Turns out when you build a platform around anti-censorship you wind up with a small number of free speech enthusiasts and a large number of people who will be banned from any site with rules against hate speech.
Then when you have a site where 80% of the content is racism the 20% non racists leave.
Yeah, fair that is probably a truer reading of their intent, I will edit my post to refer to yours.
I would still argue that taking proven approaches that cut security services related murders by up to 98.5% is worth doing and dismissing that on the basis that anarchism if somehow implemented in the US would solve the last 1.5% is...
Well whatever, I don't want to try to debate people out of anarchism, especially not here.
Declaring something happens in every country with armed police Is asinine when it happens 55 times more in some places and 66 times less in others.
When there are countries with such a dramatically lower rate of security services killing civilians there are important lessons to be learned there, rather than throwing up our hands and saying something like "well states will murder wherever states exist, don't worry about it, it's normal".
Edit: better characterisation in pupperdreams' reply below
They are arguing the definitions with someone who was "arguing" with someone who lived through the reality
It's generally not even Londoners re-posting crime "news" about the capital (we live there, so we know) it's more certain people from rural areas who neither live, work or visit London.
Those certain people are either the ones who have a chip on their shoulder about how London is a success despite not catering exclusively to white native born people, or people who just got sucked into an alternate reality where they read so much crime news that everyone in London must get stabbed once a year.
There is also a healthy dosage of conflating per square mile and per capita crime
ICE are trump's praetorian guard, a paid trip to Europe and the Olympics on company time is a reward for loyalty shown to the executive over the people.
Oh it's easy;
Does doing it the correct way increase your workload but make the business more profitable in the short term? Do it the correct way.
Does doing it the correct way preserve your safety at the cost of operating efficiency? Do it the incorrect way.
The second kind of unfollowed rule is there as a liability shield, it's so that if you get hurt the business can claim you weren't following your mandatory training and they aren't liable.
But if people did follow it then they would get a kind word from their supervisor saying we don't have the time for that even if it is in the official training. Because the supervisor themselves is in a worse bind, they have to tell management that the new liability shield is being followed as it won't work otherwise, but they are on the hook for the productivity of their team in such a way that they can't allow people to follow the slow process.
No worries, glad it helped 🙂
I think it would be nice if there were good discoverable resources for things that come naturally to most people but others need to put work into understanding.
[meme] cars are cars
Electric cars allow carbon emissions from personal transport to fall in step with the carbon emissions from energy generation.
Every solar panel, wind turbine, hydro plant, nuclear plant etc which comes online makes all EVs a bit cleaner, but does very little for internal combustion engine cars (acronyming that feels weird now)
Ideally we would have fewer or no cars, but I get that I'm very lucky to live in a major metropolitan area with good public transport and that's why I don't need a car, but that's not true for everyone.
It is significantly easier to move people from combustion to electric cars than it would be to build robust public transport everywhere and change the habits of everyone in the country.
I think it's counter productive to shame people for taking a positive step for the environment just because it's not a total solution. People doing good should be praised not shamed, even if it's a small good, especially if it's a small good that might lead to them making further positive changes.
It's not quite an "accident" in the sense someone made a mistake or stubled more like "an accident of history" where someone is influenced by events outside their control.
In this case it wasn't like the iconic visual design was selected from the favourite of all the ideas they had purely by aesthetic criteria. Rather limitations in the way human perception works influenced them to try a different approach and it wound up being beautiful.
Mirrors edge is (from what I remember) mildly dystopian, so it felt slightly genre defying to have a clean aesthetic in te dystopia, rather than using dirt and grime to emphasise the squalor and neglect.
This chart attempts to take that into account using OCED's purchase power parity metric
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.html
I don't know if the basket of goods takes into account healthcare and schooling and I expect it ignores taxes, but it sounds like the chart should be reasonably accurate.
financial backing of a few billionaires
Fun fact, most of reform's donors are either deeply invested in the fossil fuel industry or outright climate change deniers.
