faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
No bio...
User ID: 884
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
22hr ago
Yes. I will die on this hill.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
22hr ago
Good writing is writing where the author has a clear purpose in writing, and makes sure that every word they write contributes to that purpose, and that the writing as a whole fulfills that purpose. Concrete examples:
Technical Specifications
Technical specifications SHALL transfer interconnected technical concepts from author to reader effectively. Authors MUST choose precise terminology to minimize ambiguity. Authors MUST NOT use inconsistent terminology for the same concept. Authors SHOULD use plain language where specialized terms aren't necessary. The effectiveness of technical specifications MUST be measured by reader comprehension and ability to implement the specified requirements.
Literary Writing
Literary writing unveils truth through disciplined craft. Each sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words. Language crafted with intention builds worlds in minds, connecting through shared experience. Good prose moves with the rhythm of breath; sometimes shallow with anticipation, sometimes deep with revelation. It respects the reader while guiding them through labyrinths where reality and imagination blur into something truer than either alone. What remains unsaid matters as much as what appears on the page.
Academic Writing
Academic writing employs a formal tone with third-person perspective and precise terminology focused on research problems (University of Southern California, 2024). This specialized communicative practice conveys complex ideas within scholarly communities through evidence-based argumentation rather than personal opinion (Walden University, 2024). Scholarly writing requires proper citation of sources following consistent formatting conventions, demonstrating engagement with broader literature while establishing credibility (Scribbr, 2024). Effective academic writing spans descriptive, analytical, persuasive, and critical purposes, requiring writers to consider multiple perspectives while developing coherent arguments supported by appropriate evidence (University of Sydney, 2024).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
23hr ago
ADA is pretty closely aligned with the literal meaning of the words "equity" and "inclusion".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
53% of the people in this survey said that their employer-mandated DEI trainings were "very helpful" or "somewhat helpful". That's the baseline against which all numbers in this survey should be judged.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
For reference, from the link, the questions were
- Overall, how do you think each of the following affects people’s ability to be successful where you work (Being white / Being black / Being hispanic / Being asian / Being a man / Being a woman): (Makes it a lot easier to be successful / Makes it a little easier to be successful / Makes it neither easier nor harder to be successful / Makes it a little harder to be successful / Makes it a lot harder to be successful / Not sure / No answer)
- In general, do you think that focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly… (A good thing / A bad thing / Neither good nor bad)
- When it comes to how much attention your company or organization pays to increasing diversity, equity and inclusion, would you say your company or organization pays… (Too much attention / Too little attention / About the right amount of attention / Not sure)
- Regardless of how diverse the place where you work is, how important is it to YOU PERSONALLY to work at a place that… (Has about an equal mix of men and women / Has a mix of employees of different race and ethnicities / Has a mix of employees of different ages / Has a mix of employees of different sexual orientations): (Extremely important / Very important / Somewhat important / Not too important / Not at all important / No answer)
- Regardless of how accessible the place where you work is, how important is it to you personally to work at a place that is accessible for people with physical disabilities? (Extremely important / Very important / Somewhat important / Not too important / Not at all important / No answer)
- How well do each of the following describe the place where you currently work (Has about an equal mix of men and women / Has a mix of employees of different race and ethnicities / Has a mix of employees of different ages / Has a mix of employees of different sexual orientations): (Extremely well / Very well / Somewhat well / Not too well / Not at all well / Not sure / No answer)
- How accessible is the place where you work for people with physical disabilities? (Extremely accessible / Very accessible / Somewhat accessible / Not too accessible / Not at all accessible / Not sure)
- As far as you know, does the company or organization you work for have any of the following (A staff member whose main job is to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Trainings or meetings on diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Policies to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions / Groups created by employees based on shared identities or interests / A way for employees to see the salary range for all positions): (Yes / No / Not sure)
- What type of impact do you think having each of the following has had where you work (A staff member whose main job is to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Trainings or meetings on diversity, equity and inclusion at work / Policies to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in hiring, pay or promotions / Groups created by employees based on shared identities or interests / A way for employees to see the salary range for all positions): (Very positive / Somewhat positive / Neither positive nor negative / Somewhat negative / Very negative)
- Are you personally a member of an employee affinity group or Employee Resource Group (ERG) – that is, a group created by employees, based on their shared identities or interests such as gender, race, or being a parent?
- In the past year, have you participated in any trainings on diversity, equity or inclusion at work?
- Overall, would you say the diversity, equity or inclusion trainings you have participated in at work have been… (Very helpful / Somewhat helpful / Neither helpful nor unhelpful / Somewhat unhelpful / Very unhelpful)
Who are these 53% of people who think that their mandatory DEI trainings through their employer are helpful? That result makes me pretty doubtful of the results of this survey as a whole.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
Since the purpose of the plane flight is to remove the mother's custody of the child, after she (reportedly) indicated to the US government she wanted to retain custody
Then the mother will probably not sign a notarized consent letter, yes.
My point was that if both parents decided they wanted the kid to grow up in the US with the SIL that is still something they could arrange. Emphasis on the word "if".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
The SIL's job in this case is "accompany the kid on the plane ride from mom to dad after both of them write consent letters and get them notarized". As long as both parents do that I expect the airline will be fine with it, and once the kid lands in the US she can't be denied entry into the US.
I don't expect the mom to agree to that, to be clear.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
It sounds like the SIL is legally in the united states. With notarized parental consent letters on both sides and the 2 year old's passport I'd be surprised if there was any major issue in having the SIL pick up the kid and bring her back to the US to dad.
