@MotteInTheEye's banner p

MotteInTheEye


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 13:57:58 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 578

MotteInTheEye


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 13:57:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 578

Verified Email

My only point is that it's apples and oranges to compare drivers vs. bikers being deferential to pedestrians, because it's nearly costless for the drivers.

I wouldn't expect distracted driving to disproportionately impact hit and runs but not overall accidents, so the fact that that's the statistic used here makes me suspicious that overall accidents don't follow the same trend.

There might be a cultural dimension but a big part of it is that slowing to a stop and restarting is actually a significant inconvenience to a biker in a way that it's not to a driver since it requires a large expenditure of your personal physical energy.

Maybe there are more details we are missing about the incident, but on the face of it, the uproar about it makes me less sympathetic to activist bikers. Drivers deal with unexpected construction obstacles all the time, and I don't understand why a biker would expect to have right of way when merging into the main lane to avoid an obstacle.

That's interesting because I was going to bring up Lewis as a counterargument to the "gender/sex distinction recently invented to undermine gender norms" POV. Lewis discussed it extensively in both fiction and non-fiction and certainly didn't intend it to undermine gender norms. In multiple places he argued that God is infinitely masculine although not male, and that biological sex was in fact only the expression at the biological level of a more ultimate reality.

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty is well known, but their doctrine explicitly allows for the possibility of just warfare.

If your claim is just that they teach that war is bad then I fully agree. I read eetan's "endorsed by the Bible" to mean permissible under some circumstances, not preferable or desirable.

Then the Christians you know are very unusual, even just considering the set of Christians alive today, let alone considering the set of Christians across history.

This is just smart politicking, there's obviously no chance of passing these with the current Congress, so it's just forcing the Republicans to defend what are probably moderately unpopular positions about the Supreme Court.

I think it was essentially a three step process for this and all other hobbies:

  • The original Internet culture was generally left-libertarian.
  • Internet forums ate the hobby: because they were such an efficient way to engage with other hobbyists, they outcompeted every alternative cultural center of the hobby.
  • The left-libertarian founders and their successors largely became woke leftist, bringing the forums along with them.

The second and third steps happened in parallel during the aughts and early teens.

Most heavy/death metal bands aren't comedy-focused, so obviously no.

If any one municipality gets the solution to homelessness "correct" their reward for doing so is to be flooded by homeless people from other areas.

This is true only if homeless people have no agency to determine their place of residence, or if the solution is one that the homeless people themselves prefer to the default "unsolved" conditions.

If on the other hand there is a solution that the homeless people would prefer to avoid and they have some agency to avoid it by relocating, then the incentive would flow the opposite direction, with localities that do not adopt it getting flooded.

one would like mainstream society to be sending a message like: it's perfectly alright to be a nerdy masculine woman or an effeminate man

That's the tack that society has been taking since at least the 80s or so. Obviously there's no blinded experiment or anything and lots of different overlapping trends, but it seems pretty clear to me that downplaying gender roles led to an increase in people desiring to transition rather than forestalling transitions.

"Stripper" is almost as low-status a title as it's possible to have, there's nothing left to cancel.

I haven't used it for game development specifically, but from what I have used it for, this sounds like an ideal case. "Experienced programmer wants to get a quick start in a popular branch of programming which is new to him" is pretty much the sweet spot.

Could it be orthodontic practices? Orthodontia can make a surprising amount of difference to the jaw and facial structure.

Is any action necessary to suppress them? I didn't read the OP as saying "let's do x, y, and z to stamp out complaints of incels" but "by revealed preferences they are content to stew in porn and video games so why stress about them?"

I don't agree with OP because I am not content to just write off huge chunks of the population which could be leading fulfilling lives and useful to other people, but your objection seems like a non sequitur.

Hlynka has been hanging out in this space and its predecessors getting banned and unbanned for the better part of a decade now. The discussion around "maybe just a 3 month or one year ban would correct the problem" misses the point - there is no question of changing the way he interacts here, there is just the mods' decision about whether the good outweighs the bad or not, given the way he will inevitably interact. I don't have a strong opinion on whether they got it right or wrong, but any criticism of their decision should be focused on that question, not hypothetical approaches to get him to clean up his act.

Is it possible that both were actually convicted under some statute that both would be guilty of in a case like this regardless of who actually pulled the trigger? Because like MathWizard said above, it seems impossible for two men to be convicted of something which hinged on each of them being the one to pull the trigger without awful defensive representation or judge/jury misconduct. Any evidence which proves that the one man pulled the trigger beyond a reasonable doubt should definitionally introduce a reasonable doubt that the other man pulled the trigger.

If that's the purpose then I would say that it is essentially a lie. When your data is stored with a major cloud provider, it is not just on some computer similar to yours somewhere, it is replicated in enterprise grade data centers across multiple geos and there is a rotation of highly paid engineers on call if anything goes wrong with it.

I don't understand the "cloud is someone else's computer" argument at all to be honest. How many companies of Unisuper's size had catastrophic data failures before "the cloud"? Probably more than one!

And as to the application of the question to the personal data storage level, it seems beyond question that for the vast majority of people, their data is more secure (in the sense of preserved from accidental loss) in Google/Microsoft/Apple's hands than if they had to manage their own backups. Maybe a cloud provider loses data for one in a thousand customers, but I suspect that every single person who managed significant amounts of personal data in the days before the cloud lost data at some point due to negligence or mishap.

that flaw make my man-vs-potential-bear scenario as favorable as possible toward not choosing "man"

Yes, that was my concern, I can definitely imagine a woman coming to the conclusion that a man making that claim was trying to trick her and steering clear. But I think your updated hypothetical is better, and I agree that very few if any would run towards the bear. A sight of an actual bear would act on someone at an instinctual level in a way that the word "bear" in a Twitter poll would not.

I think it's pretty difficult to construct a realistic hypothetical on which to test intuitions. Yours doesn't really work because the woman is choosing between an actual man and a report of a bear (by the man), which is a very different comparison.

The one doesn't take away from the other. All those kids that love the Narnia series wouldn't have been reading "Transposition" if the Narnia books had been less popular.

But they and all the big tech companies have stamped out this sort of question precisely because of the chilling effect of the law. You can obviously make a case that it's related to job performance, but their legal departments prefer to stick to coding and behavioral questions where the case is self-explanatory.

I guess a corresponding benefit could be dramatically reducing the overhead of a small business. But only in a fantasy world where all state taxes followed suit.