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

Showing 25 of 394 results for

domain:reddit.com

Etiquette-wise? Do what other people are doing. Also, don't worry about looking retarded when eating, as a foreigner Japanese people will automatically assume you're retarded and there's often nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

Recommendation-wise? This is all personal taste, but:

  • Go for Korean BBQ over Japanese yakiniku. Japanese yakiniku is more expensive and less flavorful
  • Small local chain kaitenzushi restaurants are often really good and pretty affordable. Avoid national chain kaitenzushi unless you just want something decent and dirt cheap.
  • Go for hipster "gourmet" ramen places over greasy cheapo places. The latter are cheap but are often pretty meh unless you have a local friend who knows where the cheap AND good places are hidden.
  • When you're outside of Tokyo, try whatever the local specialty or delicacy is, it's almost always delicious.
  • Eat all the seafood. Eat at least once any sea creatures you've never eaten before. Kaisen-don are a decent way to get a lot of good sashimi at an affordable price.
  • Try okonomiyaki, it's great
  • Avoid most Chinese food here, most of it has been neutered to cater to the bland Japanese palate
  • Drink nihonshu/sake, and especially local sake (jizake) outside of Tokyo
  • Try the different kinds of shochu, they're interesting and unique.
  • You can skip beer here, the macro brews are unremarkable and the craft beers are decent but terrible value for money compared to any western country
  • Go to a really good soba place once

I think that's all I got for now.

Re: NYT, it’s a stand-in for media in general. I couldn’t care less about the NYT specifically.

Gell-Mann amnesia is exactly what’s on display here. Like it or not, this is a perfect example: trusting a media report about a subject he’s less familiar with, despite already knowing how the media falsely represents subjects he’s closely familiar with.

I know he doesn’t understand Israeli politics by the things he says in the post. Again, thinking that 10% of Israelis want to because they vote for the same party they’ve always voted for is as ridiculous as thinking anyone who votes R wants to strip women of rights, and everyone who votes D wants to trans all the kids. It’s not even surface level understanding, it’s cartoonish thinking.

“You’ve been controversial for decades”, said the people living on lands stolen by genociding the natives and importing slaves. Who cares what you think?

I haven't verified it myself, but looking through the Reddit threads apparently it was the classic loaded survey technique of offering a range of responses and coding all of them except one extreme the same way.

https://old.reddit.com/r/askgaybros/comments/1d47y07/less_than_half_of_amsterdam_youth_accept/

I took the questionnaire from the GGD Amsterdam that was used for this research. Of the 122 questions, exactly one is about this topic. The question is, “What do you think if two girls/females or two boys/men are in love with each other?” The answers are:

  • Normal
  • A bit weird
  • Very weird
  • Wrong

They interpreted every single answer that was not "Normal" as a lack of acceptance. Many people chose options 2 and 3, with a minority actually picking "wrong".

It also has whatever ambiguities accompany the words for "normal" and "weird" in Dutch. Now, that doesn't explain the rapid shift on its own but it might help. Maybe young people have recently had less exposure to discourse regarding homosexuality so they don't know that in this case the "correct" answer is that a rare condition is completely normal?

She used a private email server to do government business a practice ubiquitous

Not exactly. A lot of government officials use private email accounts to sidestep FOIA. Obama did it, Pence did it. Hillary set up a private email server, which is different and extremely rare. It's the difference between opening up a separate bank account, and opening a separate bank. If you use a private email account, at least all the network traffic, data storage, and encryption is being handled by Microsoft, or Google, or some team of engineers that has spent millions of man-hours solving the important technical problems. Hillary just had her own server, run by some IT guy she hired. Then she put classified documents on it. Imagine if she took taxpayer money and moved it from the Fed to the Bank of Hillary. It's an unlocked shed with a camera. Security, she probably has some. Did somebody take the money? Did she take the money? Nobody can say, because as soon as it turned into a scandal she deleted all the records, the FBI gave her subordinates plea deals in exchange for cooperating, and Comey absolved her of doing anything all that bad.

There was no reason for Hillary to set up her own private email server, unless: 1) She was doing horribly corrupt things on it 2) She was extremely willful and ignorant and insisted on doing something that everyone around her would have told her was a bad idea.

The prosecution has to argue he was thinking about it, there was in fact a legal method, and Trump was like “fuck that, I want the criminal way. Leeeeeeeroy Jenkins.” That just isn’t reasonable.

But having laundered that through a jury, it's established. There's no avenue for appeal there.

You have the basic factual problem that both Stormy and Cohen have coronated that Stormy’s story was shut down in 2011 putting a lie to Cohen’s belief that it was solely about the campaign. Indeed Cohen’s evidence (if you believe that POS) was that Trump didn’t give a shit if Mrs. Trump found it therefore he only cared about the campaign. Cohen seems to think it is binary. But maybe Trump would care about how his son with Mrs Trump would care? Maybe Trump was bluffing about Mrs Trump to not appear pussy whipped?

