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

Showing 25 of 336488 results for

domain:x.com

I think you may have hit a new low for how “fun” your cases are.

The original joke was fine. This is not.

i've always wondered instead of a commission you could just agree ahead of time on some rules on how redistricting would be performed and then just have the rules execute at a fixed time period.

It's relatively straightforward to figure out how any given rule would alter the existing electoral chances. Announce your commission, and people will figure out what ruleset gives them the best advantage, and then insist that this ruleset is clearly the "unbiased, optimal" rule and that the commission should adopt it.

My guess is that they're being attracted to the silliness part of it and attributing the lack of intelligence as a cause of the silliness. Which potentially has some merit: I think there is a negative correlation between intelligence and silliness on average. I could be wrong, some people do just want to be way smarter than their partner, as some combination of pride and the ability to win arguments and control things, but I think most of it is correlations and stereotypes connecting intelligence to other things. If I had to choose between an intelligent bitter feminist constantly comparing everything I do to a historical dictator, and a sweet highschool dropout country girl with rocks for brains and a heart of gold, I'd choose the latter. If for some reason I was convinced that intelligence inevitably produced the former and wasn't aware of the exceptions I would have been tempted to join more unintellectual activities to try to find unintelligent women. Or just despaired and given up because I don't think they would like me even if I did like them.

The point being, I think some men do think this way. And I think statistically they're partially correct but missing plenty of exceptions.

I'm not the election law lawyer you're looking for, but in short I'd say "it's a mess". Longer: the law in question is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, accompanied with a bunch of court precedents, of which the Gingles test. Per Wikipedia:

Under the Gingles test, plaintiffs must show the existence of three preconditions:

  1. The racial or language minority group "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district";
  2. The minority group is "politically cohesive" (meaning its members tend to vote similarly); and
  3. The "majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it ... usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate."

There is some relevant more modern precedent, but that's the basic part. IMO it's not a good answer because it effectively dilutes the no-longer-majority votes that end up in that district (in largely the same ways, just reversed), and because putting too many minority voters in one district is "packing" which is also disallowed.

This is what happens when you don't have a constructive example of what should exist, just congressional and judicial legal wrist slapping saying "no, but not that".

ETA: Hopefully someone else can give a more complete answer.

I could swear I've seen seagulls too big to fly, render purely landborne by their diet of leftover McDonald's fries.

I'll admit that that was exactly the article I was thinking of; I rounded off the 11,000 member proposal just for convenience's sake, even though it probably shouldn't scare anyone here.

You're supposed to go "here I googled/grokked that for you" when google/grok actually provides a comprehensive answer. This is not a comprehensive answer, zero mention of Bogdanoffs.

I’ll be honest with you that most normies just don’t really care about politics and thus don’t really care if their votes actually count

I don't think this is right - people get extremely mad if they feel their vote is being taken away. What I think is true is that very few people have a sense for the details of politics. They want to show up once every 2-4 years and vote for someone they vibe with and otherwise not think too hard about the substance of policy.

Go to any school board or planning committee meeting — these are things that have a real and lasting impact on community life — and nobody shows up

In addition to the point I raised above, these meetings are often contrived to be difficult to attend and your individual participation is not particularly meaningful. Showing up as an organized group does have an impact (which is why these processes are often dominated by small groups of angry retirees), but that's contrary the central tenet of neogrillism, i.e. only absolutely minimum effort participation in the political process.

Does he? I certainly didn’t find that when reading it. He certainly doesn’t present a compelling case that the US Constitution provides for any specific organization on the part of the states beyond assuming that they all must follow a familiar pattern. Well, now they don’t. So what now? Rule the very practice unconstitutional because it was not anticipated by the initial authors? He doesn’t make that claim ever. Why not?

His whole initial section on the definition has a particularly laughable moment where he undermines his whole argument, if he had been aware of it. Quoted in full:

Moreover, Dr. Johnson's first example of the usage of "legislature" is this: "Without the concurrent consent of all three parts of the legislature, no law is or can be made." 2 A Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1755) (emphasis deleted). Johnson borrowed that sentence from Matthew Hale, who defined the "Three Parts of the Legislature" of England as the King and the two houses of Parliament. History of the Common Law of England 2 (1713). (The contrary notion that the people as a whole make the laws would have cost you your head in England in 1713.) Thus, even under the majority's preferred definition, "the Legislature" referred to an institutional body of representatives, not the people at large.

