@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

So if your girlfriend's BFF says "If you break up with her, she'll kill herself. Also, if you don't empty your savings to take her on a fantasy vacation, she'll kill herself. Also, if you don’t post a glowing, thoughtful comment on every Instagram post, she'll kill herself." That's not a threat because it has an extra step? The BFF totally isn’t in on the social engineering, she's just making predictions, honest!

Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test. If your BFF is that suicidal, you need to be getting them committed under suicide watch. You are very charitably assuming a level of sincerity and decoupled remove that I think is just utterly lacking in evidence. I believe the odds of any given TRA lying to manipulate people is incomparably higher than the odds of some trans person deciding to end it because they were misgendered in a reddit comment.

Nah, same thing. Their deaths are particularly sad, so we make extra efforts to cheer them (and ourselves) up.

But that does not mean the outer circles are empty. You could have someone who cares strictly less about those outside his immediate family, yet still be able to treat with them, even respect them. I say "could," but as you observe, this is the normal state of affairs.

Not sure about the original thesis, but this counterpoint ignores the ingroup/outgroup/fargroup dynamic. It is common for some of those concentric circles to include functional complete apathy and even outright hostility. The "Early Life" trope does exist, and politics is the mindkiller.

Weirkey Chronicles.

I think this is just a new halfway measure that didn't have a specific term. Would anyone be unhappy with calling this as "partial shadowban" or something like that?

I can tell that subconsciously I'm much more dismissive of men 5" shorter than me, than men around my own height.

Note, this does not apply to short men who are visibly jacked. Take the dwarf pill. Clangeddin be with you.

(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.

Intermediate gym-goer for a decade. I started rucking a year or so ago, just recently decided I was doing it enough and enjoying it enough to splurge on nicer equipment than "old backpack full of dumbbell weights".

It's combining them into a back-to-back mega workout that I've only thought of doing in the last few weeks... because yeah, the individual ones weren't getting me to exhausted ecstasy anymore.

Hm.

Maybe I will just double check the macro/nutrient basics and otherwise enjoy the post-workout fugue while it lasts, and while my schedule permits me to devote a third of a day to exercise/recovery multiple times per week.

This. And I don't really find the murder sympathetic. Just more of a "Leopards Eating Faces" situation than I had known or would have expected.

Shame we'll never know because Trump backed off

We can't really say that based on this. Total number of hotel and farmworkers in the US is around 4 million. Even if they're all illegals, there's 20+ million illegals in the US, and some estimates put the number much higher. "Target that group last" is very different from just giving up altogether.

I honestly don't think that's the relevant label. I think the guy comes off as very provincial and inexperienced. My whole point is that I suspect he's never been in a situation where being a pussy vs being brave would even come up, to an extremely unusual degree.

I'm suggesting he check his privilege, while actually bothering to explain why that's relevant. But there's no reason to continue belaboring the point.

Trump has dropped plenty of hints that he is thinking about sending American citizens to El Salvador prisons.

Until he makes any kind of effort at doing so, this seems much more likely to be a cruel taunt. Trump is much more understandable once you grasp that he's essentially a right-wing John Oliver type, but less stupid.

Bringing him back, so that ICE could follow the correct process to re-deport him would be embarrassing to ICE

Seems more embarrassing to your faction. "Look at this pointless waste of time and resources that we had to do because Other Team only cares about abusing the rules to help illegal alien gang members."

Do you really think this would generally serve to increase respect for norms around due process?

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.