5,098 karma · joined April 15, 2011
Politics seems to be the force that can bury any amount of advancements in other fields, hence interest.
"Who voted this up?" is the community rift.
HN is failing at comments. During last years, the community deteriorated to the point where for many articles every single comment is grayed-out downvoted. That signifies quite a rift in community. HN used to be upvote-intensive excitement-driven but today it's downvote-intensive, annoyment driven.
I wonder if they have that in uploaded form: cute German girls consenting to have sex. Would be an entertaining watch if you ask me.
If there is not, why are we calling person a criminal?
Which I could not recommend enough, I'm having wumo flashbacks all the time just as with obligatory XKCD.
[1] By European standards that could as well be a railway hub.
Why can't they make some device for him, say, a thick-ish belt, which will make him hang inside of a sphere full of compressed gas, after a second of free fall? Not unlike how car SRS work?
Why don't ships have inflatable balloons strapped to their hulls that would allow them to float indefinitely? We still have sinking ferries with hundreds dead that could perhaps been fully prevented?
1: First people argue there's no problem with low birth rate, and then people tell that they're solving the problem. Pick one.
When there's polarization in a society where a majority of population out-vote a minority on every proposal, said minority has all motivation to withdraw from public politics and secede.
Imagine a country with 60% big-endians and 40% little-endians. Big-endians own every president, every senate and every vote they care to win. Little-endians have no sensible choice but to split into their own country where they'll be a majority, perhaps with civil war and ethnic cleansings in the process.
Which BTW makes no sense when you look closer at demographics, since most depopulating areas are rural, but immigrants usually live compactly in countries' largest cities (where also existing youth flocks to), increasing population imbalance in fact.
Yes they get total head count stable but at cost of getting everything else wrong.
Their interpretation of what being Muslim means in practice might differ significantly.
> was able not to wear a headscarf in the presence of the rulers
There's a lot of things even I won't do "in the presence of the rules", but luckily I don't see much of them, so I'm free to do whatever I please. Wasn't same true for them?
However, most of those countries are long islamic. They figured ways to have both islam and freedom of expression. Only in the later years did they become violently fundamentalistic to displayed extent.
Some didn't yet. Tatars are muslim for quite a few centuries but they don't dress their women like that.
What's "tradition" here? How widely were it practiced? Because I totally see this practice of digging in the past for some more obscurantist behaviors, and calling it "tradition" as if it is a good thing.
Enjoying something while trying to prevent others from enjoying it. Which he did. Searching for reasons to back it up makes it worse.
On related note, I've heard there's sentiment coming from smartphone-clutching young parents where they say they'll somehow restrict their children from visiting internet. WTF are they thinking? First they'll fail, then how do they think they'll look in the eyes of their children?
Too bad that many people are content both with arbitrary restrictions and with the people who force restrictions on them.
https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg
Also, fundamentalists just invented most of things they sell as eternal.
Right now we don't even know if he has wife or any children and what's they're up to, and also what happens next.
Him calling himself an Emperor is laughable, but having an Emperor with heritage and all the stuff instead of him now looks like an option.
One can perhaps start a commune in a forest or on an island even today, with handpicked people, but it doesn't happen.
Wanting to flee from Earth with all its problems is understandable, but I fear that we'll repeat a lot of bad stuff in habitats. Think totalitarian cults, slavery, plain old totalitarism.
If not many, then how are we going to choose who to shove there?
What if it will turn out discriminatory?
What about Switzerland?
In many countries constitutional monarchs are replaced by de-facto for-life Despots (think Putin and his partner Erdogan), for whom nobody could explain who they are (parents, relatives, children?), where we got them from and what happens when they expire. At least for a Monarch we knew all that with high amount of detail.
Who have no legitimacy whatsoever other than a bit of popular support, a lot of police state support and constant twisting of the law.
Nobility used to be public, now instead of having no nobility we have private nobility behind tall walls.
Why then this position is only thing we hear from liberal camp? Didn't hear them trying to solve the hard problem of "when deciding what to do with refugees, who is to let in and what to do with rejects".
It's not about sexual orientation, but public sexual orientation seems to correlate heavily with political views.
Aaaand, in my book, that counts as "wanting to flood smbd with Muslims".
There's just notion that it's a respectable thing to want, and fighting it is not respectable. Even talking about this is frowned upon as you can see.