Bran_son

The abstract idea of a 'pointer' is a piece of information to the location of some other information. It is not even an analogy - it is literally the same thing, differing only in implementation details.

Mass shooters largely reflect the (male) population: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/24/mass-shooters-by-race-a...

That said, mass shootings are a small part of all homicide, so they give the wrong impression of overall violent crime and homicide, and I see no justification for ignoring non-mass homicide. But the media love to focus on them to the exclusion of all else.

To back up the parents claim: The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

And of course, ignore Asians at all costs. Or if the study is about overrepresentation, invent a new, "Asian + white" category, and hide disaggregated numbers.

That is the purpose of DEI bureaucracy - to purge the ranks of defectors. Then they can manufacture studies justifying DEI goals unopposed. See a torrent of studies and articles proving you are the source of all suffering, justifying any and all hostile laws and treatment against you [1]? That is how they came to be.

[1] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

> Except that states aren't 100% competent enough to produce all the legal framework and military support that the USG provides.

So? That support is guaranteed to them by the constitution, and is the justification for federal taxes. Still taking the taxes, but discriminating how they distribute them based on constitutionally-protected state activity, is illegitimate and counter to the spirit (and I believe letter) of the constitution.

It's like an employer withholding part of your wage because he doesn't like your conduct outside of work, despite your contract not placing any limits on that behavior. And when you complain, he replies with "well you couldn't earn this much money on your own".

Or perhaps a better example is being denied Medicaid or police protection, because of some otherwise legal conduct.

The income that the feds tax is generated in the states. There is no meaningful distinction between a 15% federal and 15% state tax, and a 30% state tax that is then divided 50/50 between state and federal governments.

The FBI crime statistics I cited [0] show that whites have one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates. Specifically, the white+Hispanic [1] homicide rate is 1.16 per 100k, while the Black rate is 7.98. So which data are you referring to? Because the data I can find supports the exact opposite of your claim.

[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[1] Due to how the FBI reports Hispanic ethnicity separately from race, it is difficult to calculate homicide rates for whites and Hispanics separately, so for this comparison the white+Hispanic rate will have to suffice.

The media seemed extremely motivated to point out race for George Floyd and other anecdotal cases. It seems only fair to then also look at race when it comes to statistics. Otherwise, one is effectively lying by cherry-picking which cases to focus on.

Besides, others seem quite confident the issue is guns. Without examining other causes, we can't be sure that's the case.

If you can find per-capita homicide rates disaggregated by race in other countries, that would be most welcome.

I don't like such financial circumvention of constitutional limits on the federal government. Especially since those funds are extracted from the states in the first place.

That said, this zoning bill seems constitutional, per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35875405

> The amount of money required to trigger even these small effects is enormous. In "The Economic Consequences of Family Policies," published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2017, researchers found "one extra percentage point of GDP spending" on early childhood education and child care programs was "associated with 0.2 extra children per woman."

Average EU fertility is 1.53 [1], which is 0.57 below the replacement level of 2.1. So it would cost 2.85% of EU GDP to reach replacement level. The US (easier to find data than for EU totals) spends 3.4% of its GDP [2] (10.9% of the government budget) on defense, 1.6% on debt interest, and 0.3% on international affairs [3]. So securing the continued existence of a nation seems comparatively affordable.

And calling mere replacement level fertility "forced birth", or as The Guardian put it, "baby machines" [4], is hyperbolic. Though given its importance to the survival of a people, I am tempted to use a stronger term.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-...

[3] https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/pkxowz/oc_...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/baby-bonuses-f...

> Bigotry turns into a feedback loop that finishes in violence

Completely agreed. So long as I get to define what is bigotry, and what is valid grievance.

Conveniently, everyone across the political aisle from you speaks in bad faith.

> Idk if the irish law goes further

Had you read the thread you would know that it does. It contains excerpts from the law, showing that mere possession of material that is "likely to incite hatred" is illegal. That's an incredibly broad definition. Does an article alleging there are many Jews in Biden's cabinet [1] qualify? Or a book alleging white people are racist and fragile [2]?

[1] https://forward.com/news/462330/enough-for-a-minyan-a-jewish...

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

"No liberal filter" becomes "they want me and those I care about dead". It's so convenient when the only media that pass your purity test don't raise any uncomfortable points, or report on issues you'd rather be ignored, isn't it?

When the summary of a new law is comprised entirely of saying it bans things that are already illegal (such as harassment [1]), that's a good sign they're lying through omission.

In this case, the law makes it a 1st class misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail time and $1000 fine [2]) to "display or project, using any medium, an image onto a building, structure, or other property without the written consent of the owner of the building, structure, or property" [3].

I.e. even if the display is not harassing or threatening in any way, and even if the owner does not complain, you can go to jail for up to a year. That includes any structure (such as a bridge or billboard), and any medium (unfurl a banner or use a projector).

In other words, it makes illegal to spread a message through anything but official channels they can pressure and control.

[1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa...

[2] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-misd...

[3] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/269/BillText/er/P...

> You also have to think about what they want you to think.

That's a wildly exaggerated interpretation of rainytuesday's post. I interpreted it as calling out the one-sided purity test applied to which media one may engage with.

