NewCharlesInCharge
No bio...
User ID: 89
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
I think most people who support euthanasia have an ideal case in mind: the person is not going to survive much longer, they're in constant, terrible pain, and so it's a mercy to allow them to end their lives.
This is similar to animal euthanasia. If a dog's existence consists entirely of only suffering, most people seem to think it's a mercy to end its life, even if we have no way to know if that's what the dog wants.
However, to euthanize a dog who isn't in that state, and hasn't shown itself to be irredeemably dangerous, seems monstrous to most people. Imagine a person who has grown bored of their dog and so kills it.
This seems much closer to the bored-of-my-dog case than the life-is-endless-suffering case.
I have to wonder if this woman would be alive had she been exposed to different ways of thinking about adversity rather than to be medicated so heavily that she complained she couldn't feel anything anymore. It seems the doctors had nothing else to offer her.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
These threads tend to be risk assessments, with some people thinking there is a serious risk of nuclear exchange, and some people seeming to discount that risk.
I'm curious about what kind of risk assessment people typically engage in.
Part of my job is identifying and defending against risks to the web service my company operates. It's impractical to defend against all possible risk, especially given our size, so we have to prioritize. This is somewhat done by gut feeling, but it's not merely defending against the most likely adverse events. Very unlikely events, but that if they happen would destroy everything, get more attention than the very-likely-but-not-existential-threat possibilities.
I guess that background informs my thoughts on this issue. Nuclear war is still a remote possibility, but it's Armageddon if it happens. Even if you survive, the world as we know it is over. I can't understand how anything can be worth increasing the chances of nuclear war. This is a giant existential risk. The web service equivalent of not backing up your database, or having an open backdoor hidden somewhere in leaked source code. It's not on fire right now, but if you wait until is, you're completely hosed. The only reason you shouldn't be working on those things immediately is if the site has already gone down.
In my opinion, one country suffering a terrible war is nowhere close to justifying the risk to the entire world that comes with prolonging that war and antagonizing the invader.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
If such people are lucky enough to pass an interview, they'll often become aware of their limitations on the job and shift to contributing in other, less technical ways. For example, coordinating diversity initiatives, contributing to codes of conduct, or scrubbing codebases of "biased" language. That last one is fantastic, because if your employer is dumb enough to measure lines of code, it looks like you're actually contributing code.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
One signal that wokeness is waning: the words printed at the bottom of the helmets of NFL players.
I don't have metrics on this, this is all just my subjective perception. I scrubbed through my recording of the games while writing this in the interest of accuracy.
At the start of the 2020 season, just a few months after social justice become trendy, the NFL decided to allow players to swap out the name of their team on the back of the helmet for a social justice message. At that time they could choose one of four messages: "Stop Hate," "It Takes All Of Us," "End Racism," or "Black Lives Matter." The league would also sometimes print these messages on the field.
At the season opener this past Thursday, with the L.A. Rams facing the Buffalo Bills, I noticed a new message: "Choose Love." I thought it was just nearly all of the Rams sporting this one, but this article says it was all of them. Few of the Bills were displaying anything except for their team name. That the preferred message was so non-specific was a signal itself that attitudes may be shifting. The article says that the NFL says "Choose Love" is a message against hate crimes and gun violence, but I would never have guessed that had it not been spelled out for me.
This past Sunday I watched three games: Cincinnati Bengals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers, Green Bay Packers vs. Minnesota Vikings, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Dallas Cowboys.
For Bengals vs Steelers I saw zero of these messages. Notably neither quarterback on either team had such a message.
In Packers vs Vikings I couldn't see any messages on the Packers, I'd say about a third of the Vikings had them. Neither quarterback had them.
For Cowboys vs. Bucs I saw none on the Cowboys, about half of Bucs players had them, which included the quarterback Tom Brady, sporting "Inspire Change."
In all of the games I noticed just one "Black Lives Matter," on a Vikings player.
Maybe I'm just misremembering the prevalence of these the past two seasons, but I thought they used to be more likely than not, especially for star players.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
A month or so ago I remember someone here linking to the discovery documents in the Missouri Attorney General's lawsuit against Joe Biden, alleging the government is violating First Amendment rights by colluding with tech companies to censor the speech of private citzens. Those docs are here (warning: 711 page PDF).
