@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

By removing a small number of people from the streets we can have a drastic reduction in crime.

I think this is plausible but doesn't follow inevitably from the rest. Presumably the progressive response would be that the societal niche exists independently of the specific person who ends up filling it. Consider an analogous claim that, because 1% of people (fast food workers) do 90% of the deep frying in the US, we could improve obesity stats by removing a small number of people from the streets.

Your prediction is a useful one to distinguish between these hypotheses, but also hard to differentiate from a deterrent effect making crime less attractive (which we would also expect to see if we arrested all fast food workers).

Not with that phrasing, perhaps, but the idea that crime is caused by systemic issues and social conditions is equivalent to saying that those things create a social niche which someone will fill.

I think they got much more widespread criticism than they expected and will quietly step away from the bowdlerized versions. I doubt they will fly off the shelves, so I don't predict that they will be unavailable for sale in a year, but I predict that the original versions will continue to be widely available.

There is no secret sauce, they are the BEST.

Couldn't the secret sauce be that they have been using their model to facilitate their work longer and more effectively than anyone else? It would explain why it has accelerated so much over the past 6 months.

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.

Maybe he lost a limb.

And the flip side is that most grandparents are too old and frail to contribute much to the household by the time they have grandchildren.

The primary method of cheating in chess is to use game engines to suggest better moves than a human could think of. Modern game engines are much, much better than any human players and at this level of the game it might only take a couple of key moves to sway the outcome.

Of course over the board tournaments have lots of rules and procedures to prevent this, so much so that many think Niemann could not have circumvented them and that if he cheated it must have been through spying. But the bandwidth of information that needs to be transmitted to and from an accomplice is so low that I don't think you could ever be 100% sure it didn't happen. Which is unfortunate because it means an accusation of cheating is essentially unfalsifiable.

Do you have a link to a recipe? That sounds fascinating and delicious.

That's like saying "if you were going to let the Nazis occupy France, you may as well let them occupy England too". The fact that the death penalty takes decades to apply is the result of action by its opponents, defended against mostly unsuccessfully by its proponents.

Indeed. I imagine that a teacher has a breakdown on this level once a week or so in this country.

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.

Seems plausible enough to me, but I guess your point is that it's in tension with the overall progressive stance that suicides are helpless victims.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you are saying about the last sentence, you're saying that there is one word which expresses "switching channels will get you in trouble"? Or is the "switching channels" part just implied from context in the original Russian phrasing?

I would guess there are plenty of manly men who bird watch, but they are mostly not the ones who sit on the committees and run for president.

The question isn't assigning blame, it's actually assigning credit for success. If America's success is primarily due to slavery, then a) maybe the slaves are owed not just for the wrongs due to them but also for the lion's share of America's prosperity and b) the achievements of the founders are proportionally reduced, so fidelity to their principles is less important.

It just doesn't seem to stick at all to me. If you were going to choose a group to call "sanctimonious" in our current political climate, it would have to be the woke, and if Desantis is known for anything these days it's for finding new ways to get the woke worked up.

It all depends on what the point of saying "America was built on slavery" is. My impression is that the goal of this movement is to establish that the USA's extraordinary economic prowess and status as the premier world power is due to (would not have existed without) its early reliance on slavery, rather than to its unique founding principles or constitution. If this is true, then the case for forfeiting its those founding principles to atone for the evils of slavery through e.g. reparations or affirmative action is strengthened.

I don't think segregation is the right term for this unless the call to patronize black-owned businesses is only intended only for black people. It's simple racial discrimination.

That phrasing has a long tradition in Anglo law, see e.g. the Royal Navy's articles of war from 1749:

      • shall suffer death, or such other punishment, as from the nature and degree of the offence a court martial shall deem him to deserve

This or very similar phrasing appears in many of the articles.

I had completely forgotten that that place existed. I think they could have had a much more interesting arc if the moderator drama at the outset hadn't dampened their early momentum.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown! I'm still not seeing where the sense of "getting in trouble" is coming from in your explanation though.

He expanded the death penalty. True pro-lifers are against that.

I predict that support for abortion and support for the death penalty have a strong negative correlation. Do you predict the opposite or is there some other meaning to your claim?

For 5, what's your explanation for why their reported numbers are shooting up now? To me it always seemed likely that they were covering up their real numbers but I don't see why they would stop that now, whereas if they were telling the truth and have a mostly COVID-naive population then it would make sense that at some point they would have to pay the piper.

It's not even satire, it's just run of the mill sarcasm which they dropped in the second half of the comment.