I.e. you can ignore it and not think about it, but you can't expect others to concede that, just because the source doesn't parrot your side's orthodoxy, it can and should be ignored. Especially for something as mild as the statement about supporting news without a liberal filter.

Especially since, if motivated, biased, harmful (but truthful) reporting is enough to discredit a news source, then that would disqualify ABC, CBS, NBC, the Associated Press [1], the New York Times, and I'm sure many others.

If we ignore what anyone we dislike has to say, even when we think what they're saying is true, then dialogue is impossible.

[1] https://israelpalestinenews.org/associated-press-double-stan...

[2] https://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html

'Bizarre' in what way? Are you alleging the hate-speech laws mentioned aren't real?

The data is public, available from the Irish government at https://www.gov.ie/en/consultation/c3d5e9-hate-speech-public...

I don't know their methodology, but you can double check their results yourself. If 3600 responses is too much to go through, you can do a random sampling of a smaller set. I've looked at the first 10 submissions from individuals. 8 of them are opposed to the law, 1 is unintelligible, and one thinks the law, as proposed, doesn't go far enough.

Alternately, you can try to find reports on this consultation from some media that you trust. Though you may find they are all silent on it.

Edit: In fact, when interviewed, even Ireland's prime minister Leo Varadkar didn't dispute Gript's characterization of the consultation results (he merely claimed that the results aren't representative of Irish opinion, for which he offered no evidence, and certainly didn't conduct a referendum to definitively answer the question), as the video in that thread shows: https://twitter.com/griptmedia/status/1654113707004239872

> Free speech is not under attack in Ireland

Please be specific. Which parts of the claim "The Irish government is proceeding with legislation to outlaw so-called “hate speech” – even after the vast majority of respondents to their public consultation expressed opposition to the idea" [1] are false?

Or is the photo of a page of that law, showing that possession of material likely to incite violence or hatred (with no mention of truthfulness as defense) falsified?

I understand some claims in that thread are speculative, but the majority is factual. Feel free to dispute the speculation, but please don't use it to trick people into thinking you've also disproven the facts the speculation is based on.

[1] https://gript.ie/hate-speech-consultation-received-mostly-ne...

The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

That said, I highly doubt this finding in particular (women needing fewer calories/oxygen) is wrong. It's a well established metabolical fact that women need fewer calories, and it would be bizarre if that didn't translate into less oxygen used.

> "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff

Very fair. All Google requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of submission to its will.

As usual, security is used as an excuse to lock down more than is necessary. To prevent the supply chain attack you mention, the boot lock just has to be tamper evident, such as showing a "Bootloader unlocked" message during boot. As is already the case in some phones. Additionally, a way to reset to a factory-verified state could undo such an attack.

Warranty could also easily be achieved by flipping a non-reversible bit that the phone was unlocked at least once. Though even if it couldn't, warranty troubles are not a justification for user-hostile behavior. If it were, they'd use it for all sorts of invasive logging/spying with the excuse they have to know if you used your phone in a way not covered by warranty.

> Fletcher’s last argument is empirical, rather than theoretical [..] he makes a list of the nations in the world that have had the most remarkable economic growth, including the UK, US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and China. He then divides them into two groups: the group that experienced hyper-growth from protectionist policies and the group that experienced hyper-growth from free trade policies. Here’s the list split into the two groups:

    Protectionist Success Stories: UK, US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, China

    Free Trade Success Stories: N/A

> “The intention is commendable, but a lot of the questions I felt uncomfortable asking,” says another producer.

Take a good look - this is all the resistance they can muster against formalized "positive" discrimination (i.e. regular discrimination against anyone outside the preferred groups). Things will get worse before they get better.

Naturally they won't acknowledge this preferential treatment any more than the myriad other affirmative action programs, and will continue to claim unrivaled victimhood.

> You’ve probably noticed that the marketing for this requirement is vague and confusing, and that’s intentional. It doesn’t do much for you, the consumer. However, it does set the stage for the future where Microsoft begins shipping their TPM on your processor. Enter Microsoft’s Pluton. The same technology is present in the Xbox. It would be an absolute dream come true for companies and vendors with special interests to completely own and control your PC to the same degree as a phone or the Xbox.

Explains why official sites don't explain what the TPM is beyond "security" [1], nor that this "security" means "security against the owner" - though the computer is nominally yours, it's built to keep secrets from you.

[1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/what-is-tpm-705f24...

Exported food is eaten, not burned. Hunger won't stop at borders - it's how the war in Ukraine is making food everywhere more expensive.

> The Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world.

Irrelevant. People and housing are bigger net burdens on the environment than farms. Their location relative to human political boundaries doesn't change that. They certainly take that into account when calculating e.g. consumption-based CO2 emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

> hire more engineers

Ideally ones not in the highest cost of living location on Earth.

> Justifying the move earlier this year, Christianne van der Wal, minister of nature and nitrogen policy, said that the Netherlands had to cut nitrogen emissions from farms to build new housing and produce green energy.

Closing farms to build more housing seems backwards. Where will the food to feed the people in that new housing come from? Per square meter, the total nitrogen/CO2 impact of a house+inhabitants is certainly bigger than that of a farm, if one considers energy and food use.