That is, in the initial definition of legislature, THE KING OF ENGLAND was a necessary component. We obviously don’t have that. The institutional body of representatives was ONE house of Parliament. The Lords Temporal and Spiritual were institutional, but not representative. The King was not a body in the sense he intends at all. Yet “the voting public when they select a ballot initiative” is somehow excluded from a definition of “legislature” that is obviously descriptive as to how the laws are passed in the country of concern? On the basis of THIS paragraph? Did this guy read what he was quoting?

Like I’m telling you, specious in its entirety. Come on, you can’t read this and tell me the guy doesn’t come off like Sotomayor.

Yes, but both "packing" and "cracking" minorities are disallowed.

Ogopogo is your bog-standard lake monster with a cool name. I'd have assumed it was invented to sell cute snake plushies at souvenir shops, if not for its apparent long history:

According to Ben Radford, the Ogopogo is "more closely tied to native myths than is any other lake monster." The Secwepemc and Syilx natives regarded the Ogopogo, which they called the Naitaka, as "an evil supernatural entity with great power and ill intent."[7] The word "n'ha-a-itk" has various translations, such as "water-demon", "water god", or "sacred creature of the water".[8] In native lore, Naitaka demanded a live sacrifice for safe crossing of the lake. For hundreds of years, First Nations would sacrifice small animals before entering the water. Oral traditions often described visiting chief Timbasket, who rejected the required sacrifice, denying the existence of the demon. Upon entering the lake on a canoe with his family, Naitaka "whipped up the surface of the lake with his long tail" and the canoe and its occupants were sucked to the bottom of the lake. The Naitaka was often described as using its tail to create fierce storms to drown victims. In 1855, settler John MacDougal claimed that his horses were sucked down into the water, and nearly his canoe before he cut the line.

One of my more unhinged pet ideas for the house is that the the main problem with Arrow's impossibility theorem and Gibbard's theorem are the requirements for a deterministic process.

In my fantasy each voter would be able to nominate one person to serve in the House for a two year term. You would then select 2,500 ballots to establish the house for the next two years, continuing to select random ballots one at a time in the case of duplicates. No one would be guaranteed incumbency, so you couldn't trade as much on future electoral success. Very popular politicians would still be more likely but not guaranteed a spot, so they would also have to maintain a real job or do a good enough job to maintain influence even when not in power. With a 2,500 strong body crazies should be a small enough minority, on an given issue, to be safely ignored. And if the sample is random you would have enough statistical representation to match the populace to within 1% on any given topic, even tighter if things are not 50/50. The idea would be that the majority go back to their regular life after serving.

Leave the institutional knowledge building and statesmanship to the Senate.

Article going into detail on this topic

AMENDMENT XXXI: There shall be not less than one Representative for every thirty thousand persons, and not more than one Representative for every twenty-five thousand persons.

How does that work? I genuinely do not know.

I don’t know about the chick described in the OP, but in my Lived Experience women are smarter than you (the general you) think. That is, women’s IQs are higher than what their personalities would suggest—as holding IQ constant, on average women are more basic and boring than men.

In the specific me, I'd say I'm pretty good about gauging how smart women are. I know plenty of them are incredibly basic despite, by other objective metrics, being highly successful. The number of female colleagues here who are whip-sharp docs while being enthusiastic fans of Love Island aren't low at all.

I've ended relationships because the women in question were either too dumb, too boring, or both. And I have met one (or two, perhaps three) who were both attractive and interesting, or at least able to hold a conversation.

In this particular case, I think I'm quite well founded in my belief that she's not smart. She has no real interests beyond partying and makeup, she told me she always struggled in school and whatever "educated housewife" degree she did was for the sake of it, and she'd wistfully say that her brother was both the smart one, and that he looked down on her because of it. And the questions she sometimes asked me, it was like meeting someone from an uncontacted tribe...

