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

Showing 25 of 237 results for

domain:web.law.duke.edu

I mean, if they really believed that Trump was going to institute an authoritarian regime and they couldn’t stop it… well none of these people strike me as true believer martyrs(republicans usually don’t either). They’d be loudly cheering on Trump so they don’t get purged.

I never said it was pro-social.

Ultimately fertility is a coordination problem and coordination problems are hard. But you have selfish reasons for wanting it to be solved even if you don’t care about the prosocial ones or the intangibles.

Honking a car's horn except to warn of danger is already a traffic offense.

Is this true in NYC? Because if so, seemingly every second Manhattan driver needs a talking-to.

I’m not demanding they form a militias or something to be taken seriously. But the complete lack of any action beyond standing outside with signs doesn’t really do much to convince me that these guys are serious. It’s like someone screaming that tge house is on fire from the bedroom while queuing up a Netflix movie. The actions don’t match including the actions including by people who have power and should know what to do and could do things to either slow it down or impeach or launch investigations or hold hearings. Yet… they don’t.

Now if this were 1935 Berlin, and these people believed that the crazy Austrian was about to destroy democracy, the actions don’t remotely fit. They can’t be made to fit unless they don’t actually believe what they’re saying, or they’re actually okay with it, but playing tge part. Psychologically, I think the LARP angle makes a lot of sense. It explains the sort of slacktivist protests, the lack of fear of saying something that the reactionaries don’t like (a good way to get arrested in actual authoritarian regimes), the lack of action by anyone in congress, and on it goes. Now there’s always been a certain romanticism of “plucky resistance movements.” The genre of resisters bringing down or stymies an authoritarian regime is a staple in Hollywood. Star Wars, Red Dawn, Lawrence of Arabia, pretty much every WWII movie ever made, Handmaid’s Tale, Hunger Games. It’s a trope buried pretty deep in American mythology. And so people who are disappointed in losing the culture war might well project that movie trope onto American politics, especially because it allows them to cast themselves as the heroes of the psychodrama. It’s easy to cover up a life you aren’t happy with by pretending to be on some kind of great crusade for Justice. It’s also great for a party that barely has a real agenda because if you are fighting Palpatine, it doesn’t matter that your big idea is shovel-ready projects or something — you’re fighting evil.

You just get exposed to different pathogens than your immune system is used to, it's traveler's diarrhea (which can absolutely hospitalize you if you're unlucky). I would assume all the unpasteurized cheese or cured meat or whatever doesn't help in avoiding trace levels of them which will be nothing to a local but will thrive in an unprepared gut. If you want to avoid it, avoid anything that wasn't cooked before serving, and wash your hands like it's April 2020.

Federal Medicaid cuts in the OBBA are hitting NC in two months and they're pretty severe. The effects of this funding cut will slash a lot of things that I think most people right or left wing would agree are useful to have.

First every provider gets at least a 3% rate cut. Then due to the share of spending, a much larger rate reduction of 10% is on inpatient and residential medical institutions. This includes acute care hospitals, nursing homes, PTRFs (basically the mental hospitals/modern asylums), and intermediate care facilities (these are for intellectual/developmentally disabled people who need intermittent nursing).

The rate reductions will see an already stretched mental health system in the state need to cut back on access more. For an admin that claims to want more institutional treatment of the mentally ill, addicts, etc, this will ironically be one of the biggest deinstitutionalization effects in the state.

Another effect is the removal of GLP-1 drug coverage for obesity. I don't think I need to prove that they're very effective at weight loss, and obesity is a major health issue so a lot of people finally finding themselves losing weight are going to be hurting in the next few months as their prescriptions get cut. While GLP-1 medications isn't yet a net positive financially, the impact it has on people's health can not be ignored.

This also will likely hurt their ability to ensure proper compliance with the program.

Sangvai also indicated administrative cuts ahead, including ending or reducing contracts, letting temporary employees go, and ending some quality control and compliance functions. “These cuts will significantly impair NC Medicaid’s ability to be responsive to emerging needs and inquiries, monitor services for quality and compliance, and continue making timely operational improvements,” he wrote.

And as they point out

“Despite careful efforts to minimize harm, the reductions now required carry serious and far-reaching consequences. Most immediately, reduced rates and the elimination of services could drive providers out of the Medicaid program, threatening access to care for those who need it most,” Sangvai wrote. “NCDHHS remains hopeful that additional appropriations can be made to prevent these reductions.”

Medicaid reimbursement rates are already lower than commercial insurances tend to be and plenty of providers won't take it for that reason already.. This will likely get even worse, as poor and disabled people struggle to find providers.

This is especially going to hurt the poor rural areas (ones that voted Trump in) that are already struggling financially and don't benefit as much from economy of scale like the local areas.

About a week ago The Asheville Citizen Times did a report on the nearby rural Mitchell county and their upcoming fears over the cuts.