I doubt the notarized consent would be easy to get from mom, but that's because this sounds to me like a custody battle.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Is the burden of proof not on the plaintiff? I thought it was almost always intrinsically harder to prosecute a patent case than to defend
It is fairly hard to prosecute a patent case and win if the defendant fights you. But if the defendant doesn't defend themselves pretty easy to win, it's a civil case so the standard is preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt (disclaimer: ianal).
Of course, kick-backs of any sort would have to be heavily regulated and harshly punished.
Why don't we start with getting this proposal implemented robustly since it seems to be a hard prerequisite, and see where we end up at that point?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Yeah. Patent trolls acquire portfolios of vague patents, and then mass-file suits against companies that might plausibly be argued to be infringing those patents, in the hopes that the company settles to make them go away. Filing is cheap for the plaintiff (patent troll).
If the defendant (the company accuded of infringement) fights the case, they have to spend a ton of money on expert witnesses, discovery, etc.
Under this proposal, the defendant would, in addition to the usual expenses, also have to contribute to the patent troll's war chest.
If the patent troll and the legal firm representing them, you could end up with the following situation
- Patent troll cheaply files hard-to-defend suit, contributes $500 to defendant's legal fund
- Defendant decides to fight case, spends $100,000 on expert witnesses and discovery, then contributes $99,500 to plaintiff's legal fund
- Plaintiff spends $99,500 on the firm they hired to drag the case out as much as possible and otherwise do whatever they want at astronomical rates
- Plaintiff loses their meritless case
- Situation is
- Plaintiff has lost $1,000 ($500 on filing fees, $500 on defendant'slegal fund)
- Defendant has lost $199,000 ($100,000 on expenses, $99,500 on plaintiff's defense fund, minus the $500 received from plaintiff)
- Plaintiff's legal team has made $99,500 doing a few hours of easy work
- Plaintiff's legal firm kicks back $50,000 to plaintiff under the table.
The plaintiff gains $50,000 every time they file and lose a case in this system.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
I can't take claims that the Trump admin is trying to decrease the population of illegal immigrants in the US seriously in the absence of any attempts to expand the scope of e-verify.
But focusing on employers through an already-existing program wouldn't let Trump grandstand and vice signal.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Can the father or SIL not go pick the 2 year old up from Honduras at a later date if that's what the mother and father decide they want to do? The 2 year old has citizenship - while an unnecessary flight to Honduras with a 2 year old is obnoxious it's not exactly an irreparable harm - there are flights from Honduras to the US every day of the week, and I'm sure a gofundme could finance a few hundred dollars of plane tickets given this level of publicity.
Of course, ICE trying to interfere with the mother's ability to contact legal counsel is, if true, super concerning.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Supposing this rule magically came to be, would this actually solve the issue and are there any major flaws/unintended consequences I've overlooked?
If you get sued, does this rule still apply? In other words, does the defendant have to supply money to the plaintiff's legal fund? Because if so I think patent trolls get 100x worse with this proposal.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Alcohol makes the deliberate thinky bits stop working as well, so the behaviors exhibited by drunk people are less likely to be part of complex and deliberate social maneuvering. Behaving desirably while drunk is a costly signal of actually being desirable and not faking it.
Saying this in so many words is discouraged unless you dress it up in euphemisms like "lowered inhibitions".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Yeah but you're not a Trump fan and the people who are Trump fans have different standards for disgrace. Else they wouldn't be Trump fans.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Do you think we should attach immigration enforcement to the census? Why or why not?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Is the economy that central to the American nation?
Yes.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
Considering how often Trump refers to "sleepy Joe Biden" I'm pretty sure he remembers.
If you want to criticize Trump there is no shortage of true things you can say.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
If you want to hit politicians for pushing things that are obviously not true then you can throw in the entire left and their belief in intersectional social justice.
Now you're just threatening me with a good time. Can we also hit the politicians who pushed rent control, CAFE standards, absurd occupational licensing requirements, etc while we're there?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2d ago
[epistemic status: shitpost]
Based on my observations it's pretty easy to argue with success.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
3d ago
Although maybe the judge is aware that it's not her job, and chose to do it anyway as deliberate civil disobedience. If her goal was to get the issue into the public eye, she certainly succeeded. And as a judge, she's probably both more aware of the consequences of deliberately breaking the law here and also relatively well-positioned to deal with those consequences.
From the same interview
Well let’s talk about the tariffs. You want companies to build and make goods here in America.
Not in all cases. There are some products I really don't want to make here.
Like t-shirts?
I can’t–I can give you a list because I actually have a list, but if you want, I could give it to you.
Why does he sound surprised that he has a list of the products he is and isn't trying to encourage domestic production of?
(To be clear I don't think this is evidence of dementia, I think it's evidence that Trump's policy positions are not chosen on the basis of being likely to achieve specific economic/diplomatic/etc goals)
I would want to have some concreteness on exactly what we're betting on here (e.g. obviously the EO didn't make Griggs completely irrelevant forever, obviously the strong form of affirmative action in college admissions was already on its way out).
But yeah if we can operationalize this and still disagree on expected outcomes vs just disagreeing on what it concretely means for disparate impact policies to be neutered I am up for a charity bet.
Dollar amount of disparate impact settlements in the first 4 years of next dem admin, inflation adjusted to 2018 dollars? Though that is a super noisy signal.
I'll be fine, my truck is 4 wheel drive.
More options
Context Copy link