At the time I was shocked at how this wasn't apparently a big story. It's trivial to scroll through the email exchanges and find examples of government agents reporting content to tech companies, who would then take the content down. There are obvious First Amendment issues that at the very least need to be publicly discussed, but most likely need to be prosecuted.
Well, it's finally getting some press. Lee Fang at the Intercept published an article today that, among other things, references these docs: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/. The article also includes details on the organizational structures involved, including many documents out of DHS that detail their anti-misinformation operations.
A couple of choice quotes:
During the 2020 election, the Department of Homeland Security, in an email to an official at Twitter, forwarded information about a potential threat to critical U.S. infrastructure, citing FBI warnings, in this case about an account that could imperil election system integrity.
The Twitter user in question had 56 followers, along with a bio that read “dm us your weed store locations (hoes be mad, but this is a parody account),” under a banner image of Blucifer, the 32-foot-tall demonic horse sculpture featured at the entrance of the Denver International Airport.
“We are not sure if there’s any action that can be taken, but we wanted to flag them for consideration,” wrote a state official on the email thread, forwarding on other examples of accounts that could be confused with official government entities. The Twitter representative responded: “We will escalate. Thank you.”
“If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages,” noted Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, “there is no doubt we would call it censorship.”
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
Chinese protests are a top story in Western news media. I don't think they're entirely organic. Some are likely intelligence agency ops.
Here's the first thing that made me think something was off: https://twitter.com/quanyi_li2/status/1596784472740937728
First, some of the signage doesn't look right. They use traditional characters instead of simplified. They also sometimes use pinyin, seemingly unable to recall the "qi" in "Urumqi," the biggest city in Xinjiang, even as they were protesting on Urumqi road. Mainlanders wouldn't do this. This is beyond mere misspelt Tea Party protest signs, I'd say it's akin to protesting against Biden with an English-language sign with Cyrillic characters accidentally slipped in. It's a clear signal of "not from around here."
Second, the protests don't make much sense if your goal is to reach other Chinese folks in China. You can't share such protests on social media, and news agencies won't cover them. However, contrary to popular narratives, demonstrations are allowed in China. You can't call for the downfall of the national government, but you can plea for the national government to come in and fix local issues. You can also take to the streets because you're really worked up about foreigners insulting China.
So, the intended audience is probably Western news media and consumers of such media.
Third, advocating against the national government and leaders is punished, and everyone knows it. It's unlikely that Chinese citizens would take such a risk when it's so easy to put on a demonstration that falls short of impugning the national government. I think it's likely that these were non-citizens, perhaps Taiwanese, or perhaps expats, that aren't risking their livelihoods. The use of traditional characters makes this more likely, only Hong Kong and Taiwan use them. Western media are unlikely to take note of such things, or to take note of Taiwanese accents.
This aligns with what we've seen before in intelligence ops.
We've seen evidence that intelligence agencies have helped along color revolutions in the past, including protest leaders in Hong Kong meeting with at least one state department official. Much of this is actually done in the open, with the National Endowment for Democracy sending money directly to dissident groups.
Note that an intelligence op doesn't mean that everyone involved works for the intelligence agency, or that they even know that the agency is involved. Every country has its collection of folks who would like to see the government fall. Intelligence operatives identify and befriend these folks, nurture their revolutionary sentiments, and help to remove hurdles in their way. It's the same tactic used to get a group of right-wing men to agree to kidnap the governor of Michigan, except that no one stops the plot from continuing to move forward.
NewCharlesInCharge
7mo ago
In Washington we had a judge rule that magazines aren’t firearms and so aren’t subject to Bruen.
Every time I see this kind of behavior I wonder if the judges reflect on the intended purpose of the second amendment and proceed to ignore the constitution anyway. A refreshing of the tree of liberty would surely swamp any possible deaths averted from magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans.
NewCharlesInCharge
5mo ago
Why suppress this? I can understand suppressing such writings generally, but AFAIK this is the first time such a thing has actually been kept under wraps for any length of time.
I doubt anyone would be inspired by it, and it's certainly not going to spark a movement or any kind of adoration for the shooter like we saw with Elliott Rodger.
Maybe Crowder isn't printing a genius rhetorical flourish, but I really doubt it given the kind of thinking on display.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
I recently watched "The Outfit," which was a pretty well done mystery/thriller set amongst 1950's Chicago gangsters. Also an Amazon production.
