site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 109746 results for

domain:infonomena.substack.com

We have more freedom than ever.

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.

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.

So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?

Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"

  • 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.

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.

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.)

This was apparently blue-on-blue though. Can't avoid that by sorting, unless the sort becomes fractal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not all deportations are the same. Turning someone back around the border counts as a deportation but is of a different kind.

Many of these people going less cause more of a problem compared to the people going over. The slow people bunch traffic up which causes accidents.

I don’t think my point is to be “unaware”. My point is to turn down your level of exposure to the toxoplasma of outrage — and just as import, if you want some degree of normalcy— make it a social norm in your non-political spaces that we do not talk about politics here in places where the purpose of the group or activity is not political.

I don’t think our differences are completely irreconcilable. If you talk about big picture end goals, most people want the same things. Prosperity, health, safety, relative freedom, and an educated populace. If you gave that list of goals to anyone from communists to libertarians, from old school democrats to NRx bros, I think they’d all agree on those things as end goals. We actually have two problems: too much political news, and too many people who have made politics their personality. Neither of those have anything to do with solving the problems that exist in policy. In fact they prevent solutions as everyone is convinced the other guys are evil. And that thus compromise is evil. And here we are.

This was the study I was talking about by the way. https://tcat.ca/resources/bike-lanes-on-street-parking-and-business-parkdale-danforth/

"72% of the visitors to the Study Area usually arrive by active transportation (by bicycle or walking). Only 4% report that driving is their usual mode of transportation.

Merchants overestimated the number of their customers who arrived by car. 42% of merchants estimated that more than 25% of their customers usually arrived by car."

I imagine Parkdale/Danforth neighborhoods are busier than wherever you live, so grain of salt and all that. This study is now over a decade old (holy shit) so the percentage of non-car trips will be probably be higher as biking is up in Toronto since then. Reading it again, 4% seems a bit low but whatever.

the reason the small storefronts are better is that they’re managed independently.

You're correct. I think the Asian model of retail where the storefronts are purchased and owned like condo units (vs leased) would help. Then the retail owners are essentially condo residents with a say/vote on how things go, and more autonomy than having to keep whoever is leasing happy.

it makes me more certain than ever that such things should be left to the small.

While I appreciate this perspective (and don't exactly blame you for it) you are aware it's this exact attitude that is causing the housing crisis right? Which in turn is a huge drag on economic productivity and is absolutely poisoning the public sphere with resentment, anxiety, and stress. Western society has grown sclerotic and is crumbling under its own weight, and a refusal to accept that things need to change is a HUGE contributor.

The question that befalls those that are cursed with this knowledge is then, what to do about it?

Can war be avoided, can any side triumph without vast bloodshed, can compromises be negotiated, can assurances be made?

I am not this man!

Not sure I would say this person's writing resembles mine but that's the kinda thing I'd have limited ability to assess.

Also not sure how I feel about being accused of semi-trolling. I do earnestly believe we increasingly have the evidence base and research on outcomes to conclude that free will is pretty damn limited.

Not sure if I've been up to other stuff that could be considered trolling other than my excessive arguing with that one guy a few months ago.

On a related note some people get pleasure from exercise (ex: runner's high). Others don't. This has a significant impact on enjoyment of and therefore participation in exercise.

I agree he has the odds stacked against him but I still think it adds nothing but combustibility to (e.g.) invite Dr Phil along on raids.

And I think he benefits from trolling the liberals so hard they start engaging in political violence.

I think he was referring to Kashoggi

Given that Israel hides their military command center under the heart of Tel Aviv, their most densely-populated city, how many Israeli civilians is Iran justified to bomb in their attempt to destroy this sprawling system?

https://archive.ph/QqNHz

This room is the nerve center of a bunker dubbed the “Fortress of Zion,” a new Israeli Army command post deep underground beneath its headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv. It is designed to command the kind of high-tech air wars that have supplanted ground invasions fought by tanks and infantry battalions.

When Israel decided to launch its air assault on Gaza, thousands from military headquarters above ground joined the bunker. Also present were members of intelligence agencies like the Mossad and Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, and Foreign Ministry and police representatives.

Obviously, it is not Iran’s fault that Israel hides their command center among civilians; neither is it Iran’s fault that Israel does not publish the exact coordinates of each room of the base. It would appear that Iran is justified to inflict somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 civilian casualties in Israel in their pursuit to reach the Israeli leadership. At least, going by the normative Hamas:civilian casualty ratio which Israel has defended since the Gaza war began.

No, the streetcar suburbs around where I live are definitely not downtown, and a very sizable fraction of the customer base for all the little squares comes in by car. It’s very visible. Thankfully, a sizable portion of that traffic can overflow onto the reasonably-but-not-overwhelmingly dense residential areas, which mostly have off-street parking and can absorb the surplus. This works in most mid-density suburbs and creates a nice environment, especially if you can take advantage of public transit on major commuter corridors to lower congestion at the worst hours.

There's no reason we can't have smaller retail units in condo podiums that mimic the way small storefronts on streetcar suburbs are.

I hate to say it, but the reason the small storefronts are better is that they’re managed independently. Centralized control has a way of making things anodyne and unpleasant. I’ve watched the million corporate developers try to ruin my homeland, and it makes me more certain than ever that such things should be left to the small.