842 karma · joined March 2, 2022
Source: I did WFH for about 2 years before the pandemic in a 1 bedroom apartment that I shared with someone
It is still insufficient to say nothing bad will happen, of course
I like this analogy. I've had similar thoughts for a while too. Granted I also saw some research that society has been objectively getting better in a lot of areas people think is getting worse (like violence, specifically police abuse) compared to the past. theoretically this is because we have a lot more information now than before, so smaller occurrences are generating a larger impression.
that said, I still very much agree with your point and that it is very applicable to specific individualized issues. Saying that people have been concerned for a while and nothing bad has happened yet is accurate for the situation where nothing bad will happen, AND the situation that it was bad then and is worse now, AND the situation where we are approaching a tipping point / threshold where the bad will start.
one - you cant go no carb, so it requires very accurate moderation which is something people tend to be bad at
two - the cheaper sources of protein and fat, which you now must eat more of, are often high in omega-6 instead of omega-3, or have the wrong balance of saturated vs unsaturated fats, not enough amino acids, etc
three - if you go for Keto, getting hit by points 1 and 2 together can easily create a health risk. Too much protein kicks you out of ketosis as well. You might chronically knock yourself out of keto without realizing it and eat a bunch of foods that you really only get away with eating by being in
So even though a proper keto diet, for example, might be perfectly fine. Recommending a keto diet to the general public very well might kill some people who historically have a bad track record for moderating their food intake
>Ultimately Congress needs to become functional again
Yes exactly. I keep seeing rhetoric that we "lost 50 years of progress". we didnt. We band-aided our government and had 50 years to make the proper correction and havent been able to yet. More importantly, though, I dont think we have really tried to
the group that was keeping that band-aid on is now out of power and we want to blame the other side for simply upholding separation of powers. I mean, it is tone deaf to do it now at best, but Mississippi pushed the issue. the court is obligated to uphold the law, not dictate it. Abortion as a privacy right has always been a weak stance.
Anecdotally, I have felt a growing disinterest in local politics growing for the past decade. I can name so many people who "didnt want to talk politics" 2 weeks ago who are now non-stop politically charged over roe v wade. I could roll my eyes about it all, but honestly I just hope it serves as enough of a wake up call for people to stay involved.
Right, but that's also the point I was making. People think creating a law based on the beliefs of religious people violates the separation of church and state. It doesnt. the semantic nature of the law is relevant here.
I was highlighting that by saying you could make a state that effectively is a religious state using the current system. since the semantics are still there and must be accounted for, this prevents it from actually being a religious state.
By adhering to the semantics, no amount of religious belief can lead a state to violate the constitution.. even if the state bases every single one of its laws on religion. And if they try to, then the federal government has authority to enforce otherwise.
One - no shit, pro-choice has considerably less consequences on the people around you than pro life does.
Two - Nothing is invalidated, I made a sound argument that you are free to disagree with using your own sound argument. Using resources to support someones choice is not the same as using resources to take away someones choice. Abortion can be legal, and your state can still control to what extent resources will be used to support it.
Three - Yes I understand. I directed my previous message at rural people. the ones who decide on the laws. However, you advocate for people to go get an abortion in another state. that is pro-choice in spirit, isnt it? Why do you care if they cross a state border to get an abortion? If you are pro-choice, dont you want your state law to reflect that?
>Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.
except for the fact that "your" state can put you in jail for committing a crime if you do this.
I agree though that people should try to leave the state (entirely) if it has unagreeable laws and the majority in that state wants to preserve them. I also think the prolifers in my state should stop standing outside planned parenthood and move to a different state also. It's pretty dumb that people try to be a part of their community and improve it rather than move somewhere that already agrees with them, right?
It does however mean someone has the right to choose whether or not they want to be a part of your community, and takes away your ability to use state and federal resources to enforce your choice as being more important than someone else's choice.
Catholic people will make catholic laws. They wont literally be catholic laws.. but common sense would allow you to see them as such. There's nothing wrong with that either. The state does not need to recognize them as catholic laws and requires the laws be articulated and produced independent of the religion.
you cannot make a law that says "You must treat the poor the way Jesus would" but you can make a law that says "You cannot refuse life saving medical treatment to someone for being poor". Under Separation of Church a State can still create their set of laws to be 1:1 with the teachings of their religion. They just have to actually do that.. make the set of laws. they cant say "follow rules in the bible". The laws supersede the bible. Make the laws match the bible if you want people to follow the bible. So that's what these states are doing.
The US is an agreement. It is more comparable to the EU than it is Spain, or France, etc. Each state is meant to have autonomy relatively similar to a country, but are united together for purposes of national defense and human rights. that was the initial premise. it's expanded from there, but the constitution was a compromise.. states did not want to join the union just to transfer power from a king to a federal government.
The heart of the Republican platform is upholding that compromise. The heart of the Democratic platform is that was then, this is now, we are a single country and need to centralize more power.
there is a greater sharing of ideas in urban locations. more progression happens. they fail to spread the progression to rural locations.
It is a dynamic and evolving ecosystem and we are failing to educate and / or motivate rural locations to care about these things properly.
Instead urban culture usually acts superior, makes demands, and assume what they believe should be obvious and by not coming to the same conclusions immediately during a confrontation that means rural people are evil.
Rural people double down on the beliefs because at the end of the day nothing really matters and they might as well stick to something that gives them a sense of belonging since they very obviously do not belong with urban culture.
which is also why 2nd amendment is relevant. if the people responsible for the creation of laws is sufficiently corrupted, then the public have the right to form a militia and replace them. Which you cannot do if those same corrupted people are the ones deciding who is allowed to have guns or not.
