@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

I don't follow. Ponzi and Madoff had a clear plan: take a bunch of peoples' money, then don't deliver what you promised, and keep the money.

Well, why didn't they take it, and fly to a country with no extradition treaty then?

You can take Elizabeth Holmes as another example, though I don't think the comparison is fair, since Musk delivers something tangible, but this would be my guess to what's happening with investor money. Generate hype, get money, use it to make something to generate more hype, repeat.

You might be recalling this story:

Nah, it was something else. I'll have to look for it.

It's a market, so "overcharging" is charging more than agreed upon, or using unfair leverage to charge higher than the market clearing price.

Ok, hold up. I don't care whether formally that fits the definition of overcharging, I'm saying that if he's getting the governments to pay him 3x the price tag that he's advertising to everyone else, then that cheaper price tag is arguably fake, and governments are subsidizing it.

That one in particular was blessed with a non-HOA property. If you ended up in one, you're out of luck.

McDonalds had third degree burns on her face... apparently McDonald's standard coffee machine at the time kept the coffee signifigantly hotter than any other institution would ever serve you... and what in any other restaurant would be like 86-87 degrees, was 98-99 degree when handed to you

That's not how I remember it. My recollection is that they were serving bog standard coffee, and the lawsuit resulted in everyone else dropping the temperatures to avoid being sued as well.

And as far ask I'm concerned her third degree burns are irrelevant. If you don't know how to handle boiling water, you should not be recognized as a legal adult.

Nope. For example Scott routinely reframed criticisms against his arguments, with criticisms against taking out a study out of the analysis. It's pretty clear what Alexandria was saying, and that Scott's description of it doesn't match.

In addition to what @RococoBasilica said, as well as the related fact that immigrants might be low-income but might or might not have cultural attributes associated with poverty

What RoccoBasilica said is basically the standard conservative argument on culture, not "the cycle of poverty", which as far as I know it relied more on material conditions.

historically immigrants have tended to settle in areas of the country in which poor people in general seem to have had higher level of social mobility.

So? There's nothing stopping people from moving to these areas?

It was before the convergence of power of the ruling elites on the media landscape, and before the awokening. If you tried pulling it off back then, it would be seen as some clunky neocon plot.

Give it a few years...

Ok, I think the conversation went a bit off track.

The original question was why would it be risky for the US to blow it up? My opinion is Biden could basically call Scholz and say "I hope none of your folks are working on these pipelines of yours, because we're blowing them up tomorrow".

If the Germans know who did it, even if they are explicitly told (but off record), what can they do about it?

By the way, what do you make of the theory that it could be the Germans themselves? Turning the pipeline back on would be the obvious demand of any winter-time protestors, and now they can say "gosh darn it, we'd love to, but someone blew both of them up!"

I do love watching the shift from "the US would never do that, it's too risky, it was probably literally anybody else" to "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" in real time.

Partisan politics? You insult me.

You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.

I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.

Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.

In case it isn't obvious, I did literally just say that both men and women should have obligations to the larger group they belong to, and only imposing obligations on one side is, indeed, a raw deal. I'm not seeing how that implies men's ownership of women, though.

I have always and forever been in favor of just dropping the voting system. Once, because I also find the kind of behavior you're describing lame, I even proposed an auto-banning system for voting the wrong way.

and there isn't a single nuclear power plant generating power at a profit without substantial government assistance anywhere in the world.

Aside from the question of how long that state would persist if we run out of alternatives, there's also the question of "so what?". Let's imagine that the government will have to subsidize energy production until the end of time, how is that not sustainable?

EDIT: Apparently the new speaker believes both, so, heh, touché.

Strong evidence for "Republicans are deliberately throwing the election" theory, isn't it?

Either already canceled and a part of the "far right", or " safe edgy".

It’s not about a little bit of land in the northeast of Ukraine. It’s the entire country.

I thought they wanted half, and that they periodically send messages through unofficial channels that they'd be ok with NATO rolling into the other half?

If you were being sarcastic in the last comment, that's a bit of a no-no around these parts.

Also, my country was pretty damn non-secular even in the midst of communism, even when I was alive, so try again.

Afghanistan is a barely functional tribal warzone with a life expectancy a decade lower than the US.

Above replacement fertility beats life expectancy any day of the week.

Yeah, I meant fight out the argument about hunting dogs.

Have I been hallucinating the Space Shuttle all this time?

The rocket is ok, but I'm not sure I try their accounting. There was a leaked email from Elon about how they have to get Starship to orbit if they're to make any money, and I don't see that happening. Generally with Elon, there's a whole lot of hype, and not a whole lot of substance, so if the investor money dries up, his entire empire might come crashing down.

But I hope I'm wrong!

Because even with all the issues, they're better than the alternative!

*Shrug*

I don't know what's going on inside your head any more than you know how you come off to others. I freely admit my memory isn't the best, maybe yours is better and you can maintain neutrality when discussing yourself, but it's only natural for people to be biased in their own favor, so absent evidence to the contrary I'd bet that whole bit about selective memory applies just the same to you.

but those false beliefs were the expert consensus of their day and applied literally everywhere.

I honestly doubt that. The idea that bilingualism is somehow bad could be seen in the wild until pretty recently, but in my experience was limited to the Anglos, and might even have been mostly an American thing. Maintaining it requires a huge amount of anti-curiosity, and blindness to other parts of the world.

Experts hold false beliefs for non-malicious reasons all the time, eg face masks stop Covid.

Sure, once an idea gets rolled out from the top, it tends to get repeated in good faith by the lower strata of society. It seems that this is how Anglos have always done it.