bennettnate5

I see it more as a symptom of deaths and incapacities becoming orders of magnitude more rare than they were a century ago. We've always not had a social net (and relatively speaking, we have more of a social net now than before); it's the human perception and familiarity with suffering of those around them that has shifted drastically. If you were alive 100 years ago you would have likely expected to have one or two children passed away and dozens of deceased or incapacitated friends/family members by your thirties; such was life, as disease, malnutrition and other dangers were rampant. Nowadays we have such a lower incidence of death and harm that the relative emotional impact of one is staggering, to the extent that people will go out of their way to assign blame and sue to the greatest extent possible rather than see risks as an inherent part of life.

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"

Controlled wages and fixed prices--that's sounding suspiciously like a command economy there. Well played, comrade.

(And I say controlled wages because the natural solution people bring up to paying for UBI is to carpet-tax the assets of the wealthy).

I think the precedent folks were pointing to was the great depression--no strong signal of assurance to temper public concern means things like bank runs and sudden collapses of institutions that would have otherwise made it because of group fear. Not sure how accurate that comparison is though.

Until they run on hardware and an operating system that is designed to assure noninterference [1], this is going to continue to be a thing. As the greybeards would say, "we already figured this all out in Multics [2]!"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interference_(security)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics

The whole "X can't be racist" claim is part of the broader class of intellectual ragebait--subverting the original meaning of a term to elicit reaction and thereby garner views (or in the academic realm, citations), but with more refined language and logic than the usual memes ragebait is found in. I find it frustrating and detracting from actual meaningful social/scientific efforts.

> I am not going to let you require that I run your proprietary malware

This is likely meant as hyperbole, but South Korea's online banking requirements really tries to live up to this reputation

> The scientific literature can be viewed as an "information commons:" an intangible resource that "no one owns

Springer would like a word

> I have unkind things to say about people who make their own pasta

You lost me on the first sentence; my significant other's homemade ravioli is unparalleled. Homemade pasta is a delight to make and tastes so much better than $1 cardboard box pasta

Same goes with the whole "Florida man" shtick--news channels and YouTube channels dredging for wild stories are more likely to get the info on Florida-specific misdemeanors due to sunshine laws.

I was playing the "Future" section and put "Milliway's" from The Hitchhiker's Guide series when it asked for a fictional restaurant; it only gave me 10 points and said it was from 70s. Milliways is very explicitly positioned in time at the end of the universe, so I should've been awarded maximum points there :)

It took me a while to understand what the numbers were actually trying to indicate (in part because I'm used to numbers in sheet music being suggestions of which finger should play the given note). If I understand correctly now, are you numbering zero-indexed with C as the beginning (0) and B as the end (Y), as a proxy for remembering which key notes are meant to be played in?

Some fun quirks I never learned until years after first getting into C:

- zero-initialization via `= {0};` will still leave padding and any data not covered by the smallest elements of unions uninitialized, so serializing data structures zeroed via that method is unsafe

- A pointer that increments any more than 1 past the end of a valid memory region (e.g. the end of a buffer) is instant undefined behavior even if the pointer is never dereferenced

- strict aliasing is on by default for pointers of differing types, but not for void/char/uchar. This means that having `struct sockaddr` and `struct sockaddr_in` pointers pointing to the same struct is UB.

The more I learn, the more I run from C.

Slavery is placed next to other wicked acts (and conversely, helping to free slaves is seen as the morally upright high road) across plenty of texts. It's more productive to condemn those who selectively live their faith in the ways that most convenience them and harm others, rather than making blanket attacks on faith or religion in general.

> And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

> Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you

> Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves

A thesis was never the approximation of a PhD (at least in my field of Computer science). The three novel published (or in submission) works that made up the thesis were. Peer review (at strong conferences!) is the bar that remains to keep a student from doing this.

> "I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice."

These are the kinds of people in charge of the reins, folks.

