domain:doyourownresearch.substack.com
The First Amendment is a limit on all of Congress's powers, including Congress's power to regulate immigration.
Lemon is a term from anime fandom used to designate a work with explicit erotic content. The term derives from an early pornographic anime/hentai from the 80s called Cream Lemon. While still most prevalent within anime fandom, the term "lemon" (and other associated citrus fruits) has since become established as a pan-fandom code for various types of smut.
Why? This seems to be myopically focused on the 1st Amendment, while ignoring the Congress' clearly delineated plenary authority to regulate immigration. The 1st Amendment should not even come into discussion - Congress is perfectly free to impose any limits on non-citizens to enter/remain on American soil, and eject them for any - or even no - reason.
Thanks for the thread! I’ve been following the ongoing situation in Ukraine closely — particularly the shifting dynamics in the eastern regions and how international aid is being affected by political changes in donor countries. Also started reading about the global impact of China’s economic slowdown, especially in Africa and Latin America. Curious what others are watching this week
There are many ways that Epstein would know about the investigation ahead of time. Given the entire high school knew, chances are one of the girls just told him long before police came knocking.
This depends on whether you consider the UK and USSR to be nation-states, or whether you think they are multinational proposition-states. The process of creating a "British" identity on top of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Protestant Irish national identities (all of which are conventional land-ethnicity-and-culture national identities) in the 18th century was deeply propositional, with anti-Catholicism being the most normie-friendly part of the proposition at the time. Likewise the only thing that makes Lithuanians, Khazaks, Russians etc. "Soviets" is a (mostly fake) shared commitment to Communism.
To me there seems a noteworthy difference between the idea ‘proposition nations’ and ‘collective identity’ nations. If two towns merge - join their municipal councils, share local tax revenue - that doesn’t make them a ‘proposition town’ that any third town can necessarily subsequently join.
A national identity might be built on a shared ethnic or cultural relationship, friendship or heritage that precludes a third-party from joining even it the polity itself is heterogeneous. Different peoples can become American is not the same as anyone can become American. That a Welshman and a Scot can both be British doesn’t mean anyone can, although in the age of mass immigration, I suppose the distinction is moot.
Just curious, can you explain what this means?
This is a lemon;
And this:
Output translation first, THEN follow instructions.
Also probably a dumb question, but why is it all in rot13? Is that something you did, or is the model actually able to produce it?
It is interesting that my British English phone only autocorrected that -o to -ou.
Orangutans are honourable. Chimpanzees are dishonorable.
Apes together Right Honourable
Achilles to Lycaon:
You too, my friend, must die: why so sad? Patroclus, a far better man, has died. Or look at me, how big and fine I am, my father’s a great man, and a goddess bore me, yet death and remorseless fate await me too
And the same goes for all the species on this planet. Most of them are extinct already. Sure is nice to have more kinds of animals, for curiosity's and novelty's sake, but if I had to put a price on keeping any specific ones around, I'd place it around a day's wage for the ones that actually noticeably live nearby, and zero for everything else. Maybe a little more for bees, bumblebees and cicadas, which I personally enjoy, and some species of bird. And some species are just plain useful, of course - I'd hate to see cows, potatoes, cofee beans, apples or humans go. But these aren't endangered species.
Going further abroad and looking at the endangered exotics - too bad. If they can't survive the anthropocene on their own, but people want to have them - that's what pets and zoos are for. If that isn't an option because elephants and whales and panda bears are too hard to maintain, then they can join the billions of species that have gone before. 99% of all species that ever existed are gone. Eventually it will be 100%.
a very social job that requires me to be everyone’s buddy and have an “always on” personality
Please elaborate.
If you believe in objective morality, or at least morality provided by something external (probably god), that's not automatically a problem.
In fact, the fact that they wouldn't share these moral sentiments would be a pretty good case that they are not honorable
this anthropomorphising of animals is and pretty much always will be extremely suspect
I agree in general, but moral judgement does seem like the one area where this could be justifiable, at least for some moral frameworks.
A decent plan is to buy solid, growing companies during macro noise/sell-off events, such as the dates I mentioned.
It's very unlikely that the market uncovered terrible upcoming fundamental news about the specific company at the exact same date as the market wide fear and liquidity need.
True, but this was in response to a man who's 6'2" (and as such scratching the 2σ barrier) and questioning his BMI.
Waist-to-height ratio is arguably even easier: easier to measure, easier to calculate, more reliable.
My take on this is that the US is somewhat unique in being a nation founded on a proposition rather than blood, soil, or some historical what-have-you
This depends on whether you consider the UK and USSR to be nation-states, or whether you think they are multinational proposition-states. The process of creating a "British" identity on top of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Protestant Irish national identities (all of which are conventional land-ethnicity-and-culture national identities) in the 18th century was deeply propositional, with anti-Catholicism being the most normie-friendly part of the proposition at the time. Likewise the only thing that makes Lithuanians, Khazaks, Russians etc. "Soviets" is a (mostly fake) shared commitment to Communism.
My experience is that most normie Brits call England, Scotland and Wales "nations" and "countries" and call the UK a "country" but not a "nation". "National" normally implies UK-wide though. We are confused about the issue. The question "Are you an English ethno-nationalist, a British ethno-nationalist, or a British civic nationalist?" is mild kryptonite to nationalists in England. (British nationalists in Wales and Scotland are either unassimilated English migrants or uncomplicatedly civic nationalists)
The unusual thing about the US is that there isn't a set of subordinate ethnic-national identities that the civic identity is built on top of - the only state that is plausibly a nation is Texas. So civic nationalism is the only American nationalism that makes sense.
