lostphilosopher

I was surprised by this line of comments since I recall my feed having gun / hunting / shooting sports related content (including ads) so I looked into it.

Facebook has a policy banning private individuals from selling guns to each other on their platform - https://www.facebook.com/help/179037502478035 and "Armslist" appears to be a platform for doing just that: "Gun Classifieds, Guns for Sale, No Fees, 45000 guns for sale. The largest free gun classifieds on the web. Buy guns, sell guns, trade guns."

One could argue that the transaction isn't happening "on Facebook" since it's going through Armslist, but I don't find that convincing. If take payment via Venmo does that mean it's "not on Facebook" if everything else about the sale was?

Anyway, I fault Facebook for plenty and generally avoid it now, but I don't fault them for this policy. Private sales can get into sketchy territory really quick and I wouldn't want to mess with that on a public platform I created unless I was willing to invest in the nuance there which has basically no value proposition for Facebook.

Another important factor is not just distance geography, but the population density's impact on taxes and funding for Police/EMS/Fire. Maybe from a geo perspective someone can get there faster, but if there are only a couple "someones" and they are already dealing with something else...

Statistically, less people, fewer emergencies, but that's not much comfort when you're the one having a statistically unlikely emergency!

I have at least two things I consistently forget, and then relearn from my own Stackoverflow answer. Comes up rarely enough that I chuckle at myself everytime it happens. :-)

"Talking throughout their set" is just rude, that's not even heckling, which I don't support/appreciate, but is considered "part of the experience" by some. "Crowd work" however is a very normal part of lots of stand up acts. I could imagine comedians wanting some way to do that in a digital setting and I suspect that's what is being referred to here.

If anyone haven't seen it done or don't know what I'm talking about Todd Barry has a whole special where it's all he does - appropriately titled "Crowd Work"! :-)

Could go either way, right? I've seen folks who have side projects spend most of their work day working on their side projects. They might be "better programmers" (also debatable), but if they don't get their work done - does it matter? I've seen folks who do really solid work for 8 hours and then go home and do other things, some of those folks have said that the separation is helpful so they can really be at their "programming best" at work.

(I say this as someone who generally have multiple programming side projects going on at any given time and also freelances...)

> So I guess leaders have done some things right by listening to the right experts (a form of competence I suppose).

This is the most important form of competence for a leader of government. There is no chance any leader would have adequate expertise in every subject they would need to be versed in in order to lead their nation. They _must_ bring in and rely on SMEs to make informed choices. (Of course they still have to make the choice.)

Why is the relationship sphere separate from the moral sphere? How do you decide what belongs in the moral sphere? Does the relationship sphere overlap with the moral sphere in other areas just not in fidelity? Why doesn't it intersect there?

Saying someone is boolean "good" or "bad" is of course complex - perhaps beyond utility. But to the extent a moral evaluation is being made of a person (unless your point is no such evaluation can or should ever be made?) I don't see how their conduct in their romantic relationships could be exempted?

Mask => Shield

(Like many, I think I've got "masks" on the brain...)

The doctor or nurse probably won't be able to do that process everytime they use the mask. Like other reusable hospital supplies it will be collected somewhere to be cleaned in bulk. The point above is that so many will be used in a short span of time that even a 24 or 12 hour cleaning rotation will not keep up without large numbers being available.

"Always color code your spies." - Sun Tzu

Scientific papers studying and summarizing the utility of masks, from the article: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...

I think part of the issue in this case is that no one knows if they are "healthy." You could be transmitting the disease while still asymptomatic yourself.

Good point. Also, from the site:

> "Note: Please do not buy surgical or N95 masks because we need to keep those available for the doctors, nurses and first responders so they can stay healthy and care for the ill."

> "I think if you think of them as sort of guerrilla warriors fighting an unacknowledged personal battle with those problems and with the systemic issues we have, it maybe helps to see them with real respect and not just view them as losers."

Wargroove is a solid spiritual successor to Advance Wars. Very similar gameplay in a fantasy/medieval setting. (No affiliation, just had nostalgia for a game like AW and found this one.)

https://wargroove.com/

I was a Senior Engineer, was promoted to Manager, then to a Manager of Managers role. No MBA.

