@eudemonist's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 15:39:18 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 610



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 15:39:18 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 610

Verified Email

Interesting take. Nonetheless, we should acknowledge that the letter of the law prohibits implied insults, does it not? One such insult is illustrated, but it seems obvious there are innumerable forms such an insult could take. So we are left with two propositions: either the clause applies to all such implications, or it applies specifically and only to compliments given directly to an individual directly and exempts other forms of breach not specifically mentioned. The latter would support your premise of "secretly evil", I suppose, but it makes me wonder why outlaw backhanded compliments in one specific use case, and not outlaw, for example, complimenting the horse fatty rides riding for its perseverance? Is it that complimenting the mount is less obvious somehow? I think not. Thus I'm forced to believe implied insults, of whatever form, are prohibited by the letter of the law.

Although the question of the spirit of the law seems moot, given the explicit callouts in the text, I'm curious if there are other laws which you believe have a spirit diametrically opposed to their text? If we want people to stop at a given intersection, should we install Yield signs, or no signs? I don't quite understand how this works.

Wow. That's a heck of a story, bud. Thank you for sharing.

Generally don't smoke leaves, mate. The good stuff concentrates in the flowering portion, the female sex organs specifically.

I think it's important to make a distinction between "supplying information (especially when clearly lacking)" and "opining on a course of action". The difficulty is often in evaluating what information others do and don't have, as repeating already-known information borders on emphasizing it and thus suggesting a course of action.

No law is perfect to the letter. The spirit of the rules would certainly prohibit backhanded insinuations via second helpings just as it prevents backhanded compliments--in fact I'd argue that clause does cover such a situation in letter, but that is debatable. Nonetheless, calling someone fat isn't okay just because you don't use the word fat.

This is well put.

It seems like most of the responses you've gotten are questioning the severity of the events rather than occurrence, which seems to be "non-news" to most. Maybe it's just understood they're cheaty mfers and just don't put such a fine point on it?

Increased ethnic diversity is ruinous for popular support of redistributive social programs

I really think the key here is cultural diversity rather than racial/ethnic (though of course the two correlate strongly).

If we imagine Protestants and Catholics, or assistance going to the Irish or Italians (yes, different ethnicity, but still pretty white), or French and Spaniards, or squares and potheads, or broad-brush USA history and "approved work ethic" Jesús-loving Asians, I think only the last group is gonna get the government cheese.

For a partial example, you can look at the Texas electrical grid...

I live just outside Houston, so I don't need to look very far. Unfortunately the Valentine Vortex would absolutely pale in comparison, I'm afraid.

Much overlooked in the interconnect and renewables conversation is the systemic nature of certain failure modes of solar, I feel like. Much like the 2008 financial crisis, where the odds of one mortgage failing were slim, but if it happened no big deal, one wind or solar farm underproducing or going offline is no big deal--but each one that is offline increases the chances of another being offline. If, say, all the solar in Texas suddenly has difficulty producing, it's highly likely that whatever the cause is stretches beyond Texas borders, be it weather pattern disturbances or atmospheric conditions or whatever, which sets up catastrophic and cascading failures. Interconnection advocates discussing the VV often gloss over the fact that neighbor grids didn't have power to spare either.

"Price tag attacks" seem to be a similar herring:

Such vandalism also embraces damaging the property, or injuring members of the Israel Police and the Israel Defense Forces....

The "price tag" concept and violence have been publicly rejected by Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,[21][22] who have demanded that those responsible be brought to justice.

The settler leadership have "fiercely condemned" the price tag policy,[27] and the vast majority of Yesha rabbis have expressed their reservations about it.[28] According to Shin Bet, the vast majority of the settlers also reject such actions.

estimates of the extent of the perpetrator group vary: one figure calculates that from several hundred to about 3,000 people implement the price tag policy,[15] while a recent analysis sets the figure at a few dozen individuals, organized in small close-knit and well-organised cells[16] and backed by a few hundred right-wing activists.