For example, they're worried that the already tight financials of the Blue Ridge Regional might be forced to close

During a June 19 special meeting of the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners, Jeff Harding, chair of the all-Republican board, said the hospital’s closure “could be devastating to our small community” and urged residents to contact their elected officials.

At the meeting, commissioners passed a resolution in support of the hospital, calling it a “vital resource,” one that saved lives during Helene, which devastated Mitchell and the surrounding counties the hospital serves.

Immediately after the storm hit, the hospital became a hub for relief efforts. It wasn’t just where people could go if they were severely injured and needed care, it was the one place where nonprofits, the federal government and others could show up and help, Kimmel said.

Blue Ridge Regional is the hospital of Spruce Pine, a town you might recognize from coverage of last year's storm as being one of the only places in the world with high quality quartz. It's still important to have some people in the surrounding region for this work (and other work providing for the quartz industry and workers) but their small size as mentioned before doesn't benefit from economy of scale and impact of automation has had a toll on their wealth too. Still they're very important to have around, making up anywhere from 80-90% of the high quality quartz used in the world. And sometime soon, they may be without a hospital, a hospital that was pretty useful during Helene.

So that's the issues my state is going to be facing soon. How is it going to impact your state Motte users?

I don't. have a family member who rewatches Groundhog Day quite a lot.

It is a time-honored strategy and I make no judgment. As I say in an encouragement thread it's less easy to comment on what is essentially an empty screen. I realize not everyone approaches the Motte quite how I do--I who may as well be using my SSN government issued ID number as username (though it's true my name is not George ).

A leftist might also argue that shooting first and helping the descent into lawlessness without public buy-in benefits fascists, who already believe in violence and want to discredit the status quo. It's especially bad if Trump already controls the government.

A much less extreme form of trying to play the man (all of the prosecutions, which Democrats do not see as unprovoked) has arguably already backfired.

I mean there are philosophical arguments that can be made, and I'm sure people will make them. But there is also the cold hard economic argument to be made that a population collapse means a whole lot of old people in your cohort are going to die slowly alone in pools of their own waste.

Every life has intrinsic value.

Yet, Christianity honors the martyrs who refused to renounce God even in the face of death.

There is a value above life in this view. There are forms of continuing human civilization that would not be worth it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing here? To my mind, this explained better by @kky’s theory of traction.

The average person has no idea how to get from “I am upset about this” to “I am taking effective (paramilitary?) action against it”. If I remember correctly, both the CIA handbook for building an internal insurgency and the famous “Rules for Radicals” both hypothesise that showing supporters intermediate steps along this path is the primary purpose of an effective resistance movement.

articles about Surrey policewomen posing as joggers to catch men harassing women out exercising.

I wish I had a fraction of the energy and creativity for upskilling and entrepreneurship as so many women have for finding excuses to farm sexual attention with plausible deniability.

This would be another example for how, in Western societies, the compromise with respect to the trade-off between female freedom and protection is expressed by limiting male freedom and protection. We can’t suggest to women that they could dress less thottily, so let’s arrest men instead. This would fit well in a country where people can be arrested for hate-speech.

Catcalling is an avenue for women to humblebrag; she's so attractive as to be catcalled all the time. A Wojak with a seething mask in front, but smirking behind, comes to mind.

If you were a culture warrior back in 2014, you might remember "10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman," which generated pushback from diverse angles (most of the men in the video were not white

It reminds me of US police bodycams. Progressives went from being pro- to anti-bodycam as the bodycams just reflected that indeed, non-Asian minority suspects are as wrong-thinkers might think they are—perhaps worse. Thus, bodycams became a Problematic vehicle for which stereotypes might be reinforced, like security cameras in Californian public transport later on became.

For better or worse, cat-callers are by default, an unsympathetic group, like drunk drivers or age-of-consent-trespassers. There’s compass unity between progressive and social conservatives, with only a staunch subset of libertarians willing to go to bat for them. However, I could see progressives getting around to support cat-callers for disparate impact reasons.

So, neither apparently severe nor an established pattern of unwanted behavior! With specific regard to harassment, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (PDF) suggests that any "unwanted behaviour directed at an individual with the purpose or intent of humiliating, disrespecting, intimidation [sic], hurting or offending them" qualifies, even if it is a single incident. The laws I was able to find use slightly different language, suggesting that harassment is anything a reasonable person thinks harassment is, plus "alarming the person or causing the person distress"

Such a verbiage allows for “know the workplace rules”, to be attractive and not be unattractive. Just read her mind, bro, otherwise know your place. In addition, it allows for anarcho-tyranny, where men of different cultures could have different views on what constitutes “reasonable person.”

That being said, I rather dislike catcallers. To me, it’s aesthetically bad in not being a good look.

