@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

People would rather spend time attending a safety seminar or working than reduce their lifespan and spend an equal amount of time being dead

I'll trade safety seminars 1:1 for shortened lifespan any day of the week.

A flash of light and a loud bang followed by my phone announcing a thunderstorm warning happens at least several times a summer. Yeah, and no shit...

Is that a zone that historically floods?

It's part of an area called "Flash Flood Alley". So I think your most relevant question is

If it was reasonably foreseeable what was the plan to mitigate this risk and why did it fail?

Even with no statute of limitations, children of the denaturalized person wouldn't be affected.

I think there would be no warning until some very important Israeli infrastructure just all of a sudden disappears.

Useless to Iran, because Israel and the US will know damn well who provided the bomb. I don't know what happens if a country starts a nuclear war, but the other nuclear powers of the world going "Oooh, aren't you tough, we'll just give you whatever you want" is not going to be on the table.

The point is to nullify the strategic advantage Israel has because it has enough bombs to check Iran (and outside US intervention is the only reason they haven't been conquered yet)

Israel's nukes aren't really doing much with respect to Iran. Because Israel can't start a nuclear war without the shit hitting the fan any more than Iran can, they can only be used in a retaliatory manner. And there's no need for that, because Israel is conventionally strong enough to defeat all comers. (Whether you think that's because of the US or not)

Useful climate science looks like trying to make specific predictions about specific areas on a specific time scale in the context of an extant model, so that human infrastructure can anticipate and adapt to disruptions to established patterns.

That would only be useful if the models were accurate enough to make such specific predictions accurately.

There are people who have called Elon Musk, who is much pastier in skin color an African American before!

Yes, it's a common joke. But everyone knows it's a joke, and Musk didn't fill out any official forms claiming to be African American, at least not that anyone knows.

If every other category we use for ethnicity and race is fuzzy and ambiguous, how is that not relevant?

Because the existence of ambiguities at the edges of categories does not mean there aren't unambiguous cases. Especially ambiguities in DIFFERENT categories.

This argument still doesn't address the elephant in the room, it is patently obvious that the term "African American" for darker skinned people doesn't make sense when a light skinned person whose family has lived for generations in Africa and practices local traditions does not count when they move to the US but a dark skin person whose family has lived in France for generations and has no African cultural identity does.

There's no elephant. Mere darkness of the skin is not sufficient. Culture has relevance to Hispanic ethnicity, but not the racial categories. And Mamdani's family hasn't lived for generations in Africa; both his parents were born in India, and his mother grew up in India.

Because the conclusions of any given paper are the same "Climate change is worse than we thought in some new way, it's caused more by human activity than we thought, we're all going to die even sooner than we thought, and if there's any chance to avert catastrophe it's in turning over control of all energy usage to boards of people like me who will be stewards for the common good." If this is true, we've already heard and we don't need any more. If it's false, it's even more useless.

Throwing up a lot of words as a smokescreen doesn't change that Mamdani's claim was well out-of-bounds. The category "Black or African-American" isn't nearly as ambiguous as "Hispanic", and neither extends to people of Indian ethnicity born in Africa. Historical changes in the meaning of the term "white" don't matter either, because none of them would make a person of Indian ethnicity born in Africa "Black or African-American" either.

The cuts to science funding seem likely to do major damage to American R&D, cause a mass exodus of skilled workers to Europe, and give China the opportunity to get even farther ahead of us in key fields such as battery development.

The damage was done. The science funding was being used for woke first, climate alarmism second, and any useful science well after that. Politico did an article on the "scientific refugees" moving to France; those identified included only a climate historian, a climate scientist and his wife "who studies the intersection of judicial systems and democracies".

This is missing some steps. There are plenty of government rules, which, on their face, are not enforced through violence and kidnapping. In many of those cases, you have to posit a persistently-oppositional figure and a continued escalatory cycle to get to an eventual end state where the ultimate response to unending opposition is, indeed, violence/kidnapping.

It's the same picture. The government won't give up until it has won.

The category "African-American" is neither limited to American Descendants of Slavery nor does it include Elon Musk. The Census definition is "A person having origins in any of the Black [sic] racial groups of Africa."

So it's pretty clear that neither Mamdani nor Musk is "African-American", but Obama (regardless of whether there's really a slave in the family on the white side) is.

Yes, there are negative consequences of such limitations. Of course, if that Hezbollah cell does anything, the citizen can still go through the criminal process for it as a citizen. The alternative is that 40 years post-naturalization you've got people poring through old records looking for a lie big enough to denaturalize someone.

And note it is longer than 3 years -- it take 3 years to become a citizen from getting a green card, if you're married to a citizen, and 5 years otherwise.

If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.