I'm curious about the effects of a 536-like event once 40% of the world's energy production is solar.

It actually pertains to restricting the zoning ability of municipalities: the impetus is that Bob the Farmer, who's been in the country his whole life, has suburbs expanding around him, and all the dang suburbanites want to rezone his place so he can't keep a chicken coop.

My revelatory moment about God-as-reality came while thinking through the implications of the Trinity and the multi-omni-ness of God

SAME. More specifically, it was the realization that the term in the original text, Elohim, is plural.

therefore causal sequence must either be a creation or an inseparable attribute of God

Nail on head.

Okay, not missing one then. I suppose I just don't know Hobbes well enough to understand what hole in the discourse you're referring to.

Beg pardon? I'm missing a reference I believe.

Doin' a fkn bang-up job, yo. Thank you.

Sure, and many of the early Levittown suburbs were built this way, effectively on a production line. Why did we stop doing it?

We didn't, really. We upgraded a bit to where there are a handful of floor plans and some modularity, but the vast majority of new developments are cookie-cutter repetitions of their neighbors, pre-cut and packaged, to be assembled simply.

Is there any reason to think one of the numbers is more accurate than the other?

Absolutely! They can't both be accurate, and the odds of them being equally inaccurate are small, s it seems likely one is more accurate than the other.

Which is which, now, that's a toughie.

Industrialization of marijuana production has resulted in steroid-bulked flowers that bear little resemblance to pot, which are subsequently relieved of much of what THC they do sprout before being shipped.

I used to smoke a LOT more than I do now, and so had a much higher tolerance, but killer buds would take maybe three hits and be wrecked. Now we pass around blunts of what looks like it should be as good or better--but it ain't.

Despite being so theoretically awesome, stuff usually doesn't even leave my fingers sticky these days. Hell, my roaches fall apart because they're so not-sticky, even after burning through 'em. They ain't s'posta do that.

Music fest is a good choice.

Sand and salt water.

Morning sun on fresh powder.

Let's keep in mind the context here--the examples given of rightist/right wing policies are tough-on-crime things like Three Strikes. Whether that's "right wing government" or not is not really relevant: it's a less-progressive stance than the alternative at the time.

At bars/restaurants, a driver comes around once a week and restocks as necessary, entering the data on a handheld. So granular to weekly at the distributor level.

Most likely, sales data is sampled from a selection of retailers almost real-time and statisticified by paid analysts.

I tried that fest and got a 49, pretty well below the bar. I got some points for not using a lot of movie or television quotes in my daily conversation, which I found odd. An online test at Clinical Partners was also pretty sure I'm not autistic. I wonder if it's simply my online persona: I do tend to care about details.

To me, though, details matter: in this case, the detail that

1, Yes, plenty of people claimed it was a tax from the get-go, and

B. Democrats swore up one wall and down the other it wasn't, and the President, ridiculed people for "making up words", then when shown the word in the dictionary ridiculed more instead of addressing the argument.

It was signature, huge legislation passed while wilfully deceiving the American public. I don't see it as an "autistic" or irrelevant detail at all.

the "it's a tax" argument was widely regarded as pretextual at best.

Again I'm gonna have to differ here, and I think the Stephanopoulos interview bears me out. George brought out a dictionary and Obama handwaved away the meaning of "tax", for gosh sake.

was up to my eyeballs in debates (mostly with other lawyers) about this issue at the time and I just never encountered a serious and well-developed claim that the question turned on "it's a tax."

What question, precisely? "Can Congress make people pay this" or "Is a penalty for inaction constitutional"? Because, if it's the latter, your lawyer friends missed the forest for the trees, I'd say.

this is all a weirdly autistic tangent

You know, I seem to be called/implied to be autistic fairly frequently online. Maybe I should get checked or something. Is there a test? To me, if it was important enough for you to use as a point in your post, it's important enough to warrant accuracy, or further exploration if needed. If we retcon the shit out of history, we can't learn much from it.

Would you agree it's an arrangement or agreement or deal between parties? What would you call it?