(Although I would be careful with the 92% number, it's technically accurate but will be misleading if you try to extrapolate policy from it, since the donors aren't single-issue donors)
Ful disclosure; I'm on the autistic spectrum
Same, since this is something I struggled with for a while and this thread is old I will try to give (my) understanding of humour in general and how it applies here.
Okay, as far as I can tell the root of all humour is something unexpected/surprising/confusing.
A lot of wordplay operates by having you understand a sentence one way then
Where there’s a will, I want to be in it.
The surprise here is that you expect where there is a will there's a way, and you expect "will" to refer to willpower, the unexpected aspect is that when you get to the end of the sentence it actually means last will and testament.
Comical misunderstandings in comedy fall under this, "edgy" humour is predicated on the idea that people will conform to polite discord then they break it. Cringe comedy is the same but rather than polite it's "cool" (or whatever the atonym for cringe is.)
In this case the surprise is just that the doll looks like the daughter, you expect the doll to be some random famous character and instead it's an image of someone you know.
This is mildly amusing but not that funny, what makes it hilarious (I assume) is the feedback loop between father and daughter. If he had been in the shop and seen it by himself there might have been a chuckle but not much more.
He shows her the mildly funny doll, she makes an unimpressed face as seen in the photo; she probably finds it a bit funny, but doesn't want to give her dad a "win" for something which is vaguely at her expense, so puts on an unimpressed face. Having known her for her whole life Dad understands what is happening intuitively, this is the second layer of funny where the daughter is putting on an act, then it compounds because the contrast between his reaction and hers is amusing and the more he finds the situation funny the more pointed the contrast becomes causing a feedback loop.
The difference in reaction is a classic comedy trope people find funny, thats why most multi person comedy acts have someone play "the straight man"
Sadly I don't think I can source this since nobody explains any of this so it's all observation and trial and error
Permanently Deleted
I enjoyed their recent video on power law distributions and why they dramatically change how you should operate in those domains.
They also did some good content a short while ago explaining why Monsanto and Dupont are problematic.
That said you are right about the thumbnails since when I looked at the channel to double check that it was veritasium I was thinking of the title and thumbnail are completely different for all of them.
Permanently Deleted
Existing hierarchies and power structures.
If you can force yourself to view everything through that lens, the actions of conservatives make a lot of sense, as do the things that make them angry.
I maintain that salad cream is almost the perfect condiment and can work as a substitute for either ketchup (due to it's acidity) or mayonnaise (due to everything else in it).
(Probably not a good idea to substitute either of them when used as ingredients though)
I think the name and the original intent was for it to work as a vinegarette equivalent since it is primarily oil and vinegar, and while it does certainly work there, I will pick vinegarette over sald cream if given the option. But for anything else where you would have ketchup or mayo salad cream wins.
Valid, I got 15-20 from a Google search, but further research puts your numbers as more reasonable, I will edit the patent post.
I think it's hard to definitely call something a bubble until it pops.
The definition of a bubble goes something along the lines of market prices exceeding the intrinsic value of the investment they represent, which may be true here?
If you want to read more about this the rough name for these companies was "the magnificent seven" a year or so ago when I last looked at this. A quick Google suggests represent about a third of the SNP 500's value now and have a cape ratio (cyclicly adjusted price to earnings) of ~37 compared to 15-20 being normal.
Edit: the above baseline is incorrect; see sugar_in_tea's comment for a more accurate baseline and some interesting counterpoints
I can't find a good numerical source for the correlated risk within this group, and I suspect analyzing it is very difficult. Given they all used to be a lot more diversified in the past but now a large % of their valuation is predicated on AI historical correlation analysis probably fails. But the diagram linked here suggests it's probably bad to put all your money in these companies. (Or even a 3rd if you are in an s&p 500 index tracker 😶)
Like, none of this definitively says this is a bubble, since if it were possible to divine that the bubble would immediately pop, but it does suggest there is a strong likelihood we are seeing a bubble.
Like most taxes it's possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn't sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it's passed.
Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.
The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won't encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.
That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.