@Iconochasm's banner p

Iconochasm

2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.

2 followers   follows 10 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

				

User ID: 314

Iconochasm

2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.

2 followers   follows 10 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 314

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

Do you think Baker had a waiver in writing from Elon Musk?

You used to work for the ACLU, right? Imagine you had inserted yourself into a controversial ACLU case that blew up, during which a coworker was caught forging documents submitted to court. Years later, you go to work for a different client with some tangential relations with the ACLU, and the aggrieved party in the controversial case. A new case comes up in the new company that has implications for the ACLU, and directly involves people who were directly involved in that previous controversial case.

Would you, as a lawyer, be comfortable sliding yourself into a "vetting" position for the new case? If you were, would you really be surprised if many other people were unwilling to give you a blank benefit of the doubt?

I worry I lost the analogy here, but the core question is, isn't CoI about the appearance of possible impropriety? I seems crazy that we would need direct, actionable evidence of malfeasance to allege a conflict of interest. Was Baker the only general counsel for Twitter?

Do lawyers have any professional standards for conflicts of interest?

Ironically, this seemed like a bot post. ChatGPT has a certain verbose "five paragraph essay" style that functions as a moderately strong tell. Real people don't "Step 5: Restate the conclusion in slightly different phrasing." unless they are padding sentence requirements in a high schol class.

Around me, it's more like $25 vs $30 for a fifth. A bigger gap could swing that.

It's more like "Yes, we all condemn witchcraft, it's the worst. But in the wake of this witchcraft scandal of my good friend, we should focus on general condemnations, and totally not worry about any particular people who might also be witches. Also, we probably don't need any particular new anti-witch policies beyond general frowning and finger-wagging."

We should have both.

I'm sure the autistic geniuses can explain party-based specialization dynamics to the brass.

Looking at the Mayo Clinic page,

Sex assigned at birth and gender identity are two separate things. Sex assigned at birth is typically made based on external genital anatomy. But gender identity is the internal sense of being male, female, or a gender along the spectrum between male and female. People communicate their gender to others through gender expression. This may be done through mannerisms, clothing and hairstyles.

Is this the answer to the "What is a woman?" problem that people have settled on? "A woman is someone who feels like a female." Merriam-Webster goes the same way. But what does it even mean to "feel like a female", if female is just the physical organs and woman is the gender identity? At first glance, this seems like an ugly desperate kludge; it pushed back the point where the incoherence can't be hidden, at the cost of essentially giving up on non-dysphoric trans.

Well, rampant NIMBYism results in enormous transfers of wealth based merely on who got into an area first (primarily a function of age)

That's not a transfer of wealth, that's just the existence of wealth. Your take here is just reversing causality; NIMBYs want the status quo, YIMBYs are the ones who want a transfer of wealth (to themselves).

massively infringes on private property rights, tremendously stifles any sort of economic development or indeed change of any kind,

Property rights are literally the basis of NIMBY arguments. And note how you acknowledge that point about the status quo versus change? You don't get to just assume that the change you want is a good thing, and you don't get to just handwave away the costs you dump onto others in the process. Maybe it is! Maybe the utilitarian calculation comes down on the YIMBY side! But don't act like this is altruism instead of competing interest groups fighting over their own benefits.

Have you heard of a thing called "property rights"? The NIMBYs are the second guy, they just already took the donkey and the YIMBYs would like it back.

Do you know what property rights are? NIMBYs are the guy who bought the donkey 30 years ago, YIMBYs are the guy who is pissy that he has to carry his own shit, waging a disingenuous rhetoric campaign to steal the donkey.

NIMBYs are already capturing massive positive externalities due to the increase in the value of their land because other people made their city desirable to live in.

See, this is the kind of absurd rhetoric that makes it clear you're not even trying to reason, just doing a tribalism. NIMBYs are the people who are already there, dude. They're the ones who made the area desirable and full of positive externalities. YIMBYs are the ones who want to eat that for their own benefit.

To then act like a victim because your house will be slightly shaded by a small apartment block

That is a cost. If I install a solar collector in geosynchronous orbit over your house, have I not done you a serious harm?

But since you're opposed to externalities, you must also be on board with efforts to ban cars from the city? After all, why should pedestrians and cyclists eat the cost of the noise, danger, and pollution caused entirely for the benefit of drivers?

