a theater for a film about many other things besides romance. A strip-tease doesn't have any of that.
EvanTh
2mo ago
Whether the air force is a branch of the army or not is really an organizational bureaucratic matter rather than constitutional interpretation.
Yes, this. The Army Air Force was originally part of the Army, and everything was clearly fine with the Constitution. Then the National Defense Act of 1947 changed some names for the Army Air Force and the rest-of-the-Army and hybridized the organizational structure of the Army and Navy, but how does that cause Constitutional problems?
EvanTh
3mo ago
- Higher standards for filing a case to begin with
This could be a good thing, but I'm concerned about cases where people don't have the evidence up front and need to get it through discovery. People with very legitimate cases can end up in that situation.
- Another similar option, just ban someone from seeking further redress for a while (forever?) if they're found to be constantly abusing the courts.
This is a thing in some jurisdictions: recognized "vexatious litigants" have to get the court's pre-approval before filing further complaints. However, standards for being a vexatious litigant are high.
EvanTh
3mo ago
Better at performing each individual act associated with being a friend or romantic partner? Conceivably so (at least several model upgrades from now), within their constraints of being limited to computer systems. But my argument is, that's missing something of the core of being a friend or romantic partner.
Better at being a friend or romantic partner, despite that, than many people who can't visibly let someone behind her roles to the person herself? Entirely possible, but that's still missing something most people want.
EvanTh
3mo ago
When we interact with teachers, therapists, or editors, we're interacting with them within the confines of a particular role. You shouldn't use your editor as your therapist, or vice versa, and they shouldn't use you as theirs.
But with friends and romantic companions, we're hoping to interact outside those confines, with the person herself. If I only interact with a role she puts on, that's not a good friendship or romantic partnership. Same thing if I'm always putting on a role for her.
With an AI, you can't get beneath that role. If it looks like you have, that's just another role. That makes them great teachers and therapists (at least in this sense), but very bad at being friends or romantic partners.
EvanTh
4mo ago
You could always get a final ruling, rather than a preliminary injunction, from a court of competent jurisdiction.
If you say that getting a final ruling takes way too long - well, yes, that is a problem we urgently need to solve.
EvanTh
4mo ago
As a cyclist, I avoid 40mph roads whenever I can. Unfortunately, sometimes they're the only roads going where I want to go.
EvanTh
5mo ago
But by that reasoning, wouldn't the drawing of state legislative districts also be a purely internal act? Because the states are sovereign, and if a state want one district to be ten times the size of another, that's its sovereign right?
You've got a strong argument, but it flies in the face of decades-old Supreme Court precedent which I haven't heard anyone arguing to overturn.
In terms of "it won't actually happen", or "it won't be good if it does happen"?
More options
Context Copy link