gvedem

This would only be true if ICE cared to obey the law, which they do not. They are not observing even the most basic facsimile of due process or probable cause. Protesting them is being treated as grounds for brutalization or arrest. They are actively flaunting their contempt for the Constitution while "conservatives" cheer from the sidelines.

this is a great way of articulating it; something I've felt for a long time as a transplant from the Bible Belt who occasionally has to listen to New Englanders sweepingly denigrate the South or Midwest.

Yeah. It's the final nail in the coffin of search, which now actively surfaces incorrect results when it isn't serving ads that usually deliberately pretend to be the site you're looking for. The only thing I use it for any more is to find a site I know exists but I don't know the URL of.

we discordians refer to this as the Law of Fives:

>The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.

>The Law of Fives is never wrong.

>In the Erisian Archives is an old memo from Omar to Mal-2: "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."

head of state or not, how much worth would you accord that man's word on anything?

"abusive", really? you can debate their merits without hyperbole. it's not clear to me that you bothered to read past any of the headlines.

1. is explicitly given the caveat "when not immediately helpful". 2. is rude, regardless of whether it is helpful. if you want to help, join in and actually help. 3. is difficult to imagine ever being helpful, and when feigned is obviously not ordinary, but an obnoxious affectation. 4. has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful.

I'll leave determining what is ordinary or authentic to others, but suffice to say I don't think either of those things is consistent case to case.

I'm not really sure why you think I should stick to the subject or what the point of your Hitler "joke" is supposed to be.

one thing the author touches on that I'm curious about-- > academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method

I always see this bandied about as axiomatic, but I'm really curious if: a. this pertains outside of "softer" subjects and and the liberal arts b. this isn't a case of overblown media coverage of the occasional "how dare you say XYZ".

I'm a little skeptical of it because I know SV types love to pooh pooh academia, but I went to a devotedly conservative college (and a decade ago) so I'm hoping to hear from someone with recent experience and a lack of that implicit contempt for formal education.

obviously the pro-Palestinian protests exposed some serious issues with respect to speech on campus, but I'm more curious about the typical daily experience of students. are the morality police really so widespread, or is it overrepresented and limited to individual overzealous types and colleges like Oberlin with a reputation for such?

> Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people

epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.

I rather admire Scott Alexander--but this strikes me as a very weak argument that boils down to "if you are willing to distort anything enough, it appears to be a religion".

Rationalism does not require that kind of distortion. The parallels are strikingly obvious; I don't have to torture Yudkowsky into a prophet, or the Sequences into scripture. Yud literally predicts the future and tells you to give him money to make it better. When rationalists write litanies and gather for solstice celebrations about how great rationality is, I'm not sure comparing them to a religion requires quite that stretch.

Or, to take a more conciliatory tone: Maybe he's right! But either way there's probably a spectrum, and rationalism is way closer to being a religion than, e.g. fans of the New England Patriots--who can only have a minor apocalypse on an annual basis, and lack scripture entirely--and further away from it than Scientologists.

>especially when these opinions enter a feedback loop with an uncanny resemblance to a religion

It honestly amazes me the way that rationalists have reinvented every aspect of religion. They have scripture, a prophet, an apocalypse, and even a god who will torture you for not doing its will. And to cap it all off, of course, their own non-profit dedicated to preventing the apocalypse. Donate now!

What do you mean by "central booking system"? As far as I know (working on a rental car contract for a couple years), there are just various travel industry standards for bookings and whatnot.

check out /r/leaves for community and resources. you're not at all alone, I've been using weed as a crutch since I started during the pandemic and it became habitual--don't think I've quit for more than two weeks since.

it's great that people are discussing this, some people can definitely use weed responsibly and stop easily, but others really, really can't--and the sooner we recognize it as addiction the easier it is to get out.

you can harm yourself with just about anything if you don't take appropriate care, yes.

just curious if you know the dosage you have used--I am definitely going to try this once I've cleared the post-quitting effect on my headspace.

yep. this is part of the skepticism mentioned in the article--I have anxiety, depression, hot/cold flashes, appetite loss, sleep issues, and disgusting night sweats for a few days after I stop heavy use, but am often told it's all in my head. the reality is that our own cannabinoids do all kinds of things for our homeostasis that are not well understood. so asserting categorically that there is no physical withdrawal when you stop flooding your body with external cannabinoids is naive.

>>to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary.

that is not at all obvious to me--what is revolutionary in Warhol is not the art but the way people see it, like found art. but if you "found" the art in someone else's comic, and aren't substantially changing the actual image--the actual appearance of the work, the only part that could reasonably be described as being ripped off from someone else... it can be revolutionary without having meaningfully transformed the original, just the way people see it.

disclaimer: I don't have a lot of time for that kind of art, which no doubt biases me.

No social safety net, wages that haven't kept pace with inflation, and no unions. Many in America don't have the luxury of turning down an employer.

the thing wrong with this is that there's already too much shit in this world, and advertisers paying you to put shit in your living room is just going to result in a bunch of extra shit going in landfills.

for those who thought juicero was peak consumerism

doesn't make it okay though

>Marques Brownlee has a video from last year where it drove him to his studio.

I don't know where to start with this if you think that one, year-old video is somehow proof that Tesla FSD is ready for use--and, say, the recall earlier this year isn't indication that maybe it's not.

how does that address the point that committing crimes against bad people is still bad? if you start to make exceptions for people you don't like you're just flushing the whole Enlightenment "let's stop persecuting Protestants/Catholics when they're not in power" thing down the toilet.

It's not at all universal. It's just much harder for media to be consistent about than individuals, because unless a media outlet has very strict editorial policies, it is comprised of many people with many beliefs and will end up being inconsistent by default. Especially an outlet like Vice, which is entertainment-focused and doesn't make much of an effort to distinguish opinion pieces from reporting. If a "news" site doesn't have a separate tab that says "opinion", you're gonna get opinion all over everything.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/08/the-slate-star-codex-p...

>It seems the whole setup is constructed to make you feel bad, no appreciation for work delivered, every technical argument is seen as an excuse, deadlines have nothing to do with reality an so on

it seems like everyone in this thread saying "tech workers get no respect" actually just work for shit companies...

> It’s a common fantasy that removing the 40 hours per week of work would cause individuals to suddenly become more outgoing, adventurous, and interesting, but if people aren’t already doing those interesting and outgoing things on the weekends then I don’t think they’d suddenly start doing more of them with the job removed.

Many people spend their weekends doing chores and relaxing--i.e. maintaining. You don't think having even, say, a four day weekend and ample time to go beyond that would result in more people spending more time doing interesting things?

Really?

Reincarnation Blues, by Michael Poore. Takes on some serious stuff but never takes itself too seriously.

"FSD", surely

"There were doorknobs and doorbells where one touch had covered another beforehand. Suitcases checked and standing side by side. One night, perhaps, the same dream, grown hazy by morning."

https://poets.org/poem/love-first-sight