@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

And they know it only exists so long as they continue tricking young women into thinking they’ll get a permanent paycheque out of [young] men if they keep voting for it in a pyramid scheme even larger than Social Security.

What trick? The bureaucracy is only expanding.

The Trump ad would have the board of men liking her, then she says she wasn't voting Trump, then Trump himself appears and says "But we like her anyway!", possibly making a gesture with his hands indicating her nice body or something.

There's lots of traits that haven't reached fixation, but this doesn't mean there's no free lunch. Evolution is slow and the environment changes much more quickly; we are not at equilibrium. The "no free lunch" theorem is equivalent to "all organisms are equally fit", which is clearly false.

There is no reason to believe the "no free lunch" theorem holds and plenty of reasons to believe it doesn't. There are lots of genes with purely deleterious effects (those which are fatal to embroys, for instance. Or cystic fibrosis).

Even if the tails come apart -- e.g. you cannot simultaneously MAXIMIZE running and swimming ability -- does not mean that there's no genetic free lunch. Starting from a genotype that wasn't near human capacity in either, you could increase both.

But enough about Fauci.

Worse than which average? Not being able to choose a reference class doesn't "cut both ways", it makes the question unresolvable.

U-6 includes workers employed part time for economic reasons plus persons 'marginally attached' to the workforce -- those who have looked for a job in the last 12 months but are not currently looking for work.

This is the spread -- U-6 minus U-3, that is, the marginally attached plus the part-time for economic reasons. It tends to follow the unemployment rate, so this is the percentage spread (U-6 minus U-3, over U-6). Neither is particularly high right now.

A bet that a counterfactual would be superior is never going to resolve.

Trump is not the driver of this sentiment, he is just the only one willing to harness the latent desires of the electorate.

But who else can? J.D. Vance? Seems kinda unlikely. Desantis? Tried once, failed... maybe he could succeed without Trump as opposition, but it seems doubtful. What the Democrats hope is not that the GOP goes back to pre-Trump, but that their base basically dries up and blows away, becoming an unaffiliated and impotently dissatisfied group who can be ignored electorally. The GOP keeps the neocon remnants that haven't gone over to the Democrats, plus a few paleocons and business republicans who aren't neocons, and as a result is so small that it never is able to mount a serious challenge again.

I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. While I don't have any hard evidence, this thing trips my "scam" intuition big time.

"Unemployment" has been limited to that since the 1930s. And the term seems to be mostly limited to the concept that the agency measures.

It's pork.

I don't want tax dollars given to Starlink, or anyone else, to subsidize rural broadband. But if we're going to have such an award, I'd rather not it be given out or not according to how much the various players suck up to the party in power. Especially when the quid-pro-quo isn't just campaign funds and endorsements but censoring the opposition.

People can get mad about it, but what else is the dude supposed to do with the power of the Dems fully against him?

He could have bent the knee and done what they wanted, such as continue to censor Twitter on their behalf.

The procedures are arbitrary and usually hand large amounts of discretion to workers who are trying to parse complicated realities.

I'm fairly sure employment, unemployment, and inflation figures do NOT hand large amounts of discretion of workers at all. The wild swings are for other reasons. Late data coming in. Models used to estimate missing data being consistently wrong in certain cases. That sort of thing.

They're not arbitrary. In the case of inflation and unemployment they follow long-established procedures which have the advantage of being consistent if not always accurate. The effects which have led to recent significant downward adjustments in jobs figures have been known for a long time and taken into account by those who care (i.e. not the media). The FBI figures are a different case, because they have been "modernizing" their methodology, leading to instability in the numbers. As I recall, the original release included a warning that many major jurisdictions weren't included, so the revision is no surprise.

I don't think they'd help much for children in a war zone. Even most areas of Chicago aren't located near active war zones where stray rifle bullets might come from.

Making alcohol illegal results in more distilled liquors and less lighter stuff, for the same reason illegal opiates results in stronger opiates being preferred.

Incest does not typically result in "severe deficiencies" in one generation.

The dark and cynical but not quite CapitalRoom level of cynicism is that the pollsters have to keep the polls showing the possibility of a Harris victory to give the Democrats cover when they "find" enough ballots to put her over the top.

No, I still don't believe them. What was the question asked of the experts? "Is this plausibly a child wounded by a bullet", or "Is this plausibly a child shot at close range with an assault rifle"? I have already said that I thought the photo I linked was a child hit with a nearly-spent bullet; that does not fit the narrative of this opinion piece.

Doesn't really matter, though. Any of those rounds fired from point blank range or really any range at which you can see the target without optics, or indeed any reasonable sniper range even with optics, is going to do a lot more damage to the head than shown in those X-rays. Nobody's sniping children from a mile away.

I do wonder if there's an exploitable tax loophole here - no direct payments for me, thanks, I'll just take the money as a loan with no required payments until June of 2250.

The IRS has been wise to that sort of thing for a long time and will classify such "loans" as income. If they're not coming from the government of course.

It was a common mode of speculation so far back as high school as to whether smoking a lot of pot made you stupid, or whether the stoners were dumb to begin with.

A 7.62x51 or .50 BMG at close range doing that little damage is even LESS likely than a 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO doing it, of course. But if I'm doing my measuring correctly, if that bullet is a .50BMG with 13mm diameter, the head has a front-to-back size of 266mm, which is too big (99th percentile for men is is 217mm) If it's 7.8mm (7.62mm nominal), it's 159mm; too small for an adult, and we don't know the age of the victim. But of course this is an X-ray and sizes can be distorted.