@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

Clinton wasn't prosecuted because if they'd brought a case they would have lost. Comey wanted to charge her. He just couldn't put a case together because her lawyers were good at their jobs.

Well, that and no DC jury would ever convict her on those charges no matter what the evidence.

And Comey wanting to charge seems...speculative at best. If so, why not put it to a jury, even if the odds were low? Why not invent a novel legal theory that could be tried out? No, I think he thought it wouldn't be prudent, would make too many powerful enemies, would hurt the Agency. I don't believe the law had much, if anything, to do with it.

Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?

Easy - you do so in a way that disadvantages yourself voluntarily. If your counterparty continues to defect anyway, you take an L, but that's really the only way to break the cycle. I actually thought the Trump administration coming to power and then legally completely laying off both Hillary and everyone else in the previous administration was a significant de-escalation, given this represented a substantial political climbdown from the election. For better or worse, it wasn't reciprocated.

Well, famously Hillary was never charged and so had nothing to fear.

Worked up enough to…what? Evade taxes? Take potshots at the local Democrats? Fedpost?

LOL, nice try.

Most of these problems seem to be unrelated to the extent to which a city is walkable.

I strongly disagree! People won't want to walk or take mass transit if they feel much more likely to be victimized in doing so. This creates a spiral, where the most walking-friendly destinations and infrastructure end up neglected, making them even less attractive, and people who want to drive end up going elsewhere.

Were cities already plagued by the same issues after WW2, when the exodus to car-dependent suburbs began, and is that why people started to leave?

Yes. People began moving to suburbs almost as soon as they could get cars. Even before, with the "streetcar suburbs" proliferating in the 1920's. Then rising crime and unrest, and safety-hostile urban policies like blockbusting and forced school integration caused mass flight right when the new interstates made it convenient to do so. But notably this happened in the sixties when the boomers were still children or young adults. The highway builders and urban renewists were mostly members of the Greatest Generation. The Boomers just inherited their world, and actually put a lot of effort into fixing the bigger mistakes, leading to an urban renaissance in the 90's, at which point they seemed to have declared victory and turned their attention inward.

I agree. However, it is a large capital investment, so once you make the plunge to buy one, it makes sense to use it whenever it would be marginally advantageous to do so.

Perhaps. And many such suburbs were annexed by the city anyways. Point is that the strong impulse to live near the city but not in it predates cars. It was not cars that created the impulse to move to suburbs, or was the desire to move to suburbs that caused people to demand cars.

Homicides are usually recorded and so serve as a good proxy for wider violent crime rates, and homicide rates are much higher in the US.

That doesn't really follow. A subset of something being more easily tracked does not necessarily mean it is a good proxy for the wider set. Sometimes the opposite, a.k.a. the streetlight effect.

Have you never grilled out and drank beer with friends on a nice green lawn?

To sum it up, the only real question is... Why are they like this? Who hurt them?

The answer is bums, hobos, panhandlers, psychos, perverts, buskers, criminals, litterers, and generally obnoxious people, and the leaders that do nothing effective to stop them from shitting the commons.

I do find it curious that more and more, forms that choose you to identify yourself provide many genders to choose from, but when it comes to who you want to date, the only choices are "men" or "women". No "ciswoman" option to select.

From the Stoic perspective, it is an opportunity to undertake a discomfort, for the purpose of greater appreciation for the seats you occasion to enjoy. In this sense, being able to go without is a privilege that wards off ingratitude and unhappiness.

I'd be happy eliminating all those marriage benefits and instead granting them in even greater quantity to couples raising children.

No, that's wrong. In urban areas, the streets mostly cross under or over the highway, nobody is physically unable to cross them.

What was unfortunately done was to often raze the poorer but socially cohesive ethnic enclaves to clear the land that the highways would need. At the time it was thought this a moral good: urban renewal would drive integration by breaking up enclaves and forcing people to mix. In reality, people realized they didn't actually need to live in the city any more, and those who could, fucked off.

They don't, however, have the right to win, obviously.

I think some good-sized portion of LGBT activists think they do have a right to win, actually - their rights are human rights, after all - and have shown a willingness to use extraordinary means to do so. Your "attempting to influence the perception" generalization covers a lot of activity - lying, gaslighting, intimidation, harassment, insubordination - that I would not agree is perfectly legitimate.

Not necessarily. The Court took pains to explicitly disallow the use of racial stereotyping. I take this to mean they can't assign points for being the same race as other people who experienced hardship and bigotry, but they could assign points if you, personally, experienced hardship and bigotry.

Microsoft demonstrated the same capabilities with Hololens several years ago, so this is not technically groundbreaking. I think Apple will need its usual refinement but also to reduce the cost by about an order of magnitude for this to be a world changing product.

I didn't dispute it was better. Hololens 2 was like 5 years ago. I'm just saying it's not groundbreaking, it's Apple doing what they do, letting groundbreaking technology mature and then refining it.

It is a bigger and bigger stretch as time goes on. If SpaceX were losing money on each commercial flight, you would expect them to minimize the number of those flights and attempt to maximize the number of government flights. Instead, they are turning down almost no commercial partners and have increased launch cadence every year, to the point that they are putting more commercial tons into orbit than everyone else in the world combined, and growing. This would not make sense if it were not profitable for them. You believe they are burning investor capital to do this...why, exactly?