Late in the film a group that had previously only been referred to by name shows up, and they're black. The characters are still interesting, central to the plot, well-acted, etc. But knowing Amazon's diversity rules, it kind of breaks the fourth wall. I know of no notable group of black Chicago mobsters during this era. I do know about Amazon's rules. So, this probably wasn't an independent artistic decision, but rather the result of those rules.
It's like watching R-rated movies edited for TV, or movies that are dealing in very adult material but hold back because they want a PG-13 rating. It takes you out of the story momentarily while you contemplate the production process.
NewCharlesInCharge
1mo ago
During my recent two months in China I infrequently watched the news and remember seeing about three reports of uncovered spies working in the government. At the time my sentiment was “that seems like too many spies, probably this is political maneuvering.”
In light of this post, maybe not. Or maybe a bit of both.
Also curious that uncovered spies make the nightly news in China, but not here in America.
NewCharlesInCharge
8mo ago
As others have pointed out, there's some sleight of hand in what people mean when the say "homeless" and what the causal factors in those populations are.
When people talk about San Francisco having homelessness problems, they aren't talking about people that merely lack a fixed address. They're talking about the people living in and defecating on the streets, frequently deranged. People that have defected entirely on societal norms.
Cities like Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle have much higher amounts of these total defectors than other cities. The relevant difference between these and other cities is that total defectors are more or less tolerated in those cities. You can build permanent structures on public land and nothing bad will happen. At worst, something bad like a murder happens at the camp and then you'll be kicked out and lose the materials you likely stole to construct your building. You can do drugs openly. At the moment Seattle Police aren't even legally capable of arresting people for drug possession and public drug use.
I don't know if this environment creates total defectors or merely attracts them, it's probably some combination.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
Tangential, but there's been a massively successful anti-China propaganda effort in the United States since about 2014.
One piece of evidence: you use the abbreviation "CCP." That's not what they call themselves. In English, they say they're the Communist Part of China, or CPC.
You can also look back in newspaper archives and see the tone of coverage changing. Around 2014 the tone became increasingly negative, to the point where now it would be notable to see a news story on China display any positivity. Prior to then the dominant narrative was about wild economic growth, with a secondary narrative of "these foreigners are weird."
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
But for the encroachment, coup, and 8 years of shelling rebel oblasts, the invasion probably wouldn't have happened.
Like most wars, this one is not mono-causal. We can certainly blame Hitler for invading the Sudetenland, but we can also blame the Allies for creating the conditions that would lead the Germans to rally behind a strongman.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
My greatest hope with these export controls are that they're merely graft. Biden has been championing the domestic semiconductor industry, with Congress granting tens of billions in subsidies to build domestic manufacturing. Maybe he's getting a kickback from the companies that benefit. Not the actual semiconductor companies, but the firms and unions involved in constructing and maintaining these specific facilities.
The alternative is that this is preparation for imminent war. The administration are not so dumb that they think this will permanently hinder Chinese industry. I've seen experts forecast that they'll probably be able to develop what they need in 2-3 years.
Why disrupt American industry so greatly for a mere 2-3 years of strategic advantage?
As Gwern points out, this may provoke a response from China. America dictating to a Taiwanese company that it can't sell its wares to China certainly seems like a violation of at least the spirit of the vague One China policy. That's a policy that the West already gets almost all of the benefit from. All China gets out of it is face-saving. The West and Taiwan get to treat Taiwan like a country in every way except name. They even get to have diplomatic relations, and embassies, just by another name.
What would America do if China controlled a vast amount of the world's rare earth mineral mines and decided that they'll no longer sell the products of those mines to America or its allies? Wait, they already do control a vast amount of rare earth minerals. Maybe that's the next step in this dumb escalatory spiral.
What if it were laughably trivial, and instead China secured exclusive access to all avocados grown south of the United States border? Would the United States do nothing?
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
You think that Russia would've invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022 if Yanukovych had never been deposed?
Why would they bother?
Without the coup, there would have been no rebel oblasts. With those oblasts continuing to participate in elections there probably would have been no government elected that would seriously entertain the idea that Ukraine join an anti-Russian military alliance.
