fixxer

If your teeth are like mine, then they are sharp at the front, designed for the cutting and tearing of flesh.

Industrial farming is about as humane as any other method for killing I've seen/practiced.

People argue that hunting keeps one more connected with the concept of meat as quarry, but the end result is the same. I shot a scimitar oryx through the heart a few years ago (before the ban) and it still ran 100 yards before it dropped. I'm pretty sure stun guns and captive bolt pistols remove the concept of pain faster.

Using Windows threatens Windows Users Around the World.

If I removed every airline that sucked from my flight results, I'd be driving to Paris.

I hope this reaction keeps going because I'm gonna load up on United stock. In 6 months, all these noise makers will be gone and we'll all realize United is equivalent in shittiness to AA, Delta, etc etc.

I don't know anything about the value of this crap, but I do find it interesting to grep through looking at the IPs (which I presume are compromised machines from which they are initiating attacks). See `./bin/pyside/targets.py`

This doesn't strike me as having anything to do with data volume. This is much more about exploiting cognitive biases. This is not a new thing. If anything, the subject is a classic one.

A group should not be able to exclude the individual if he/she doesn't want to be part of the union. Period.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Read my profile.

Are we close to peak bullshit for this cycle? I've about had enough.

Only bank I know of with really risky auto practice is perhaps Santander. The world will keep turning.

While I'm not a fan of a looming crisis, I don't see enough critical mass to this space to have a lot of concern for macro impact.

It is also worth realizing that while the great recession trained us to be scared of news like this, defaults are a sign of risk taking and not necessarily a bad thing.

Case in point, YC tries to make good bets, but they have a lot of losers in their portfolio. And in that case, we're talking about unsecured debt.

Maybe? I wouldn't want to live in those states and I think that would be pervasive. Ultimately, economics would drive progress.

All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.

In practical terms, unions can't survive without destroying individual freedom. So they are bad.

Compelling an individual to support a group runs against the concept of individual freedom. I support the right to form a union and the right to not join one. I do not support the right to require an individual to join.

I support the individual. Pretty simple.

I said I'm not against them. I never said I was for them either.

No, you're missing the point. The issue is individual freedoms. You're talking about the benefits of collective bargaining and calling that freedom. It is in no way the same thing.

I think the free rider problem you allude to is a result of union membership providing diminishing value.

But again, the only part I really have an issue with are public sector.

PS. You're not wrong about taxes, but let's not use debating fallacies please. We're talking about unions.

I think trade unions are fine. The issue I have with unions relates to public sector unions like AFSCME that are able to have representation on both sides of the negotiating table.

Libertarians (of which I am not) are not against unions, they are simply pro freedom. Freedom means being able to assemble, but it also means not being compelled to assemble, especially when a portion of the dues are used to fund political action for policies they don't support.

EDIT: autocorrect is horrendous

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

Translation: you've been there zero times and only know what you've read from your Progressive news sources and Michael fucking Moore.

I went both times as part of a humanitarian mission to bring medical supplies. Cuba sucks. Great people. Horrible government.

Some municipalities are incredibly dependent on it. Sunrise, Florida comes to mind: http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2013/10/30/f...

I've been to Cuba twice. I disagree.

How many times have you been there?

You do a lot of virtue signaling in your commentary and presume to speak for "the masses". It is... amusing.

I get that you have an opinion and it is fairly orthogonal to mine. Your opinion doesn't offend me or make me feel threatened, but the presumption that you speak for anyone beyond yourself is awkward.

I want to understand your side, but your presentation is pitting you against good taste... I feel like I'm talking to that guy at the gym who went off his bipolar meds.

Tone down the preaching of universal truth, perhaps?

My friends who went to the March still have no idea what they were _not_ protesting. Saul Alinsky would be mortified to see how unfocused activism is today.

White nationalism doesn't exist. This is just a label invented to explain why the Democrats have lost influence among middle-class America in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa...

The left, however, is a real thing. When I worked with Obama's people, I worked with people that identified as "anarcho-socialists" that openly discussed entitlement expansion as a means to break the system. I could not invent the crap I heard these people say.

If anything, they'll push it back to the states to decide. I put zero probability of a Federal ban on marriage equality.

My friends on the left always push for universal, top down rulings on social issues. In reality, there are really good reasons historically for why groups move and congregate within the United States - they get better treatment and opportunity in different places. States rights is a safety net against political swings like we're dealing with and we should all support it not because we like what Alabama or Indiana wants, but because we want California or New York to be able to represent and manage itself.

Libertarians also have a lot of internal divisions. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a "libertarian socialist" and gets along as well with the Cato Institute as a Trump supporter at a BLM rally.

Now we're making progress: I don't.

Over the last couple years, I've started mentally putting a "P(BULLSHIT)" next to every source I read. The estimate keeps growing.

While you might want to make this an ad hominem attack, all I can say is that my probability estimates are pretty darn bipartisan.

Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)

Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data.

This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.

NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism.

Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)