SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4hr ago
Sure. But that doesn't make it ok, of course, and I refused to allow them to continue to get my business after that kind of betrayal.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6hr ago
For me, it was the underhanded way they did it. If they introduced a setting and it's off by default, fine whatever. If they turned it on by default but gave copious notice, that's not great but I might have been ok with it. It was the fact that the setting was both on by default and they snuck it in (I found out from a hacker news comment thread) which I found so unacceptable.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6hr ago
Amazingly, Dropbox has never betrayed me over the course of 15 years.
Depends on what you consider a betrayal, I guess. A year or two ago, they added a new setting that (if memory serves) allowed them to train models on your data, and turned it on by default. I considered that a massive betrayal and moved to a self-hosted Nextcloud instance after that. I might move to Proton Drive once they have a Linux client.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
18hr ago
Now you have me curious. Why ultimogeniture over primogeniture? Obviously anything is better than gavelkind, but I can't say I've ever had a reason to prefer one heir over another to be the one who inherits.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
It's all right. You can hire a spymaster for that!
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
10 years? Man, time flies. Dicks out, everyone. Ladies of the motte, you'll have to improvise something. I have faith in you.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Sounds like @ToaKraka needs to consult with the Crusader Kings community, all of whom are domain experts in dealing with the problems arising from gavelkind/partition succession. I'm not saying he should plot the murder of his relatives so that they aren't in the way of his demesne consolidation... but I'm not saying he shouldn't do that, either.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Doesn't the globe fact render the direction important? So it sounds like you can pick any direction.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
None of those is the claim you originally made, so I'm not going to get dragged to a debate on any of those points. What you said was "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups". For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means). To show that a group has higher rates of such behavior does not suffice for proving that most members of the group have that behavior.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6d ago
Even the FBI crime statistics, by themselves, aren't enough to support the original claim. The claim was that (paraphrasing a bit) you can have guns, black people, or a society without much violence, pick two. For that to be true, you need more than statistics which show "look, most crimes are committed by black people", because it does not follow from such statistics that most black people are committing crimes. You need evidence to bridge that gap, the crime statistics themselves can't get there.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6d ago
Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.
It most certainly is not. If you want to make that claim, you best bring receipts if you want people to take it seriously (or if you want the mods to not ding you for making inflammatory claims without evidence).
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6d ago
I mean, he certainly has strong views and presents them forcefully. I can't say he's ever convinced me by his arguments, though, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "win".
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6d ago
Somewhere in my early 30s I guess. I was 32 when I got married, and around that time my mom started to have health issues. Notably, one time when she was visiting she was super short on breath and wound up having to go to the hospital because she couldn't breathe. I chalked it up to altitude sickness or something, but right before I got married she got a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. I guess in a sense there's not much to worry about, because her condition is what it is. Can't be fixed, only slowed. That was almost 9 years ago, and she was given 10 years by her doctor at the time, so yeah.
Similarly around that timeframe (though maybe a few years later), I started noticing my dad was having more and more health issues because he keeps pushing himself like he's a young man still. But he's not (he is 69 in three weeks), and his body frankly can't take the intense physical work of farming like it once could. He has had a torn bicep, injured his butt some kind of way I forget, and so on. But he's a stubborn Polack (just like me, hah) and he isn't likely to change. I just try to gently encourage him to sell the rest of his animals and pursue his hobbies, like woodworking (which has its possible injuries but isn't as hard on the body as the shit he gets up to now). Perhaps one day he'll listen.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6d ago
100%, except for cases where it stops fitting (either because I get fatter or it shrinks in the wash). If I buy an article of clothing, it's because I like it enough to wear it.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
7d ago
No, I don't think those two things are in fact equivalent. For example, one could reasonably say that "nigger" is an offensive term for black people in America. The vast, vast majority of people in the nation would be greatly offended by using that word to describe people. By contrast, only a small (but vocal) minority considers "Gypsy" to be offensive. As such I don't think it merits saying the term is considered offensive at all, because unless you inhabit an extremely lefty bubble nobody is going to bat an eye of you say "Gypsy".
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
7d ago
in America, "Gypsy" is a now-offensive term for the Romani.