On Russia and Europe: Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have all floated the idea of Russia joining NATO. No one in NATO has ever appeared to like that idea, with American Presidents and Secretaries of State dismissing it. It was the Americans that pledged there would be no NATO expansion into former Soviet states after the fall of the Soviet Union, "not one inch eastward." That was obviously a pledge broken, and not even in response to any Russian hostilities.
I'm American and I can't make any sense of our foreign policy strategy in regards to Russia. It all seems like dick-waving with potential nuclear consequences. What do we even get if we "win?"
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
I think most people have no experience with startups and thus no appreciation for how absurdly productive a small group of unbridled engineers can be.
NewCharlesInCharge
9mo ago
I'm curious what the jury instructions were. Here's the bit of criminal code that covers riots: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/
And here's the statutory definition of riot: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch64/sect18-6401/
RIOT, ROUT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE FIGHTING, DISTURBING PEACE 18-6401. RIOT DEFINED. Any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in: (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (c) a disturbance of the public peace; is a riot.
This quote in the OP's article makes it sound like they were being accused of conspiring to disturb the peace, not to injure someone or damage property:
Ryan Hunter, deputy city attorney, told the court Thursday the masked men, carrying shields and flag poles, planned to storm out of the U-Haul outside the park, potentially deploying smoke and using a bullhorn. They intended to engage in a “tumultuous manner” with Pride attendees trying to enjoy the park, he said.
Here's the statutory definition for disturbing the peace: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH64/SECT18-6409/
18-6409. DISTURBING THE PEACE. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like the kind of overbroad definition ruled against in Cox v Louisiana: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/536
The statute at issue in this case, as authoritatively interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, is unconstitutionally vague in its overly broad scope. The statutory crime consists of two elements: (1) congregating with others "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned," and (2) a refusal to move on after having been ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer. While the second part of this offense is narrow and specific, the first element is not. The Louisiana Supreme Court in this case defined the term "breach of the peace" as "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." 244 La., at 1105, 156 So.2d, at 455. In Edwards, defendants had been convicted of a common-law crime similarly defined by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Both definitions would allow persons to be punished merely for peacefully expressing unpopular views. Yet, a "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech * * * is * * * protected against censorship or punishment * *. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view.
NewCharlesInCharge
8mo ago
I've always wondered if these parents are familiar with black-names-on-resumes-get-fewer-callbacks popular science. And if they are, do they just not care? Or are they being spiteful? Or are they trying to pull a Boy Named Sue to give their kids more adversity to overcome?
NewCharlesInCharge
7mo ago
Contrary to popular belief, Catholics don't believe the Pope to be generally infallible, only when speaking Ex Cathedra, which hasn't happened since 1950. The hierarchy of the ordained also isn't quite military-like, there's quite a bit of independence even at the level of priests. Our archdiocese is going through a restructuring process over the next year and one administrative detail is that the archbishop has requested the resignation of every priest in advance to make moving them around easier. They could refuse to resign, at which point some kind of due process kicks in, the archbishop doesn't force their resignation unilaterally.
There's also the matter of quiet disobedience in a leftist direction going unaddressed, while the people who noisily point it out like Strickland wind up having their basic competence questioned. One of the most appalling cases of this happened just recently when an archibishop gave a prominent Muslim the Eucharist.
There is serious schism potential at the moment.
NewCharlesInCharge
8mo ago
So, Lind’s argument is essentially that most people can’t be trusted not to misinterpret “overlapping curves with long tails” as “bimodal distribution.”
I’m not sure he’s wrong. Even at what should be some of the smartest employers, like Google, you can’t say the first without being misinterpreted as saying the second, and then subsequently lose your job.
It seems we are caught between two choices on this issue. Either keep political power in the hands of the people broadly and keep lying to them, or scale back who has political power to those that can interpret very simple ideas like overlapping curves.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
As a catechumen, I’ve seen plenty of people talking about this in online Catholic spaces, but this has yet to come up in real life.
Maybe this is just the fervor of a convert speaking, but it seems to me we have a lot of work to do educating the laity (and apparently the German bishops) on doctrines of the faith. Last night YouTube recommended a video to me from Bishop Barron where he shared a poll that 70% of Catholics do not believe in the real presence of the Eucharist.
This is perhaps the greatest distinction between the Catholic Church and nearly all of Protestantism.
NewCharlesInCharge
1yr ago
Last week the Washington State Supreme Court made a ruling that lowers the bar for parties to a civil case to get a hearing for a new trial based on racial bias, and put the burden on the opposing party to prove that racial bias did not affect the verdict.