It’s also annoying in boosting women’s egos and baseline paranoia levels. Men catcalling is rendering it more difficult, on the margins, for higher status and/or better-looking men with some semblance of tact who would otherwise have a shot at the catcalled women. Yes, yes, I know—other men have always been the primary victims of men cat-calling women. *crosses arms, turns away*

I don’t see it that way simply because none of the actions they take are consistent with the idea that “reactionary enemies” are about to end civilization as they have known it. The same people refer to ICE as the Gestapo and to Alligator Auswitz and Palentir reading their social media posts also are mostly bitching on the Internet, and occasionally attending a weekend protest that doesn’t interfere with normal life at all. I think most of the “reactionary Nazi” stuff reads more like a psychological need for significance in their own times than the thought that these are actually threats to civilization. Even in Congress, the minority leader is Jewish and he’s not doing anything more than sending angry letters around. If they really believed in Trump’s Nazi party, it seems like you’d be doing a bit more than leaving tge equivalent of 1-star reviews on the internet.

My field is drone airspace management, so this is mostly a concern with drones using GPS to autopilot. In a recent region of interest, the difference between the WGS84 ellipsoid and the EGM geoid was about 100 feet of altitude. So if people weren't on the same page, there could be drones up each other's asses while they are supposed to be stratified by altitude. GPS is natively in the WGS84 ellipsoid system for altitude, but that doesn't mean your specific GPS system nor the things you have digesting that data and sending it along the chain aren't converting it to something else. I don't process raw GPS, so I can't personally attest to this "fact". Lots of people tell me their GPS outputs EGM or MSL.

Now, I'm not a pilot from the 50's, but I believe their analog instruments for altitude worked off of barometric pressure and were calibrated against MSL. I believe every increasingly sophisticated EGM geoid model is attempting to match more precisely the reference frame of observed MSL. Generally pilots think in MSL because if you ever look up the altitude of an airport, it's reported in MSL. But like I said, not a pilot, just my observations from the outside.

I have witnessed relentless confusion, to just not even having an awareness that there is a difference, between the WGS84 ellipsoid and MSL/EGM geoids. Especially, but not limited to, between the old world of manned aviation and the new world of drone aviation. When things like this happen I'm amazed it doesn't happen every fucking day from the shit I've seen. I don't know where the government is hiding all the competence.

Progress doesn't exist. There is only degrees of survival and almost everything is a tradeoff.

Things that don't sustain themselves die. In the long run no other phenomenon really matters.

Before GPS (and to some extent still), pilots used barometric altimeters, which would be set based on local observations.

I hate dynamic programming, but it seems that you can't "jump ahead" when calculating prime numbers. This feels like computational irreducibility. The world in which this property exists, and the one in which it doesn't, are meaningfully different.

You can, actually. Testing whether a specific number is prime is actually pretty easy (disclaimer: there are subtleties here I won't go into), and doesn't require computing the numbers earlier than it. It's factoring a number which is apparently hard (although there are still much faster methods than iterating over the numbers before it). This is why RSA is practical: it's computationally very easy to search for 1000-digit prime numbers, but very hard to recover two of them after they've been multiplied together.

I think the rest of your questions veer more into spirituality, philosophy, and ethics than math, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask. I have all the spirituality of a wet fart. But I can tell you that the Collatz conjecture is not relevant when discussing the future of civilization. :)

It just seems like pointless horniness.

But then again, I also don’t see the appeal of a strip club so maybe there’s a whole psychology of looking but not touching I don’t share.

Yeah, I don't know. But to try to steelman it, maybe--imagine you're an audience member at a beauty pageant or a fashion show. (Yeah, I don't get beauty pageants or fashion shows, either, but they're definitely a thing!) You see all the work these models have put into their poise, their dress, their movements, their facial expressions... so you cheer! Cheering is surely a thing at beauty pageants (I admit I'm assuming here). You're expressing your appreciation and admiration. Indeed, isn't it perfectly natural, even polite, to express your appreciation and admiration for someone like that?

Well, some people just... aren't that smooth with their cheering!

Or to take it up another level, have you ever deliberately tried to provoke a smile from someone? Maybe an angry child, or a grumpy friend? Maybe you took it as a kind of personal test, a self-imposed challenge of sorts... so maybe catcallers are thinking, maybe unrealistically, "I bet I can get a smile out of that girl." And in some cases, should they fail, they might feel ashamed by that, and lash out instead--"oh, too stuck up for a smile, girl?"

These are surely not the most artful approaches, I'm trying to steelman and I'm still not coming up with highly sympathetic actors, here, but I think there are many analogous behaviors out there. I don't really understand catcalling but there's a lot of irrational human behavior I don't understand (professional sports!) and most of it doesn't get you a dressing down from your local Bobby.