With respect to crimes like this, there's a certain res ipsa loquitur aspect where the mere commission of the act is evidence of intent in and of itself

Yes, and the intent is obviously "don't write down the embarrassing adultery he's trying to cover up", right? Is trying to keep his despicable personal life secret a crime? If not, then isn't looking for some additional redundant intention, much less assuming it, a basic violation of Occam's razor?

Looks like a decent itinerary. Keep in mind that Dec 29-Jan 3 is around Shogatsu so a lot of stuff will be closed/limited during those days. Double check that the stuff you want to do is accessible/open.

Also, don't do the Shibuya go carts, you'll just look like a tool and piss off everyone around you. If you want to do something quirky there are a million more interesting things to do even just right there in Shibuya. There are a billion cool an unique bars, live music venues, edgy boutique stores, and more. TBH you could probably just wander around Dogenzaka for an hour or two and have a great time.

Harajuku is a shell of its former self. It's choked with Chinese and American tourists, random Nigerian touts, and various (non-Japanese) Asian tourists badly LARPing what Harajuku fashion was 20 years ago. If you want to see young people wearing freaky and interesting fashion, go hang around Shibuya station or the rooftop of the nearby Miyashita park. Spend the second half of your Harajuku day in Shibuya or Shinjuku instead.

Mt Fuji is impressive and worth seeing. Good choice. Instead of driving, you might consider taking a fancy train with a beautiful view so you can chill and eat snacks and enjoy the ride. Driving in Japan is IME pretty dreary, slow, and tedious. Around Tokyo, lots of of highways routed through ugly/inconvenient areas with no view and often with large sound barriers so you can't see much. Don't know about the route to Narusawa specifically.

Never been to Sapporo but I've heard great things about it and Hokkaido in general.

But that’s the entire point. You needed to do it with an intent to defraud and commit another crime. If he wasn’t thinking at all about that, then that is proof he didn’t commit the crime.

The prosecution has to argue he was thinking about it, there was in fact a legal method, and Trump was like “fuck that, I want the criminal way. Leeeeeeeroy Jenkins.” That just isn’t reasonable.

The context of that is that it is a campaign expenditure. You’ve stolen a base assuming it is a campaign expenditure.

You should read what Brad Smith wrote about mixed motives and campaign finance law. Your view seems to be that subjective intent matters but then you create a wholly ungovernable and dangerous scheme for candidates.

Imagine there is a debate coming up. Candidate wants to look sharp so goes to buy a new suit. Well his motive is to look good for campaign purposes so should he use campaign funds? If he does, then he opens himself up to claims that he improperly used funds to pay for the campaign because after the debate he still has this fancy suit (ie there is a mixed use).

Let’s say his proud mother buys the suit for him. Did they run into a campaign finance problem because subjectively it was for the benefit of the campaign? Or was it? Was it just a proud mom having affection for her son and proud of where he was?

Let’s say the candidate is friends with Person X. X regularly has lunches with Y and Z and routinely brings other interesting people to lunch. X brings along the candidate because he wants Y and Z to vote for him but also thinks the candidate is interesting and it would make for an enjoyable lunch. X pats for the expensive lunch. Campaign contribution? If so, does the candidate have to pay for brunch with campaign funds? Now you created jeopardy in that case.

All of these hypos show why mixed motive cases should not be policed because they create untenable and unknowable catch 22 situations for candidates. It is why Brad Smith believes the rules are bright line.

So I think, much like the Colorado case you got dreadfully wrong, you aren’t thinking about the havoc your interpretation of the rules would wrought. Once you think about that, then it becomes clear it can’t be what the system was intended to do.

To be clear, this isn’t a resurrection of the church of the holy trinity. But it is asking in dense texts with hard to understand meanings “does this interpretation create such a crazy system that we don’t think ambiguous phrases should be constructed to lead to such a crazy result.” That is, it is a clear statement principle somewhat similar to the major questions doctrine.

Something to note is that that only covers the "city of Amsterdam", metropolitan Amsterdam is more th 3x as big and most people dont seem to raise children in the "city" as by far the most common demo living there are 25-35yos.

I'd imagine this is mostly an effect of statistics. The ethnic Dutch raise their kids in the suburbs while ethnic minorities do so in social housing/ethnic ghettos, leading to a them having a disproportionate share of the children in the "city".

It's most likely the case that Amsterdam is getting less Dutch ethnically but it's probably not going quite as fast as the stats would seem to suggest, and I'm not sure how much space there is for an increase in ethnic change given housing constraints.