Your calculations using the input assumptions look correct, but I question the applicability of the inputs to most situations smart young men would find themselves in, given assortative mating and homophilic social sorting (“Different Worlds” and Young Earth Creationists come to mind). A 40-point IQ gap is pretty vast for just an acquaintanceship to be made and maintained, much less a potential relationship.

Not on a dating app! I was swiping on pretty faces, and only filtering later. This current boyfriend met her during a modeling gig, and that means that the IQ in the room was probably not much hotter than room temperature (in Fahrenheit).

If that dog is a near-labrador-sized member of the Breed of Peace: after the nannying experience, you might not still be around to see a given kid come out.

I probably wouldn't beat a Velvet Hippo. I'd just try and protect my genitals, so that they could suck out some sperm IDF-style when they found my half-eaten corpse. For the sake of argument, I'll recalibrate it to labradoodle or smaller.

Packing enough minorities into a district minimizes Dem representation overall.

Good geographic district boundaries wouldn't matter if we expanded the House properly. The entire need to mess around with district borders is downstream of them being so huge that the decision has to be made, but fundamentally there's no good reason why the House shouldn't have a membership in the thousands, and it's the most straightforward solution we could have to a number of issues; it wouldn't require overturning SCOTUS precedents, it wouldn't require overturning CRA district rules (the smaller districts would be easy to make compliant), we wouldn't have to spend years in a domestic political fight about whether Americans would go for multi-member districts, and so on.

Perhaps I oversold it. Her brother is highly intelligent and competent. Her dad is a reasonably successful businessman. Her mom is a housewife. I can expect that the brother is the smartest, though I'm sure the dad is no idiot. I don't know enough about her mom to really comment.

You're welcome to say a prayer for her, I'm sure she'd be touched if she knew, and I might well tell her if you do.

I do pity the lady. Her situation isn't the best, and she's stuck in the very common trap of being used to romantic relationships and feeling unwilling to settle for a more pragmatic arranged marriage; all while a pit of dread forms in her gut telling her the former isn't working out. She's not a bad person, even if I'm not seeking to marry anyone until, at the very least, I'm done with my current training.

(It's not that arranged marriages are bad, even I don't really think so. But they're usually seen as unromantic, even if, in my experience, the people involved do quickly become very fond of each other. A hot woman used to a great deal of male attention might feel let down by one - and if the guy was a real catch, he likely wouldn't be looking)

It's a meme from 4chan's /biz/ board. The most common phrasings are "He sold? Pump it." and "He bought? Dump it.", superimposed on an image of a Bogdanoff holding a cell phone to his ear. The implication is that there is a Bogdanoff-led conspiracy to ensure that your investments do poorly by manipulating stock prices. (Note the French accent in this version—"ze" for "the". The Bogdanoffs were French.)

This won't fully answer your question but will put you in the right rabbit hole:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TRXdxiot5JM?si=cN4dBIZ8gyR6hiBD

True but a majority of the court would’ve voted to vacate or overturn the entire conviction. But they couldn’t agree on vacate v overturn.

O’Neil cylinders would enable space farming, but again, we have the difficulty of sourcing the materials

Yeah, hence:

At current launch costs, you’d have to bring back a lot of minerals to break even.

Would be part of a two-pronged strategy. Get as many materials as you can that are already in orbit, and convert those to productive uses in orbit.

Transferring foodstuffs to the ground is a lot cheaper, once you've already grown them. Or to the nearest actual colony, if we get that far.

Fuel costs is probably the only truly unavoidable one, it is possible to be 'stuck' in space in a way that's not quite true in the ocean, if you have no more energy or no more materials that can be used to transfer momentum.

But there are options that are less reliant on bringing fuel with you (railguns/space cannons, solar sails, space elevators, to name a few). Massive engineering challenges for each, though.

I asked Grok what I meant, here's what he had to say:


The post you provided, "He sold? Annouce ze rate couts," appears to be a cryptic or humorous message that may combine intentional misspellings, internet slang, or references to specific contexts. Let’s break it down based on the text and potential interpretations, including insights from the provided search results and general internet culture. Breakdown of the Post

"He sold?"