Gypsy isn't offensive in America, unless you're talking to someone who goes out of their way to be offended by everything.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
9d ago
Seconded! I was skeptical about paying for search, but it's so much better than Google these days. I pretty quickly was convinced it was worth the monthly subscription.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
10d ago
I like watches in that I have a couple of nice watches I wear if I'm dressing up. Both of them were gifts from my wife: one is a quartz Fossil she gave me for our first anniversary, the other is a mechanical Tissot she got me for my birthday one year. I generally use the Tissot if I wear a watch, as it's both more comfortable and I enjoy the craftsmanship and engineering which goes into a mechanical watch. I also have a pocket watch I like, though that obviously doesn't get as much use as a wristwatch.
I definitely don't collect watches, though. The three I have are more than enough for me. And I would never in a hundred years get a Rolex. I'm not interested in paying obscene prices to play silly status symbol games. Heck I wouldn't have even bought the Tissot that I have - at $800 it is way more than I would spend on a watch, and I made my wife promise to skip giving me Christmas presents that year when I found out how much it cost. Needless to say a Rolex or other luxury watch brand isn't something I would ever consider buying.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14d ago
I support breed specific bans, legislated at the local level. Pitbulls around small children is pants-on-head insane.
I think your proposals are reasonable except for this one. Pit bulls are fine in and of themselves. I've known more than one very chill, very friendly pit bull in my day who was that way because the owner cared and put in the work to teach the dog as a puppy. While it's certainly true that irresponsible dog owners disproportionately choose pit bulls, a bad owner can ruin any breed (as you yourself pointed out). The problem is not the breed, it is the owner, and I don't support outlawing something which responsible people handle perfectly fine just because a minority of people are irresponsible jerks.
A better proposal imo would be to strike this one altogether and let the revocation of someone's dog license do the work. If some underclass guy gets a pit because he wants to have a "tough" dog and he fucks it up, well, he won't have any dog any more. Sucks to suck.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14d ago
Yeah that claim is insane. Men have an insanely high sex drive as teenagers and it goes down over time. It doesn't peak at 40, you finally start to get a reprieve at 40.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14d ago
Great post. One thing you didn't mention: Protestant printings of the Bible did once have the deuterocanonical books. They were in a separate section, with a note that they were edifying reading but not the inspired word of God, but they were in there. Then in the 1800s publishers started to omit those books (to save costs), leading to the status quo where Protestant editions of the Bible don't have the deuterocanonical books.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
15d ago
Don't you find it a little odd that an organisation that is extremely sure about the existence of God, creation, the resurrection and about how the church is the only source for salvation suddenly starts admitting its own fallability on a topic that might offend modern audiences?
That doesn't even make sense as an argument. The Catholic Church is quite willing to hold firm on things that offend modern audiences a great deal more than hell. People aren't really that offended by hell, but they certainly are offended by the idea that no, gay people cannot legitimately marry, and no, a man cannot become a woman or vice versa, both of which the church stands firm on. Then there's the doctrine that women can't be priests, or the ban on contraception, which also offend modern audiences, though not nearly to the extent as the first two. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but it isn't afraid to say "no, this is true" even if it's unpopular to do so.
If hell was real in the same way that the earth's molten core is real, people would look for evidence, run tests and experiments, apply lessons learned from similar fields. There would be a real answer. Instead we get an understanding of existence that is based purely on written and spoken words, and people can come to basically any conclusion they want.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. What do you want people to do here? The spiritual is not, as a rule, something we can explore empirically via physical measurements. Nobody denies this. It sounds like you're saying "people don't do experiments to prove hell is real, so that proves they don't believe in hell", but that's silly. If that's not what you mean, then I don't follow you at all.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
15d ago
Can you see how, to an outside observer, this might make it seem like you're not actually asking as if someone is listening?
Not at all. Certainly, I can understand if you say "this makes it seem like there's no God". You wouldn't be the first, nor the last. But I can't see any good argument to be made that unanswered prayers (or at the very least not answered in the way we might want) somehow reflect on my own sincerity.
Would I be right to think that the latter came before the former?
You would in fact be incorrect. The former preceded the latter by something like half a decade.
Applying wildly different standards to God that to the ones you apply to everyday life. I don't think any religious person believes in God in the same way that they believe that things fall down when you drop them or that the sun rises in the morning.
Again, your model is gravely mistaken. You would do well to abandon it and start fresh.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
15d ago
I actually would like to get you started on how the South is represented. I'm pretty unfamiliar with the culture down there, so I imagine it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
Sure, I know that's why they did it. But that is their own problem, not mine. And when they chose to solve the problem by betraying my trust, I chose to end the business relationship and encourage everyone else I know to do the same. It isn't much, but one should vote with one's wallet IMO.
More options
Context Copy link