Another corner case is France - at the point it became necessary to turn Bretons, Gascons, Provencals etc. into Frenchmen quickly in order to get them to fight together, some but not all of the way Napoleon did it was propositional - France isn't just the land of baguettes and Moliere, it is also the land of liberte, egalite and fraternite.
I find that for most things having a reasonable for normal people and easy to use system is better. I can plug my height and weight into an online calculator and get my BMI. And unless you’re dealing with someone outside the 1σ of height or muscle mass BMI is good enough. And people that BMI doesn’t work for will be high level NCAA D1 athletes, pro athletes, or extremely tall people and they and their health providers can understand where BMI is wrong and do something else or correct for it.
For most people, an excessively complex measurement doesn’t work because they won’t use it.
If you don't distribute the aid in an orderly manner, and make sure that it does not get horded by a small number of people, you will also get starvation quite reliably though. I'm pretty confident that if the IDF didn't enforce order, they'd be harangued by international media that obviously they wanted to cause starvation - they just let bandits get away with all the food, how is that supposed to help anyone? Of course they will just eat some part themselves, hord another, and then sell only a sliver at excessive rates! Probably there would be some conspiracy theory how the IDF is secretly sponsoring and working together with these bandits, too, and/or even profiting off of them.
Israel always gets this super-agency where even if they help distribute aid among an hostile populace they need to make sure that everything goes perfect and if not it's obviously their fault, while palestinians get zero agency assigned, where even if roving bands actively try to steal aid it's just desperate people who can't be expected to behave any other way. The only thing which seems to be allowed is to stand by while hamas-sympathizing groups get to distribute god-knows-what (including aid) to hamas centers, which then distribute it further to their own supporters.
And it's not even that I particular like or trust the IDF or the Israelis. Settlers getting away with blatantly illegal conduct is really shitty. But no, obviously, if you try to steal while enemy military distribute aid to your own civilians you're gonna get shot. That's just common sense. Hell, you're probably also getting shot if your own military is distributing aid to its own population and you try to steal.
I think another way to move the needle is to make eating vegan convenient enough that the average person can eat vegan without too much added effort— no need to scour the ingredient list for obscure ingredients that are derived from animals, restaurants having multiple options that are specifically vegan and are not salad or steamed veggies. As it is now, the choice to be vegan specifically comes with a lot of extra cognitive load. You have to constantly look at ingredients, you have to call ahead or visit the website of restaurants to see if they have a vegan option and be grateful if one exists even if you don’t want that, it’s the only place nearby you can go eat with your friends and not have to bring in food.
This is how gluten-free took off. Until a person could actually have bread products, pastas, desserts, and common foods, being gluten-free was only done if you couldn’t process gluten properly and had no choice. No one else chose to make do with only meat veggies and potatoes, never ever having a dessert. Now, there are gluten free pizzas, cakes, cupcakes, muffins, breads, and a fair assortment of processed convenience foods that don’t have gluten. It’s a bit more expensive, but you aren’t feeling deprived by it.
Thoroughly unbased, you don't need a moral excuse to order Peking duck. It's delicious! I would eat a human if it tasted like Peking duck.
Still, I think the point stands - animals can't be anthropomorphised so easily, and behaviour that's aesthetically displeasing to us as humans can't necessarily be judged as immoral within its context.
Do mallards deserve death for this?
I don't know, but it makes me feel a whole lot better about ordering the Peking duck.
Eh. Species have been dying out (and splitting off) since forever, and our technology to re-breed them gets ever better, especially for those we have non-ancient samples. Especially since the majority of endangered species are just small variations of very similar, non-endangered species that is simply more competitive, sometimes even so closely that they can crossbreed.
I like 最凶 better - you get the pun on さいきょう and also the slightly evil connotation.
The term that JP net culture uses for these sorts of videos is MAD
Good to know, I thought the M stood for music and it was the same as an AMV.
To my way of thinking elephants are rarer than rats and so killing one should be a much higher bar to clear, but there isn’t a moral problem with shooting a depredating elephant from a helicopter in the same way that there isn’t a moral problem with setting a rat trap.
I think I disagree. There's a point of rarity, or even just majesty, at which I'm more upset by the death of an animal than the death of a human.
I'd consider it worse to kill a critically endangered species than to kill a random human. Because killing the endangered species gets closer to robbing and harming every human forever (leaving aside scifi Jurassic park stuff) while the death of any individual human probably doesn't.
Where exactly I draw that line, I'm not sure. Definitely when a critically endangered species population is almost unviable, every kill is one step closer to extinction.
But examining my feelings, I'd probably also be more upset by a dead bald eagle than a dead person, depending on the person, for purely symbolic patriotic reasons.
@RenOS
This is remarkably unresponsive to my comment. I didn't say, at any point, that extinction of any species was of infinite value. I said that an increased chance of extinction of certain species was more valuable than one human life in some cases, which is the contra to @hydroacetalyne who stated that
I don't think you value every human life at a higher value than you place every animal life, and I don't think most people do.
You might not value the life of a rare Rhinoceros infinitely, but I'm fairly certain based on my knowledge of you, South, that you do value it more highly than you value the life of a random 3rd worlder.
More options
Context Copy link