gusgus01

I think "unacceptable" is different than "not illegal".

As much as I disagree with it, graffiti is an interesting topic. A lot of graffiti proponents fully believe that they are beautifying the environment by making it human, and even continue doing it as the level of effort to bypass the consequences go up. They don't believe it to be an awful thing (though I'm sure some do, plus some have other motivations, plus some are lying to themselves about their motivations, etc, I just mean what they say and do).

The article says they're considering removing the federal requirement that state governments even tell their constituents let alone allow public review.

So literally yes you can avoid the review... until you manage to convince your local government to pass their own version of this law, or vote out the existing people if they are against this thing you didn't think you had to care about because it was already law. And the slated time is within a year, so good luck accomplishing that in time.

Also please note the rules of this forum: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

The article is actually saying they've had record sign ups this year and as far as I can see doesn't make any comment about a decrease in sales in the last 2 weeks since the implementation of this regulation. There is a first hand report of someone stopping their shipping really far down on this post, and then someone on that chain links to a reddit comment from someone as well.

I'm sure there's probably a few comments I missed, but idk if I'd say there's proof of countless here or in the article.

It does seem like it'd have a chilling effect if the article's interpretation is correct, and other comments here also stated that the EU commission wanted to have a central registry to minimize the overhead.

You pay taxes in the US? You are directly enabling a country to harm others.

You ever buy a phone? You are directly enabling a chain of groups to harm people (in the name of creating that phone).

You ever give a dollar to a homeless man? You might be directly contributing to them harming themselves (or possibly just letting them buy food/drink).

Heck even your example about your sister, I think some people would argue that it's still the moral choice.

Clearly there's a spectrum here. Black and white thinking and statements aren't helping and shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.

Some people might consider that falling into the "creepy" use case.

Isn't "if there are regular drone strikes, it feels like the aggressor country is past that Rubicon." kind of self-refuting?

Conventional forces aren't deployed in many instances where regular drone strikes are used, thus the country didn't feel it was the right risk/cost to deploy conventional forces.

At the very least, it's a statement that deserves more debate, and I'd point to the many examples of how reducing cost and risk tends to increase the rate of an activity.

I mean that's definitely cherry picking portions of the wiki. Both of the articles refer to each other much more than those examples, not that that really matters.

Plus the Supply Side Economics wiki article, right below the "Not to be confused with trickle-down economics", contains a huge box pointing out the many issues with the article, including but not limited to "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles." and "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."

I also was trying to google it and saw what the other commenter saw btw. The AI overview on Google says "Yes, they refer to the same core economic concept, but supply-side economics is the formal, academic term, while trickle-down economics is a popular and critical label for it. Both argue that cutting taxes and reducing rules for businesses and rich people will help the whole economy". And it references: https://mattbruenig.com/2013/01/07/on-trickle-down-economics... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/demand-side-vs-supply-s... https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/supply-side...

What doesn't RCV fix about FPTP? And what issues does it introduce?

I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.

Oahu has some of the best US ramen I've ever had. Pretty much incomparable to most cities I've lived in, including places like SF and Seattle.

I thought that was more about correctly interpreting their asks, and not just actioning without consideration. If all your customers are saying your chair could use a cushion, it doesn't mean add a cushion, it means the chair is uncomfortable and you need to investigate why.

Or we listen to the experts who are frustrated with the system? They see the effects even if they don't know the AI model causing it.

Are you agreeing with the parent and giving examples of regulations that have been debated? Or are you trying to give examples of some of the "strawmen" regulations?

A lot of these examples are pretty subjective or missing context...

Sure, much easier to make a decision for yourself that helps you cope with the USA lifestyle than it is to change the USA on a short time scale.

There are of course other decisions that might help cope, like moving to one of the few walkable cities we have or structuring your life to reduce the lifestyle, but those all have a lot of other effects like completely upending your current life.

Although if the cup is warm to begin with, then you're using energy to warm up the cup which would eat into those energy savings.

The "optimal" drinking temperature of espresso is still considered higher than 50 degrees, like 60-65 degrees, though of course that is subjective, but the nice aspect of serving it hotter is that those that enjoy it hotter can have it and then it cools quickly and the customer can choose when to enjoy it or get to enjoy it at multiple temps.

Even that article carries on about the experience of having the coffee hot, eg

"This doesn’t mean drinking room-temperature coffee exclusively. The complete experience encompasses the entire temperature journey." and "High temperatures deliver immediate aromatic impact—the unique, irreplaceable value of fresh coffee."

I'm also not sure bitterness should be considered a defect in coffee, it's part of the flavor profile and actually peaks in perception at a higher temperature according to that article.

