domain:infonomena.substack.com
SkoomaDentist
1m ago
The polarization in actual multiparty systems is significantly less because there is no obvious ”the other side” when the constituent parties of the sides change depending on the question and which parties are in the government at the time.
faceh
23m ago
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
GBRK
28m ago
- And if you did hire high IQ high conscientiousness people to do the work,
That's the illegal immigrants. Given the same IQ and conscientiousness, they're far more likely to do low-paid farm work than american citizens for what should be obvious economic reasons. If we got rid of the illegal immigrants their likely replacements would be stupider and less conscientious.
Does Iran have the ability to destroy that command center? My understanding is that the whole point of building such things underground is to make them resistant to air attacks.
If they do, then the answer is yes. When you're fighting a shooting war then of course you have the right to attack all military targets. This is not a subject under serious dispute, except by a few frivolous activists who are just looking for excuses to criticize countries they already oppose. If Iran has the ability to destroy that base and they're at war then they have the right to destroy it, even if they have to kill one hundred skajillion innocent babies to do it.
Just like Israel has the right to bomb Gaza to ashes if that's what it takes to keep their citizens safe.
Glad we cleared that up.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
35m ago
Whether it was blue-on-blue remains to be seen, but blue-on-blue is much, much easier to deal with than red/blue.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
This seems like a spectacular failure to grasp the deep, unresolved tension in the US over how law enforcement conducts itself. There were anti-police protests in 2014 under Obama as well. You can't attribute these things to a single police murder.
then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
This is not making a big deal out of enforcement. It is ostentatious cruelty (one might even say the cruelty is the point :v).
You've also got things like ICE going after valid visa holders, calling immigrants "invaders", and the DHS declaring intent to "liberate" LA from the socialists.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
37m ago
If only there were other transportation methods that scaled better.
Indeed, there are not. If you think NJ traffic is bad, NJ Transit brings whole new levels of bad.
You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
Yes. Trivial effort and keeps you in the habit.
Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.
This should be two different questions because red lights and stoplights are used in significantly different contexts. Red lights tend to be on busier intersections with faster traffic. If you want to go straight, you should always stop and stay stopped even if there is no other traffic around because the consequences of screwing up are very likely to be death. Though it you want to do a right turn (on a road where it's legal to do so) then it's acceptable to do a rolling stop instead of a full stop, due to that being intrinsically safer-- if traffic hits you, it's unlikely to be a head-on colission, and if they were coming from the opposite side (for example because of a left-turn signal) then an accident will happen in lower speeds.
Stop signs are used more in quieter areas with smaller speed limits. rolling stops are acceptable if no one is around.
Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.
No, because speed limits are deliberately set too low with the expectation that they will be moderately violated by even law-abiding citizens, so that cops have a pretext to stop people who are driving at the "optimal" speed for a given area but in an unsafe manner. As proof, in my state you don't even receive any penalties for going up to 5 over, so the speed limit is really "speed posted plus up to 5mph" which is much more reasonable. Going faster than that is also acceptable if done temporarily while passing-- reducing how much time you spend in a truck's blindspot is ultimately safer for everyone.
The left lane is for passing only
No for city roads. Yes for highways with some caveats-- if the road quality is much worse on the right side, or if you're going to an exit that's on the left side, or if no one is around anyway, it's okay to be in the left line.
if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off
Douchebaggy in proportion to the level of aggression and danger in the cutoff, but acceptable in many cases. Ideally they should have found a safer way to merge in but like... I get it.
or rides your bumper, that is fine.
No. Bumper riding is always unsafe and unnecessary. (And also, illegal-- I got written up for following less than two bumper lengths once. Lawyer got it dropped though, always plead to transfer to a nonmoving violation haha.) That's especially the case when it's at night and your headlights might be shining into their rearview, blinding them and preventing them from safely getting out of your way. People with either eventually figure out that they should move to the right, or alternatively if they're being assholes on purpose being an asshole back is just likely to cause an accident.
If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.
Ideally, you should slow down instead and merge in behind them. But if that's not possible for whatever reason, and your merge won't require them to slam on the brakes, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. (You should probably still be a little guilty though.)
I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.
Everyone should be expected to break these rules in a situation where that maximizes the overall safety of driving. And at the same time, everyone should be driving so as to minimize the need for others to break these rules, and not doing so forfeights the right to complain in inverse proportion to how safe other drivers are while violating these rules.
scissors statements
On quieter streets with good visibility, it's okay to U-turn like a motherfucker at any provocation.
Every driving test should include a LIVE segment on understanding and using hand signals. Aside from cyclists, I've seen cars use these when their turn lights are off.
Motorcyclists should be allowed to legally split lanes. (But if they die, they die.)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
39m ago
This was apparently blue-on-blue though. Can't avoid that by sorting, unless the sort becomes fractal.
Hadad
40m ago
Of course if you reduce life to its broadest and least specific terms, we all want Good Things and don't want Bad Things. The problem is that there's no such thing as prosperity, or health, or safety, or relative freedom, or an educated populace. These aren't objective measures, they're vibes and negotiations, and the negotiations have been breaking down for decades.
Is it healthy or unhealthy to support trans rights?
Is it safe or unsafe to tolerate drugged-out homeless on the streets and public transit?
Can our nation be prosperous without disarming its citizens? Can it be safe?
You can't balance civilization on platitudes.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
49m ago
Oh you reckon they're just selfish? I assume anyone who doesn't drive like me is my enemy. I was using other examples to show its a bigger problem than just a guy being a dick and not letting you in, I considered them of a kind. But it's true I haven't experienced it in LA or NJ - there are only three states I'm willing to drive in in the US - Idaho, Tennessee and Texas. I would probably drive in Utah too, but that would mean going to Utah.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
49m ago
the modal reality "politics in a multi-party democracy" and "rule of law" are meant to evoke is one where hard limits on the scope and scale of political conflict exist and are respected, and where law is capable of settling conflicts. That is not the world we are living in.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
52m ago
Can war be avoided, can any side triumph without vast bloodshed, can compromises be negotiated, can assurances be made?
Separation. Erode federal power, establish common knowledge that federal power should not be enforced or respected. That's the best possible use of power, and even that is Russian roulette.
On an individual level, allow the Sort to run its course, cooperate with it if possible. If you live in the wrong place, move. That's just common sense.
zeke5123a
54m ago
Not all deportations are the same. Turning someone back around the border counts as a deportation but is of a different kind.
Like hell we are. We are constantly surveilled and the frontier has been filled for well over a century. Regulations of all kinds are only ever increasing, never decreasing. I can't think of any way in which we are more free than the modal man of 1875. More wealth and safety and security, sure. More freedom? I don't see it.
More options
Context Copy link