This phrase likely references someone selling something, possibly in the context of stocks, cryptocurrency, or another asset. In online communities, particularly on platforms like X, "sold" is often used in trading or investing contexts to indicate someone has sold their holdings, sometimes implying they sold too early or at a loss (a term like "paper hands" might be associated, meaning someone who sells quickly out of fear). It could also be a meme-like expression of surprise or disbelief, questioning whether someone actually sold something valuable. This phrase is common in financial meme culture, especially in crypto or stock trading communities on X or Reddit, where users mock or question others’ trading decisions.

"Annouce ze rate couts"

This part is less straightforward due to the apparent misspellings and unusual phrasing. It seems to be a playful or exaggerated way of saying "Announce the rate cuts" or something similar, possibly mimicking a non-native English speaker or a specific character’s accent (e.g., "ze" instead of "the" suggests a comedic or stylized tone, like a reference to a movie or meme). The phrase "rate couts" likely refers to "rate cuts," which are reductions in interest rates by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve. This interpretation is supported by a recent X post mentioning Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaling openness to cutting rates without specifying timing. The misspelling of "announce" as "annouce" and "cuts" as "couts" could be intentional for comedic effect, a typo, or a reference to a meme where misspellings are part of the humor (common in internet culture, e.g., "Doge" memes or exaggerated accents).

Possible Reference

The phrase "Annouce ze rate couts" might be a humorous reference to a specific meme, movie, or internet culture trope where a character with a distinct accent demands an announcement. For example, it could evoke a comedic or exaggerated tone similar to characters in films like Inglourious Basterds, where accents and miscommunications are played for laughs (e.g., a post mentions a scene where a character’s gesture reveals they’re not German). Alternatively, it could be mimicking the style of internet memes where broken English or exaggerated accents are used to mock or highlight financial news, especially in trading communities reacting to economic announcements like Federal Reserve rate decisions.

Contextual Clues

The mention of "rate cuts" aligns with economic discussions, particularly in 2025, where Federal Reserve policies are a hot topic. The post might be reacting to speculation or news about interest rate changes, which impact markets like stocks and cryptocurrencies. The phrase "He sold?" could imply someone sold assets in anticipation of or reaction to rate cut news, a common topic in financial circles on X, where users often discuss market moves with a mix of humor and critique.

Potential Meaning The post likely combines financial slang with meme humor to comment on someone selling assets (possibly prematurely) in the context of anticipated Federal Reserve rate cuts. The exaggerated spelling and phrasing ("ze rate couts") suggest it’s not meant to be taken literally but is instead a playful or sarcastic jab, possibly referencing:

A trader who sold assets expecting rate cuts that haven’t been confirmed. A meme trope where economic announcements are mocked with exaggerated language or accents. A specific cultural reference (e.g., a movie or viral post) that uses similar phrasing for comedic effect.

Is It a Reference to Something? While the post doesn’t directly quote a specific source, it likely draws on:

Internet Meme Culture: The misspelled "annouce ze rate couts" resembles the style of memes that use broken English or mock accents for humor, common in financial meme communities like WallStreetBets or crypto X posts. Financial Context: The mention of rate cuts points to real-world economic discussions, particularly around Federal Reserve actions in 2025. Possible Media Reference: The use of "ze" could be a nod to a character or trope from a movie or show (e.g., Inglourious Basterds or similar), though no exact match is confirmed.

Final Interpretation The post is likely a humorous or sarcastic comment on someone selling assets (stocks, crypto, etc.) in anticipation of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, using exaggerated or misspelled language for comedic effect. It reflects the tone of financial meme culture on platforms like X, where users blend market commentary with internet humor. Without more context about the poster or specific event, it’s hard to pinpoint an exact reference, but it’s probably riffing on trading behavior and economic news with a playful twist. If you have more context (e.g., the X post’s replies, the user’s other posts, or the date it was posted), I can refine the explanation further. Would you like me to search X for related posts or check for specific references to clarify?