I'm aware that AMD was not involved in the VW scandal, and that that's not what TFA is about. Was that not clear?

It was a pop culture example of incentives gone wrong to hopefully support why incentives aren't clear cut.

I'm not claiming to know how any major tech company runs their bug bounty program. I'm actually trying to claim that we can't know how AMD (or any of them) do, we can merely express our opinions on it. We can discuss all the public incentives they may have (and our interpretations on how those incentives should play out), but we don't see the internal bureaucratic incentives or the personal incentives or etc etc etc.

We also regularly see how the incentives we see as outsiders (and somewhat insiders) are regularly perverted. For the VW emissions scandal someone could have argued that the incentives were plain and clear, "Design better engines", but they instead went with "Design better ways to scam the tests". This is on top of the way companies will mask their true incentives, like how renewable energy programs are sometimes actually just the smart financial decision but it'll be portrayed as part of the green movement.

To include some explicit personal opinion, I can't throw a stone without hitting a news story about a company that thought they could get away with something but then eventually got called out by it... and they ultimately still got away with it.

How do we know the incentive is to pay out bounties? And how do we know that doesn't change on the whims of the management chain?

We don't "know" anything unless we are at that company in particular and part of the management conversations. We at best can theorize based on incentives, but that's assuming companies and people are logical, which is a large assumption. I could easily see someone in the midst of layoffs and reduction of overhead initiatives thinking that the solution is to convince everyone you do payouts, but actually minimize payouts, which you could do by creatively using scopes.

Are you talking about the Lilly Insulin Value Program? If you're uninsured, you do need to get the savings card but it's mostly a matter of filling out the form. And that's only since they started the program in 2020.

There are quite a few visible hands driving the fruit industry. Trade agreements, tariffs, water rights, disease/blight controls, and of course weather events/patterns are regularly in the news and discussed as it pertains to the cost and availability of various fruits (and veg).

Off the top of my head, we've recently had shortages of fresh strawberries because of weather in California, a shortage of peas because of weather too, and various changes in Trump's tariffs were done to try and alleviate the rising cost of certain fruit and veg.

Sure, but I would consider mines laid in a strait a barrier or fence, and I would consider the radiation at Chernobyl a barrier to entry, and I would consider a hedgerow a barrier or fence as well. I think it's important to specify the type of barrier or fence when discussing the removal of it, it's a long gray spectrum and not black and white.

It it generally legal in the USA to put a fence around my property, but it is not generally legal to put razor wire around my property, so even the US govt thinks there's a difference.

It's important to consider the words and the portrayal of events when discussing politically charged topics.

Are you talking about the razor wire that the supreme court allowed the administration to remove from the Texas border? If so, a little disingenuous to say fences and barriors when talking about razor wire. If not, please cite your sources so we can all be informed.

The wand building community is also a fun dive. The reddit and discord is filled with people doing things like animating the rickroll music video to exploiting int overflows to kill all loaded enemies.

This was about Meta's platforms not doing enough to protect children from sexual material (and allegedly ignoring employee warnings and lying to the public about it), not intrinsically their addictive interface and compelling user experience. I suppose the actions necessary to protect children from exposure to sexual material/exploitation could limit their ability to make certain changes to their platform, eg tighter moderation would reduce the amount of content that could be uploaded, but they could also have just not allowed children on the platform (like how Facebook started) and then not worried about child exploration?

Generally in an article about arresting or sentencing a drug dealer, people don't bring up that the drug users are actually to blame.

Now if we're in a discussion around the cartels, plenty of people do bring up (and there's also those that get annoyed by it) that the drug users are actually the ones funding the cartels via their drug use.

Along these lines, I think another fun comparison might be opioid use and Purdue.

Funny enough, they mention moving to ProtonMail which is at least based out of Switzerland. It makes this whole chain a bit funny, but I don't blame the commenter for not breaking down every service the OP talked about and the OP did shorthand it to "Migrating to the EU", so fair enough.

I can't comment for anyone else other than me of course, but as a person in NY and who has worked in a customer service job, I do care. I wouldn't ask if I didn't.

His point is pretty simple. Sports don't inherently involve life or death, the whole point is that it's a competition that "respects each other's humanity", eg not a competition to the death.

The same can't be said for war (bombings), which Polymarket allows betting on.

Seems like a fundamental difference to me.

An of EROI of 4 would probably already include the poor sunlight conditions of Ireland or would be some old numbers based off old solar technology. Plus there's contention around EROI because it does ignore the fact that renewables can be recycled and many are used past their lifetimes, and of course it ignores the negative externalities of spewing the one time use fossil fuels into the atmosphere. There are plenty of studies and papers arguing over EROI and its veracity.