No, I think the anti-car stuff is mostly the whining of idiot children. Cars are incredibly useful, and I've appreciated the hell out of them in every life phase that wasn't literally on a college campus. But if they bother you that much, feel free to go build your own car-free city. I'll swing by in 30 years to wage a dehumanization campaign against you and ruin the place for my own profit.

Oh, boo. Remember, you are the alpha.

Is there any way to read the 40k books aside from buying them each individually?

I have been reading your story, and enjoying it quite a bit.

But that definition does not really match our definition of progressive, given that both would consider themselves totally and irredeemably opposed to each other.

Yeah? There seemed to be plenty of people who thought otherwise at the time.

As one example, how about marriage? Marriage is literally a vow, generally to love and protect your spouse, but I haven't heard of a single practitioner getting forsworn due to a divorce. So maybe practitioners don't make the same vows? It raises all sorts of questions because you really would expect marriage to be just as if not more significant than a familiar. People should get forsworn for cheating on each other all the time.

This is actually a low-key important part of the story, though I think there's only 1-2 explicit conversations about it. Practitioner couples write up elaborate contracts, complete with punishment provisions and escape clauses, and then swear to follow the contract. They're taught from a young age to never make a promise to anyone else, especially in the heat of love/affection, and then their marriage traditions bend over backwards to ward off the possibility of foreswearing. And this has a bunch of downstream effects on practitioner culture, when every marriage is calculating and transactional and all human relationships are missing a core element of good faith and comradery.

not penalizing parents for mistreating their children

By what standards? I'd say historically, "child abuse" was common and often understood as being necessary.

or children for rebelling against their parents.

This seems really uncommon and difficult. It's quite possible that precedent and karma does factor in here.

There's no way that a magic system that wants people to fit into clearly defined roles would like people being genderfluid or polyamorous.

I actually liked how this was handled with Zed. It took considerable care and effort to essentially submit a "change of identity form" to the spirits.

And note my original post expressed quite a bit of skepticism about the general claim; it might indeed be incorrect!

The point is that this doesn't matter. Sure, assume it's true. When you use that truth to set a target ("We want more AP students"), you lose ceteris paribis; all else is no longer equal, there's a new incentive structure in place.

Remember, these are social "rule of thumb" "laws" we're talking about here, not natural laws of physics. Maybe this is some weird situation where there was the pedagogical equivalent of the $100 bill lying on the ground, and everyone manages to dodge all of the obvious and unobvious ways the attempts to reach the target could backfire or go wrong.

My contention is just that it's still the kind of situation that Goodhart was warning about.

Whether it's "weak sauce" was not the point. The point was whether progressives unanimously love Pfizer

Oh, I popped in after that, just to talk about the regulatory capture aspect.

It's not an explicit report option, but we do have a catch-all rule against being "egregiously obnoxious". That post did lean a little hard into the sarcasm, so "antagonistic" might also have fit.

There were a couple culture war flashpoints over racially disparate impact from non-vaxxed bans. For example, in DC they tried to ban unvaxxed kids from going to school, and people were pointing out that this was banning half the black kids in the city. Not really sure how that one shook out.

Has anyone heard any competing theories?

Is there any reason to think the FBI had reasonable doubts?

Not a claim I made.

Did not quite say you did. What I am claiming is that it is a very common understanding of events, and the first comment of yours that I replied to was in that ballpark.

I don't see how that is relevant to the issue

I think we're into 3 or 4 different issues, talking past each other, and I have a feeling that if I go into responses for a bunch of the parts of the next two paragraphs I have problems with, it's going to keep happening.

Agreed. I've claimed some ability at this, but it's based on more than a picture. It's more cues about neuroticism, self-confidence, demeanor.

Folgers. Black.

Whiskey on the rocks. I'm slowly opening up to the more expensive side of things, and would be open to suggestions in the $50-100 range.

@TheDag, count me as a vote for spending the extra couple bucks on Jameson over Tullamore.

Fair enough. It appears to me to be the sort of claim that people are happy to share off the record, in person. I was thinking more about public, on the record claims.

I have two, just like you, but about 10 years older.

Congratulations!

That vibe is sort of the opposite of what I'm looking for. But if any of you folks are ever in the hinterlands betwixt The City of Brotherly Love and America's Playground, feel free to DM on reddit.