If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
What the Supreme court did was allow for the POSSIBILITY of a fully Catholic US State to practice Catholic religion with respect to abortion. It ALSO allows a fully Jewish state to practice Jewish religion however they want with respect to abortion.
They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state. That's it. California, New York, etc, are absolutely and completely unaffected by this decision, for example.
If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).
What the Supreme court did was allow for the POSSIBILITY of a fully Catholic US State to practice Catholic religion with respect to abortion. It ALSO allows a fully Jewish state to practice Jewish religion however they want with respect to abortion.
They actual problem caused by overturning Roe v Wade is that some states who's laws are already catholic will regain the power to stop abortions in their state. That's it. California, New York, etc, are absolutely and completely unaffected by this decision, for example.
if weed makes someone feel fulfilled, then they can farm a lot more feelings of fulfillment by using it than the old fashioned way of actually accomplishing things. I think trying to shame people away from it is silly. People who use it will very quickly realize it isnt bad, and then they dismiss everything they heard about it.
There is a monkey paw warning in that it wears off. It wears off in short and long terms; it is less effective the more you use it over time. So be aware that the spectrum for its effects is along the lines of "kind of cool for a little bit" to "everything you love slowly being ripped from your hands". the latter extreme probably being pretty rare and more applicable to heroin.
Otherwise you could make the same 'danger' argument about video games, porn, social media, reading books, painting, co-dependent relationships, etc. Anything that people use to dump their attention / time into rather than deal with anything uncomfortable in their life. The vessels people use are a matter of preference, and tangential to the underlying problem.
There is always an issue with trying to use 1 tool to fix every problem. obsession. Weed usage requires nuance and an understanding of what it is you are trying to accomplish with it. same as any other drug, same as any other tool.
Honestly, if someone wants to do nothing with their life than smoke weed.. who cares? I certainly dont. They might be one of the last people I offer any sort of charity to, but that's about me not them.
I'm guessing this is why it is Juul specifically. Other companies may be next, or maybe the FDA hopes using this mechanism to take down the biggest player will strike enough fear in the market that the other vendors fix the issue overall.
Juul arranged to be there, but I find ithard to believe they did anything to explicitly prevent other adults from being in the room. No one at the school had enough common sense to be like "someone should chaperon this" ?
I kind of agree that it was probably entirely inconsequential to the popularity of juul though.
including regarding genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the company’s proprietary e-liquid pods
– that have not been adequately addressed and precluded the FDA from completing a full toxicological risk assessment of the products named in the company’s applications."
Copyright really is not only concerned with what exactly is on the page, but also how you got there, and where the knowledge came from to get you there.
What if I read your codebase, and then years later while programming for myself I inadvertently use solutions you came up with while thinking I came up with it myself?
There really are no hard set rules, and this is something that is handled on a case-by-case basis based on whether or not a convincing argument can be made that you copied a novel idea from someone else and claimed it as your own.
We can argue the semantics of it all we want, but the subject area is an active battleground. Typically it only matters when money starts to get involved, since no one usually presses the issue or gets involved with random personal projects. So when an enterprise level company leverages that lack of caring into a proprietary pay-to-use project that operates by copying and pasting code from copyrighted material, then it seems like a case might be able to be made for it.
There are no rules about the form of the code itself that governs whether or not someone owns it. Common sense applies. Sure you could "steal" very small, common, code snippets and get away with it; but that doesnt make it less wrong.
When a commercial entity explicitly does it, however, some times we can catch them. Like if they do it through algorithms that we more or less know how they work - i.e. the algorithm is using advanced control flow logic to copy and paste from it's training data set and copyrighted material is in that data set
yes exactly. I am having trouble articulating my underlying point but this is along the lines of it.
A facial recognition algorithm is ultimately saying "you look similar to this specific set of people". If the training set was 1 person, for example, then the algorithm would pretty much just be saying "you look like this photo of this 1 person". Scaling that up does not improve privacy - it only blends you into a population. Additionally, it is distilling out the things about you that separate you from that population (things that make you, you) since those distinguishing features are exactly what the model needs to use as the line to draw on whether or not new data points are similar to the population set or not.
Health is very personal. Family history is usually pretty relevant. I am not sure what we gain by pretending we arent talking about actual people, or that by removing your name from all your specific health details it somehow means you cant still be personally targeted. I know Google gains the benefits of less regulations, though.
I just disagree with the position that Google can do so while preserving privacy. If we are going to trade privacy for cures, let's at least do so openly.
My beliefs are quite the opposite of what you implied about me. I think we should move away from all this embedded bullshit and keep peoples identities intact because the generalizations will never be perfect and it might be useful to know who the actual people are that those generalizations are based on. Maybe that would facilitate human connections. Maybe that would make it easier to reward individuals for sacrificing their privacy in order to improve healthcare. Instead of just pretending they arent sacrificing privacy and are just a drop in the ocean of data providing results.
You are not a drop in the data ocean. Your data is important. There are not a lot of people like you. Google emphasizes generalization because it cheapens the value of your individual data point. Their policy creates an illusion I aim to dismantle.
Also, I do have chronic illness but that is not relevant here. Mine does not directly cause pain, though, full disclosure
>the standard of care in America is probably second to none if you can pay for it
How sure are we that these two things are unrelated?
At the end of the day, it's just you by a different name. Instead of owning it and claiming "we have this information on Gehlitio" they say things like "We have these generalizations about anybody who happens to use HN, speaks in English, bought X Y and Z, subscribes to A, <insert 100 more details that effectively fingerprint you>"