Tagging @zeke5123a since this response also applies to his comment from yesterday that I didn't get a chance to respond to.

You're confusing mistake of fact with impossibility. Mistake of fact is a defense that obviates some element of the crime, the classic example being the theft of property one wrongly believes to be his own. If I take a coat similar to mine from a coat room at a bar because I thought it was mine, I can use mistake of fact as a defense because I haven't formed the sufficient mens rea. Factual impossibility, on the other hand, is generally not a defense but the opportunity to even raise it is so rare that it's not really a huge issue. The hypothetical I gave doesn't involve impossibility, though, because the conduct doesn't amount to attempted murder. There's no generally recognized point at which mere preparation becomes attempt, but it's but it's basically hornbook law that lying in wait or looking for the intended victim don't rise to that level. Cases involving this test usually focus on things like whether the bullet you fired had a realistic chance of hitting the target, which is well beyond what I presented.

The reason I presented that specific fact pattern is that it illustrates a point I'm trying to get — the intent requirements of some crimes don't require you to prove those other crimes. The crime of burglary developed at common law specifically because the act of breaking into someone's home did not in and of itself rise to the level of attempt, but the courts agreed that it was still a crime. So when New York law prohibits anyone from falsifying business records with the intent of concealing another crime, whether or not you can prove that he committed another crime isn't important. Whether or not you can even specifically identify that other crime isn't important. With respect to crimes like this, there's a certain res ipsa loquitur aspect where the mere commission of the act is evidence of intent in and of itself; if a defendant is found having broken into a jewelry store with his face concealed and in possession of burglary tools, the prosecution usually doesn't have to go any further than that to show intent. They don't have to — what some are suggesting would be required in Trump's case — give extrinsic evidence showing that the defendant broke into the building specifically to steal jewelry.

The fact that Trump may not have violated election law is therefore irrelevant. The fact that the prosecution couldn't demonstrate the very specific scienter requirements required to prove an election law violation are also irrelevant. Trump wasn't charged with violating election law. The elements of the crime he was charged with are independent of the elements of the crime he is alleged to have concealed. You may not like this, or think the DA is stretching the law, but that's just The Way It Is, and it's been that way for a very long time. If you're looking for an appellate court to overturn the conviction because you disagree with one or another of the principles involved, that's fine, but even as someone who's broadly liberal I don't know if I'd welcome that, as it would give the Warren Court a run for its money on how defendant-friendly it is.

Give it a week and we'll have new polling that shows if this event moved opinions at all. Hopefully they ask specifically about whether the verdict changed their opinion and in what direction so we don't miss one direction of movement being netted out by another.

You’ve ignored the mixed motives question which is the whole ball of wax here.

Now, put this in the context of the NY trial. We have at best for the prosecution a very murky federal law. We also have a murky NY law (are we sure unlawful means federally unlawful).

The prosecution offered zero evidence that Trump was thinking of either law let alone that Trump thought he was breaking either law and that hiding these internal records would help hide this alleged crime. Moreover, there is a standard in law that criminal statutes cannot apply if they are overly vague. When the FEC cannot agree on what the law is, then it surely cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction for state law purposes.

It's possible, but you have to be cautious of the LLMs accuracy.

Most publications outside of research don't include an abstract.

I've wanted to talk about AI music for a while. It's decent for the certain types of music, specifically pop songs with simple voice leading and harmony. When asking for specific instrumentation or a specific musical style it seems to fail pretty bad. For example, if I wanted specific instrumentation for a chamber piece, it's currently impossible for it to create a string quartet in the style of Brahms. Al 'classical' generations are psudo-orchestral works similar to the most generic Marval movie anthems, not like the incredibly nuanced creations of Stravinsky, Messiaen, or Bach where each musical line matters. It adheres strictly to conventional tonality no matter how much you try to prompt your way into serialism, asymmetrical rhythm, jazz, etc. Much like previous AI music it really avoids key changes and any more complex musical ideas.

Does AI Djent? A decent bit, to be honest. But does it Stravinsky? We're a long ways off.

Is your timeline (14 days) set in stone?

Hunter Biden had the DOJ doing everything they could to ward off actual crime (he clearly inter alia committed knowing tax fraud). It was so unusual we had IRS whistleblowers. The senator from NJ basically was getting bribed by a foreign government.

These are real crimes; not fake ones.

What advice could you offer to a traveler inexperienced with Japanese cuisine?

Ehh the focus has been very heavily on “this is wrong” and not “Trump’s atty did a bad job.”

The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.

It feels like they were mocking the Midwestern amerikaner with this one.

That was the point.

Mostly because he doesn't think that laws apply to him in the way they do to little people.

They don't, actually, because these charges have never been used against anybody before in the history of the world.

Working link at here