The government overcharge theory doesn't make sense either, because even if they are inflating their bids, they are still beating all competitors and managing to deliver. They could only do this if their costs are unusually low by industry standards. But if that is true, then it is also true that their commercial costs world be lower, so the lower price for those would also be profitable.

The more parsimonious explanation is just that their costs actually are lower, which makes them more profitable at market clearing prices and enables then to discount the market price without losing money.

You believe they are burning investor capital to do this...why, exactly?

The same reason Ponzi or Madoff did?

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. SpaceX is taking investment money, but they are also delivering what they promised, and more. It's hard to see how you stand to gain by actually spending the money you planned to pilfer on providing goods and services to others.

A more plausible theory might be trying to do what Uber or other companies have attempted: burn investment capital long enough to become the near-monopolist in a particular market, then raise prices to achieve massive profits. In some senses, Tesla followed that model to a degree. In the case of SpaceX however, it seems less likely because (a) they haven't actually raised their prices despite capturing the lion's share of the commercial market and (b) most of their competitors are government agencies or government-guaranteed providers who can't be driven out of business this way in any case.

Is that actually true? I think I heard about a case recently where the government didn't even consider alternatives to SpaceX.

Yes. Except in specific circumstances, all government service must be put for bid, so the government is in principle considering any alternative that meets requirements. You might be recalling this story: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/for-most-science-missions-nasa-is-down-to-a-single-launch-provider/ but the news there is not that the government refused to consider alternatives to SpaceX, it's that every other launch provider except for SpaceX decided not to put themselves up for consideration. If there were companies willing and able to beat SpaceX on price, they could have bid on the job. None did.

Also, I'm pretty sure their overcharging is documented in some cases. I think the Starlinks for Ukraine carried 3x their market price.

It's a market, so "overcharging" is charging more than agreed upon, or using unfair leverage to charge higher than the market clearing price. So, the question is, what satellite internet service provider was offering a better price than SpaceX? If the answer is "none" then it's probably not overcharging. You might argue that SpaceX used unfair leverage because of the dire need of the U.S. government to provide Internet service to Ukraine, but I think if you were to conduct a survey, 3*retail is actually a very reasonable price for any defense contractors, because servicing the military comes along with a lot of additional work and responsibilities. It's also why government launch services cost more - the government demands a lot more from the provider than commercial customers usually do.

It's perhaps a product of the fact that for any problem that women in particular face, there's likely a large, well-funded organization or government program dedicated to addressing and minimizing it.

Just so.

Out of all the journalists killed worldwide in 2021, 11% were women, up from 6% in 2020, the UN’s body for “gender equality and women’s empowerment” wrote in a tweet

No amount of makeup and toning is going to make a 55-year-old woman physically attractive to the broad majority of men, much less a 70-year-old woman.

Irrelevant to the OP, which posits that they are still given a much greater degree of deference, empathy, and social support than an equivalent 55 or 70-year-old man. Who is getting sexed up is a different issue altogether.

I lived in Madison and did not like it. It's expensive, full of entitled overeducated people, entitled state politicians, and entitled and officious bureaucrats, it's poorly policed, and they elect actual communists to local government. Outside the University and the Capitol areas it's generic suburban sprawl with little to recommend it other than a few decent parks. North Shore of Milwaukee is also expensive, but I feel you like you get what you pay for at least. The city government is all liberals of course, but they're mostly old, and understand that the point of their existence is to keep big city problems away.

I've also greatly improved waking by buying a couple of color changing LED bulbs for my bedroom lamps, which Alexa is programmed to gradually color shift people to my wakeup time, starting with deep blue and getting increasingly white over about 45 minutes. As a bonus, I can make the light brown in the evening before bed.

I think part of the reason it doesn’t get the fanfare is because it doesn’t create 12 figure networth people. Its a constant costs business versus most building business. Of course if the businesses are not as profitable then the surplus value went to consumers in the form of lower energy costs. Also likely led to America not needing to write giant checks to the Saudis which meant are trade deficit could fund other things and those depend more on price leading to the strong dollar. People working in constant-costs businesses (farming, manufacturing, energy) tend to vote red people working in wide moat with ability to extract economic rents or winner take all markets tend to vote blue.

I think a bigger factor is that this success goes directly against the carbon-reduction platform that is important to much of the Democratic party base. Democrats are not too keen to paint any fossil energy extraction as anything but an economic negative and ate a lot of criticism over things like blocking Keystone XL, even if from time to time they quietly throw their environmentalist base under the bus when it comes to opening federal lands for drilling. But politically, fossil fuels are "bad", and good things can't be caused by bad things, therefore shale oil and gas can not be responsible for positive economic developments. Lucky for them, the press is generally fine with not talking about the double-think taking place because stoking environmental panic is good for their bottom line (and some, I assume, are true believers).

I think the parent is a little off base. It's not ensuring the kids have sufficient income to support their lifestyle. Mommy and daddy could probably support them in upper middle class bobo comfort indefinitely. What is about is ensuring the outside and respect of those people and their positions. To ensure that being a "journalist" accords the level of prestige and unearned influence that being a "reporter" does not. To ensure that being and adjunct or NGO executive confers status and access that being a researcher or business executive does not. That's why Trump's open disrespect for these people and their unearned positions upset them so greatly.