SinParadise

Before actions, there needs to be a will to act.

Do I believe that having a hearing will guarantee actions? Obviously not.

Do I believe that having a hearing is a necessary step towards having a will to act? Yes.

In what sense are these hearings a sham? Explain.

The first order positive and second order negative speaks to me. I prioritize the former over latter unless I am creating a demo/presentation of some kind.

I still see defaulting to prioritizing second order effect as a waste of effort majority of the time.

Because they never lost the appetite for slaves.

> The author of this piece doesn't seem to understand the basics of systems thinking and the entropic effects of non-moral action on human collectivism.

But why should I care about these effects if I am not in charge of such systems?

We are not talking just about guns here. We are talking about tools and the importance of applying them properly.

De-platforming are tools just like guns. Applied properly they are a force for good.

In this case, it was used well.

Sure, a gun can also kill an innocent man or neo-Hitler. We just need to make sure that it is applied more on the latter and less on the former.

De-platforming works.

RT Arabic used Business Casual(BC)'s video multiple times without permission, with watermarks edited out and had the video filtered to intentionally dodge copyright detection.

BC files three strikes over the course of 90 days for similar copyright infringement to RT channels, which in accordance to Youtube TOS, should result in termination of all RT channels (over 80 of them).

However, the rule that ought to apply to all channels did not apply to RT. In fact, Youtube seems oddly invested in RT's continued existence.

BC filed two lawsuits: one to RT, one to Youtube. The lawsuit to Youtube was recently dismissed however, it seems that BC is intent on trying again and most of the video goes into detail about what Youtube knew and seemingly contradicts what the lawyers argued in front of the judges.

Coincidentally, I cannot find this video via Youtube search.

this is the personal responsibility or bootstraps argument in a poorly made sheep's clothing.

>I've found that 100/100 people just get offended and/or pissed and retreat to their amygdala if you point out a fallacy in their logic.

And I am sure I've been guilty of this before, many many times. Being challenged is not a comfortable position to be in. I have since learned to weaken my position to give myself and others some leeway when one of us is wrong.

>I'm becoming increasingly convinced that good faith engagement is essentially impossible.

It is certainly getting more difficult. I think it is still useful to engage with individuals in your chosen social circle honestly and in good-faith, otherwise why are they in your circle in the first place?

Which is also why I think using facts to convince others is a Sisyphean endeavor. It is far more rational to learn rhetoric when you have to argue. Learn to wield fallacies like a weapon.

Of course, this relates back to good-faith, bad-faith engagement. Wielding rhetoric like this constantly deters people from engaging in good-faith, so you also have to develop a heuristic to determine whether or not the individual challenging your assertions is worth engaging in good-faith in the first place.

I don't fully understand how parent-child problem is addressed by lenses. How does lens helps to address the problem that a reference update is akin to changes an external state?

My understanding is that lens helps to address the large-object problem.

What do you do in the cases of high coupling between components (parent child) or between a base and a component? You just let the couplings happen or they themselves turns into an individual component/base? How do you decide whether or not the resulting highly coupled component + base is a component or a base?

Say in your Real world app you have a SQL for getting articles by user in store.clj. How do you decide if that SQL lives in article component or user component?

>How can you be a "former quantum physicist"?

By disentangling himself with quantum physics. He was a quantum physicist, so I assume he knows how to do it.

> There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda.

Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time.

> And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen.

Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.

By that point Crimea has already been annexed so I cannot exactly fault Ukraine for trying to join a defensive alliance instead of trying to re-kindle the relationship with the invader.

To me, that ship sailed a while ago.

But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse.

By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve.

In this case, Russia deserves none.

I don't disagree with the premise that "we ought to avoid war if we can", but pacifism and appeasement to an actor not acting rationally or in good faith is not fruitful, historically speaking.

My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"?

I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.

This is my issue with your use of word "cause". To me it insinuated culpability by NATO and the lack of agency from Russia.

So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.

I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.

Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?

>app is composed of traditional pages with server navigation between them, but each page is implemented as an SPA.

I agree with this because you affirm my bias.

Also because I've also had success implementing this structure. This makes sure that state of each page doesn't leak everywhere, which simplifies the state management.

It also loads faster than a big SPA because you don't have to worry about bundle splitting!

>Except his mortgage is still under water

So? The house is as livable the day before the mortgage went underwater as the day after mortgage went underwater. It only matters if Bob care about selling the house. If Bob's primary intent is to live in the house as opposed to selling it, it wouldn't be a problem.

Bob should stop treating real estate as an investment vehicle and instead just use as you would a car. It depreciates, it appreciates, you extract benefit from it regardless of its speculative value.

They create incentives to transition away from carbon emission.

It would have to be global. It would be deeply unpopular to the targeted countries which may start trade wars. It would still realign incentives.

The welfare of persons is always in the right.

sorry, this works too well. Only the best horse Ivermectin and finest Hydrochroloquine for me, coupled with a FDA approved vitamin protocol.

The fact that this even went anywhere is indicative of some serious, serious disconnect between the decision-makers and the reality of the situation.

You are a good man.

Amazing app, glad to see the pivot. It is a great fit.