Israel is obviously not going to agree to that. If Iran provides Hamas a bomb, Hamas will use it; Hamas does not have the self control to merely threaten for long, nor the ability to hide it for long (which means "use it or lose it" makes sense), regardless of what Israel does (aside from cease to exist). If Iran threatens to provide Hamas a bomb, that's the same as Iran threatening to nuke Israel; the presence of Hamas changes nothing.

They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.

Little nukes like that don't change much unless they can get them into the Knesset. (And the settlers are irrelevant; every Israeli could fuck back off behind the Green Line and the Palestinians would still demand the river to the sea)

Right. No one's willing to make or defend the counter proposal of "You get nothing this time and furthermore we've decided we're taking away what you got last time", so it can only move in one direction.

I don't think it was done to the Nazis qua being a Nazi, it was done because they materially lied about it during naturalization.

Yes, but if they'd admitted to being a Nazi, they wouldn't have been naturalized. The proposed Hamasnik deportations are for the same reason.

Saying otherwise is invited gaming an already extremely gameable immigration system with the idea that if you perpetuate a fraud, tough luck it's just done.

My preferred solution would be a statute of limitations; maybe 3 years for ordinary stuff, 7 years for really bad stuff.

But on the topic of patriotism: In so far as each citizen is a cell of the body civic - patriotism is a must-have.

"In so far". But citizens are not cells of the body civic in American political philosophy. That's a characteristic of more communitarian/corporatist philosophies such as Fascism.

There's a lot of hype and bluster but it doesn't appear different in kind than the sort of omnibus bills that have become common. Section 174 is the big win. The SALT deduction cap is a lot of sound and fury signifying little; some house-poors in California and NY/NJ will benefit, but most of those who would benefit from a higher cap will have incomes too high to take advantage of that. I think it ended up being a $40,000 cap up to $500,000 in income, phasing back to $10,000 by $600,000, but the numbers changed a lot and that may not be the final. Reducing the clean energy stuff is all good; getting Tesla (or Tesla buyers, depending on incidence) off the tit is good, cutting off the various scammers is even better.

but also singularly terrified of the massive increase to the ICE budget... It definitely looks like trump is making a military force loyal to him personally because he doesn't trust the loyalty of the existing forces.

This is just TDS, I'm afraid. ICE is not personally loyal to Trump, and getting more money in a budget will not make them so. If they are loyal to Trump as President and other existing forces are not (perhaps having been captured in the march through the institutions), then that's a bad situation and increasing their budget is probably a good thing.

I didn't like denaturalization well-after-the-fact when they were doing it to superannuated Nazis. Now that they're threatening to do it to Hamasniks (and not nearly as far after the fact!) my attitude is that the precedent is established and now the people and organizations who supported it before ought to suck it up. On a meta level, the reasons for not establishing bad precedent in the first place don't hold if you can ensure said precedents are only used against your enemies, so using such bad precedents against those who supported them is the correct moves for opponents of those supporters.

Same here. Do you know why the reorgs happen so often? It's exhausting.

I think it's largely manueverings associated with the corporate game-of-thrones.

Doesn't resurrection entail a new body being created? The old one seems pretty irrelevant.

Giving up on telling the dumb kids they can be doctors is probably a moral good but I'm not sure it opens up efficiency gains?

If we're spending a fortune, futilely, to bring up the low end and we stop doing that with no change in results, that's an efficiency gain.

Should Washington state consider revoking other privileged positions? Why should spouse, lawyer and doctor be exempt?

The question for the state is always "why should anyone be exempt"; the state, representing society and thus being morally paramount, surely has a compelling interest in preventing crimes that overrides any mere personal bonds. The limits of this are whether priests, doctors, spouses, and lawyers will spill rather than be held in contempt, and whether the state has the capacity to hold them until they spill. With ever-increasing state capacity, doctor-patient privilege has pretty much been nuked in criminal matters; doctors have gone from privileged to mandatory-report, and of course their own ethics boards cheered along with this. Spousal privilege can in practice be broken when children are involved; the state can move to take the children away and promise to stop if the silent spouse testifies. Lawyer privilege has held better, because lawyers are in a better position to defend it, making up a large part of the system as they do.

Priest privilege has mostly held because Catholic priests are really stubborn about it, as in not-yielding-under-torture stubborn. But with the decline of religion, they may well lose enough public support that routinely tossing old Father McGee in jail forever because he won't testify against Chester the Molestor will be fine, and eventually they'll yield too.

Israel would not need to nuke Gaza to engage in successful total warfare. Nor would they want to; it's too damned close and anyway an Israel willing to make such total war would want Gaza's land for itself (or at least to lease to Trump for his resort)

(And that story itself is basically just a modernization of Cain's justification for killing Abel.)

To give the traditionalists their due, Cain WAS the bad guy in that story.