@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

Isn't Leinenkugel available nationwide now? Summer Shandy is far and away their most popular variety.

Why are you skeptical in this case? The inference of intent is a jury finding and basically not reviewable. Are you skeptical that a jury would be unwilling to determine they intended to intimidate?

It's strange, after learning how to read the four-part hymns and practicing how to sight-read the bass lines, I've found that many churches, especially the more progressive ones, don't even use hymnals any more, opting to just print lyric sheets and figuring you'll pick up the tune. Like, that's the main reason I would go in the first place, is to sing some harmony. So strange.

For example, years ago I rented an apartment in what was supposedly a marginally unsafe area. But I never felt unsafe, including walking late at night a couple of blocks from where I had to park to where my apartment was.

But note, your supposed privilege here is entirely based on your own feelings and perception, and not reality, which is that males are many times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than females.

Is a person actually privileged if they only feel privileged because they have been psychologically conditioned to feel privileged? This does lead directly to quality of life enhancements so it's not entirely a theoretical question but that does suggest that the solution to many cases of disprivilege would be to psychologically coach a feeling of empowerment rather than changing the reality of the world, and this is exactly the opposite of how privilege theory is received at large.

In that case I actually am accessing the information that you call 'your' information, which is to say, that information which you agree is wrong for me to access.

No, I think OP (and myself) are considering the tangible possession as a key factor. The information may be functionally identical, but is not actually the same.

You could check your local churches. Most of them will have a benevolence fund that is explicitly for charity to the needy and cannot be used for church operations or expenses. My experience has been that these are highly effective in the individual sense, because they tend to be operated by volunteers who have a lot of on-the-ground information. However they generally do very little EA-type "systems" work, for better or for worse. Since they are in charge of deciding exactly who to help, contributions are tax-deductible as well.

If you decry samizdat, what then do you think is a proper response to information suppression? Start your own mainstream media?

Why would being into kink (one class of "weirdo sex perverts") indicate a high rate of committing crimes? It's mostly just a niche interest.

Particularly in the case where it is flouted at the rest of society, it is a form of aggressive norm-deviation that intuitively makes other norm deviations such as criminal activity more plausible.

As a tangent - one example I happened to come across - aphyr, the jepsen guy, is quite kinky (obviously nsfw). Jepsen is an incredibly useful project for measuring and improving distributed systems - a good read here. So this is a serious, smart, and useful person.

So? Not only is there no dispute that plenty of serious, smart, and useful LGBT people, it doesn't preclude the possibility that this particular person doesn't have more transgressive proclivities that you either don't know about or haven't manifested yet. The subject of this thread is (according to some) a serious, smart, and useful nuclear scientist.

this guy's contribution to society is much more than a hundred 100iq people who have children.

That seems dubious, but even so, you could say the same thing about, e.g., Hans Reiser. It proves nothing in itself.

If you're actually operating in good faith and within Wikipedia's policies, you're not going to get banned

This is the rub. Most people don't have the time or the patience to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia's byzantine network of policies, pseudo-policies, and unofficial-but-not-really best practices, all of which are referred to exclusively in jargon and wielded as weapons to revert or block even good-faith edits. Editors especially on influential articles are basically lawyers in all but name, and the result of trying to work against their interests is the same as someone with no legal training trying to out-lawyer a lawyer. With enough self-education and persistence, you might have a chance. Otherwise, it's hopeless. But of course, to those on the inside, with the arcane knowledge and the community recognition, it seems so easy! Practically effortless!

Most people inclined to contribute would have no idea what to do if their change was reverted, and either give up at that point or just change it back.

Can you elaborate then on what you see as the difference between not-racist and anti-racist?

If Kendi's definition is more prevalent in academic, scientific and governmental discourse, would you at least acknowledge that your usage is nonstandard?

It isn't. Grooming in the context of CSE means to try to position a child so that you can have sexual contact of one sort or another with them. If you convince a child to wear a thong via drugs or alcohol or love bombing or manipulation so that you can have sex with them, or derive sexual enjoyment from watching them, this would be grooming. If you did so for any other reason it really shouldn't be called grooming. It's probably a terrible idea and might open your child up to positions where OTHER people can take advantage or derive the sexual pleasure talked about earlier, but it isn't grooming in this context.

I don't think I agree with this. If a mother is, e.g., using psychological pressure on her child to tolerate her boyfriend's sexual abuse out of a sense of loyalty or even fear of the boyfriend, I would still characterize that as a central example of "grooming".

I suspect that it is not so much "processing" (why would blending up pork scraps and extruding them into a sausage shape change the nutrition) but specifically preservatives which are bad over time. Unfortunately, preservatives are usually introduced into processed foods to make them more consistent and less prone to spoilage, making them cheaper as well.

If Israel is blockading Gaza than the people of Gaza have every right to use military force against Israel.

Possibly. It doesn't give them the right to indiscriminately commit terroristic acts against the civilian population, which is the path they chose.

You can watch the stuff that has your favourite characters and ignore the rest if you like.

Possible, but politically unsound.

Black Americans are, well, American. It's not a symbol of Americans being replaced by foreigners, at all.

Kind of. They are Black Americans, with a society and culture distinct and separate. A kind of parallel society, and one that seems antagonistic to the other Americans. Similar to South Africa, really.

Party in the USA seems like an obvious choice.

  1. It has USA in the title
  2. It's at least somewhat positive about the USA in the lyrics
  3. It's singable and upbeat
  4. The other major theme is parties, which are also popular

it would be nice if we had a religion that had been born in and adapted for modern, industrial society rather than something that worked very well for agrarian societies and was ultimately adapted to industrial ones.

Our Ford and Savior

The main reason that shale looks good at the moment is the combination of unaccounted externalities, incredibly low interest rates/money-printing and a paucity of conventional light, sweet crude.

Is this a copypasta from a couple of years ago? The Fed has been raising rates for a while now.

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.

I thought transcontinental, but either works

Also I suppose now the witness could be sued for perjury if they stood by their testimony after losing the case.

This is basically the "you calling me a liar?" argument. Wouldn't a straightforward boundary be that statements about your own thoughts and behavior are always permissible, regardless of the implications about the thoughts and behavior of another? Thus, "I don't know her" is not actionable, even though it implies "she is a liar", which could be actionable. "I was afraid of him" would not be actionable, but "he threatened me" could be.

If it's in Europe's self interest, then they should do the heavy lifting of money and materiel. US taxpayers will eventually grow weary of subsidizing the defense of people who get far more vacation time and unlimited free healthcare,and are awfully smug about it besides.

Did all the French actually become Germans after Paris was occupied?

Yeah, it's not entirely clear to me why we woould want to recruit people who dislike military lifestyle.