"In theory" is doing a lot of work here, as is "may not always be true". In theory, the men commenting on that article would be flattered if a flamboyantly gay man publicly whistled and pointed out what a great ass they have. In practice, I'm routinely bombarded with images created by people trying to get me to give them my money, and I don't think the purveyors of these believe that I actually enjoy looking at them. Especially when they're advertising a good or service I couldn't make use of even if I wanted to. This is some all-star hairsplitting.

Life for the sake of life

It's religious conservatives who believe every life has intrinsic value, though

Would it have to loop, repeating the same chain of events forever, or is there an infinite sequence of events which never terminates, but still stays within a certain set of bounds?

If the phase space of events requires a continuum to describe, then this sounds like a classic chaotic system: it never reaches the same state twice, but it also converges to and moves within the "chaotic attractor" subset of that space.

If the events come from a finite set, that's a problem. Even if you make the system stochastic or otherwise somehow set up an infinite sequence with no repeats, does it matter? At some point you'll have reached every point that you're ever going to reach. Personally, if the best utopia we can ever come up with is "you get to experience every bit of goodness possible before you're done, but there's only a googleplex or whatever of those", I'll be happy with that. Others' opinions may differ. When I first read the idea (in Stephen Baxter's Manifold: Time) it was presented as existential horror; that dude is really good at introducing interesting ideas in depressing ways.

That's my whole answer; feel free to ignore the following digression.

The problem of coming up with an infinite utopia also reminds me of the biggest flaw in the excellent television series (spoilers) The Good Place.

(seriously, spoilers)

In the end, they're in paradise (you might say heaven, except the incompetent committee originally running it definitely didn't qualify as "God"), and the last problem they're faced with is that unending paradise is too unending. As the Fandom wiki puts it, "Everyone has become a bunch of unfeeling zombies who've become unbearably bored after having experienced literally everything, with nothing more to do but wait out the rest of eternity." The protagonists' solution is to "set up a new kind of door where when one feels happy and satisfied and complete, and want to leave the Good Place for good, they can just walk through the door and their time in the universe will end, leading to a peaceful rest of indeterminate nature." The conflict in the series finale centers around some of the main characters realizing, however many millennia later, that they're ready to go, leaving the others behind forever.

What if, instead,

the resolution to the problem revolved around the fact that, if a finite human mind can only truly appreciate a finite set of experiences, the only way to go beyond that is to no longer remain the same sort of human, in a way that goes much beyond how each of us is changed by our mere experiences? If your loved ones want to evolve into something that is as beyond humans as humans are beyond mice, repeatedly or continually, you'd still get a good fear of loss vs fear of stagnation conflict, wouldn't you? Do you try to keep up with them, feeling pressured to change yourself so massively? Do you risk losing them in the process regardless, either because your relationship may never be the same or because they are in some fundamental way no longer the same? Do you let yourself lag behind them at the risk of no longer understanding them or being a real peer to them? The story is already a fantasy with characters that are superhuman or become superhuman in various ways; I think giving the ending transhumanist vibes would have fit better than the vaguely assisted-suicide-metaphor vibes we got.

Or maybe I'm just too much of a nerd, because

the obvious way to end a show about heaven is with God, isn't it? I get that there are too many pitfalls to try to give Him seasons worth of dialogue, but you'd think a cameo to wrap up the finale would have been possible. What we got instead has a kind of horseshoe theory vibe - the writer was raised atheistically, and I'm an agnostic myself, but "eternal heaven without God is inconceivable" feels like unavoidable subtext of that finale.

Maths is incredibly productive on net.

Ergo, it is immensely sensible to subsidize or invest in maths as a whole. The expected value from doing so is positive. Our entire society and civilization runs on mathematical advancements.

I have no quibbles with these points! I think what you should take away is that the distribution of potential practicality is far from uniform. There are fields that we can be very, very, very sure aren't practical. If we were horribly utilitarian about things, we could easily, um, "optimize" academic math without losing out on any future scientific progress.

Also, lest my motivations be misunderstood, I'm happy that we fund pure math for its own sake. I took a degree in it. I love it. I just don't want it to be funded under false pretenses.

They had two policewomen jog around with their camel toe's out (not joking, look at the photos). They do this for the same reason police in the US write tickets for people going 45 in a 30 instead of 90 in a 55. It's safer, easier, the person going a measly 45 is more likely to comply, and they just don't give a fuck.

Given that most 30mph limits exist for a reason (like "this is an urban street") whereas most 55mph limits in the US are a holdover from the oil crisis, I would (without further details) be much more worried about someone doing 45 in a 30 than 90 in a 55. And therefore I would support cops focussing on the former.

The idea that your views on this stem from whether you've got kids or not is dubious. My father had a bunch of kids, who've now got kids who have their own kids, and his opinion is still the boomer holdover of there being too many people on earth. Like that 80s song by Genesis, "...too many people making too many problems."