Here's the Seattle Times article on the decision: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/justices-unanimously-expand-protections-against-racism-in-wa-civil-cases/
And the decision itself: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/976724.pdf
The decision introduces a framework with a couple of points:
-
In civil cases a hearing for a new trial must be granted in case an objective observer (defined as one who is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have influenced jury verdicts in Washington State) could view race as a factor in the verdict.
-
At the hearing it will be presumed that race was a factor and a new trial must be granted unless the opposing party can prove that race was not a factor. From the decision: "At the hearing, the trial court is to presume that racial bias affected the verdict, and the party benefiting from the alleged racial bias has the burden to prove it did not."
The ruling doesn't give any guidance on how to prove that racial bias did not affect a verdict. Given that unconscious biases are included in the definition of an objective observer evaluating whether race could be a factor, even subpoenaing the whole jury and asking each juror if bias influenced them wouldn't be sufficient. Jurors could still harbor biases they are unaware of and so cannot testify to. The decision gives the party alleged to benefit from racial bias an impossibly high bar to prove that it did not.
In the case that brought about the decision these factors were cited as things that could have tainted the verdict with racial bias:
-
Defense said that the plaintiff was "confrontational" and "combative" on cross examination.
-
Defense said that plaintiff's witnesses all using the same phrase to describe the plaintiff as "life of the party" was suggestive that they colluded on their testimony.
-
Defense suggested that the plaintiff's chiropractor may be biased because plaintiff is employed by that chiropractor.
-
Defense said that the damages sought by the plaintiff, $3.5 million, and the timeline in reporting injuries to doctors, were an indicator that the trial was about financial gain.
-
Plaintiff says the jury asked that the plaintiff not be present in the courtroom for the verdict. This is disputed by the judge, who said it is her regular practice to ask both parties to wait in the hallway for the verdict so that jurors can speak with the attorneys without their clients present.
The motion for a hearing for a new trial was raised at trial. The trial court said it could not "require attorneys to refrain from using language that is tied to the evidence in the case, even if in some contexts the language has racial overtones." The Supreme Court said "that reasoning gets it exactly backward."
In practice it seems like this is going to benefit the richest parties in civil cases. The losing side should always seek a new trial on this basis, even if it's a longshot based on language that few would recognize as an instance of bias.
If you can meet this low bar, which is met by such things as suggesting a witness could be biased because they employ the plaintiff, then a new trial is inevitable. That is, unless you can somehow achieve the impossible and prove that racial bias was not a factor. If you don't have enough money to afford attorneys for another trial, or even to represent you at the hearing, you're at a huge disadvantage.
The jury actually found in favor of the plaintiff in this case, just not in the amount she was seeking. She sued for $3.5 million and was awarded $9,200.
The three Supreme Court justices up for re-election this year are running unopposed.
NewCharlesInCharge
4mo ago
I know one Nikki superfan, who was also a Hillary superfan. Gay dude who loves powerful pantsuit women, and also flipped from left to right after the events of 2020. Probably not a huge part of the electorate.
NewCharlesInCharge
4mo ago
Hitler was not in his teens and twenties when he was Furher.
The trial of Darrell Brooks is set to start this coming Monday, October 3. Brooks is accused of running over 77 people at the Waukesha Christmas Parade.
Brooks will be representing himself. His motion to do so was granted today. There have been a few entertaining / exasperating videos of Brooks and the Judge going back and forth on this matter.
Brooks believes himself to be a sovereign citizen. In one of the videos he's crossed out the words "I understand" and replaced them with "I have been informed of." These were on a form he had to sign that warned him of the perils of self-representation. It turns out this is a sovereign citizen thing. They believe that to say "I understand" means that they "stand under" the court and are subject to its authority. In the video granting his motion the judge finds that "I have been informed of" is functionally equivalent to "I understand" and Brooks objects, saying he never said those words.
Culture war angle: this was a big culture war story last year as people perceived the attack as both under-covered and when it was covered, downplayed. The Rittenhouse case got many orders of magnitude more coverage and had an order of magnitude fewer victims.
Additionally, on the videos I discovered that YouTube tacks on a link to the sovereign citizen movement page on Wikipedia, giving it the same treatment as COVID-19 misinformation.
More options
Context Copy link