I have mixed feelings about cooperative board games in general. I've played a select few that blend things well, but too often it becomes an optimization problem that one or two players really fixate on and end up directing the decisions for the group as a whole, leading the others to check out.

The games I've found to get past this and remain fun for everyone retain some element of hidden knowledge between players, such as Deadwood [1] where players are cooperative in groups up until a final duel or Hanabi [2] where everyone but you knows your cards and players take turns giving strategic bits of info to get everyone's cards down in the right order.

[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/245197/deadwood-1876 [2] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/98778/hanabi

> They need to be taxed

> they can go around buying up assets until they own everything

The real estate transactions described in the article are purely income-generating rather than related to the mission of the church (e.g. for church buildings, temples); as such, any income from them is subject to income tax already under UBIT laws [1]. Same goes for local/state property taxes.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business...

Most people I've talked to actually use the "friends feed" in the menu that shows literally only what your friends have posted and nothing else; that could be my friend bias though

Sounds like a great way to strongly incentivize a new form of fraud--fraud-reporting fraud! Imagine how much fraudsters could gain by reporting thousands or tens of thousands of "fraud" calls that they themselves both originate and report from existing SIM farm infrastructure. Any deployment weakness or hole in blocking malicious traffic in the global telecommunications network all of the sudden becomes akin to a weak smart contract that is ripe for exploitation on the order of millions of dollars of fines until it is patched, all due to this depositing requirement.

> The most memorable creative responses to The Odyssey – such as Euripides’ Helen, Virgil’s Aeneid, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Joyce’s Ulysses, Walcott’s Omeros, Atwood’s Penelopiad, Madeline Miller’s Circe or Lisa Peterson’s play set in a modern migrant camp –

Hey, she forgot to include O Brother, Where Art Thou!

\s

> That's exciting that emergent behavior is coining new idioms that may be applicable to some situation

I dunno, it feels pretty similar to an elementary student blindly swapping words with a thesaurus to increase the sophistication of their writing (which I readily admit I was guilty of doing once). It sounds more intelligent but lacks substance.

Yeah, I definitely think "pallets" would make more sense in this context.

It is. It's far from good, but it's much better than eugenics.

This was literally an extended sales pitch to get people to buy/invest in real estate in Kyiv. Of course they're going to portray it as vibrant and rich.

That'll put a whole new spin on drive in movie theaters...

It's a matter of when, not if, and that _when_ was more than a decade ago. Round-up resistant Kochia (a weed) has spread across Western Canada and was first observed in 2011. Pretty difficult stuff to get out of your field once it takes root.

As for solutions, I agree with you that there's no single clean solution to mitigate resistance. But it seems like some weeds' reproduction paths are better suited for resistance than others (Kochia produces tens of thousands of seeds and spread similar to tumbleweeds, so there's a lot of potential for mixing and genetic diversity relative to other weeds).

https://saskpulse.com/resources/kochia-resistance-update-res...

So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning

I'm wondering if it's really the framing of the problem that's inflating the number of individuals responding with blue (similar to certain confusingly-worded ballot measures).

Suppose the problem were worded in a more concrete way: "I have a large container ship that I'm draining the ballasts out of tomorrow. If less than 50% of <whatever population we're working with> get on the ship, it will capsize and everyone who chose to get on it will die. You can choose either to get on the ship (blue button) or refuse to (red button)."

Would one hold a person guilty for not getting on the ship? Would a perfectly empathetic person even board that ship?

Let me frame it another way and see if you still consider it homicide:

There's a cruise ship that needs to have a certain weight in order to not capsize. That weight threshold happens to be at 50% of the population (for whatever population we're considering in the original question). If the ship capsizes, everyone on it dies.

You're given the option: either get on the cruise ship or don't. Not to take an actual cruise, not for some other intrinsic prize, just file on it for a minute and then get off.

I don't see how those who refuse the risk of dying on the ship are complicit in the deaths of those who willingly choose to hop on it knowing the risks involved