I work for a Fortune 10 company. This is the path almost all of my peers followed. Some version of this track existed in every company I've worked for.

Change companies? Or accept some open minded mentorship from the people who succeeded in this track at your company. (I encounter a fair amount of folks who want leadership roles but are going about it super wrong...)

This is the power and appeal of virtually every conspiracy theory.

This is a fundamental question any government or citizenry has to ask itself:

Under what circumstances, if any, should the police stand down?

Not downvoting, but I'll comment on a few assertions:

> the world is gynocentric

Strange claim. How would anyone objectively refute that? How would you realistically prove it? It sounds along the lines of "everyone does everything to be remembered" or "your fate is written in the stars - you just can't read it."

> Stoicism, is red pill philosophy

That sounds like "Christianity is a Brazilian religion." It's true that some red pillers claim to be into it, but it's not an informative or precise way to frame it. Especially since women can be and are stoics too. (In fact, given their status in many countries I'd bet there are more "true Scotsman" stoic women than men!)

> "now opposite sex which is used to receiving nice things from me"

As long as you aren't introducing harm into their lives or refusing to view them as people that experience harm (both of which I'm assuming to be true) - I'm betting the vast majority of women would be totally fine with your stoicism. (And would prefer it to a lot of the alternatives.)

> You can use this philosophy to shield you from anything and everything

I think I get what you're going for, but to be clear for others - stoicism isn't about sticking your head in the sand. You can endure something and change it at the same time, it's about how you bear the thing before you've changed it and how you handle it when you don't succeed in changing things. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor! Not a "sidelines" kinda dude ya know?

At the end of the day though, if you're getting something out stoicism that has improved your life then you have every right to claim and embrace that. It's not like Seneca's running around suing people for defamation and it's not like I've ever met the guy to really know what was in his head...

> wonder to what extent it has contributed to mistrust of the traditional media.

Is anyone's experience that "non traditional media" or news sources are more mathematically rigorous?

I understand that all media has bias, lots of content is written by non experts, and presenting data (especially statistical data) is really hard and rarely done well. But any "alternative" or "non mainstream" news source I've seen is _way_ worse at those things than traditional mainstream sources like NYT, WP, Economist, Foreign Policy, NPR, 538, etc. Even while those sources still make noticeable blunders.

(Curious because I've seen this statement before.)

If I use Facebook voice-to-text around you, why is that different from using a traditional recording device without your consent? Isn't that on me, not whomever listens to that recording?

My guess is that the T&C grants permission for FB to record the primary user, and then the liability for recording (via FB) _other_ people falls on the primary user for recording while other people were talking?

> "I think we're reaching a point in history where we can start looking at slavery at its true scope and scale"

But are we though? I still encounter a non trivial number of people in the real world with objectively wrong ideas about the history of slavery in the US. We all see some of those folks passing laws and talking on national television.

I am generally not convinced that Americans really understand how recent slavery was, how present its impacts are today, how directly it explains both historically and literally at the time large aspects of our legal system, society, and general inequality issues today.

I agree with you that there's way more focus on the "US antebellum period" than other aspects, and that we should spend more time on the the other aspects than we do. Especially the modern day instances we actively propagate. But that seems like it should be an "and" effort not an effort at the expense of figuring out our own history.

Also - to anyone taking nilkn in bad faith - reconsider. We need to be able to share opinions and ask questions we know aren't super popular or that skirt hot button topics. Doing so is how we learn. As long as we do it carefully, respectfully, and with an open mind. Worst case scenario is for ideas to stay unexamined in our heads or uncritically reinforced in an echo chamber.

The original wikipedia article is about their use by the government on public lands, not their use by citizens on private property. The original article also has a list of cases where these devices have accidentally harmed humans and pets. If that's happening I assume it's also killing animals other than coyotes but there's no one to document those events. That's why I call them indiscriminate.

Regarding private property, what guarantees that people will remove these when they move? Or remember where they put them? I remember finding old school traps on my parent's land growing up, left there by a previous owner. Most were not loaded or rusted beyond operation, but some still snapped when you hit them with a stick. From the pictures, I'm not sure I'd spot one of these devices while running around in the woods...

(Editing, I wrote from memory and wasn't quite right.)

There's evidence that suggests[1] that efforts to control Coyote populations by killing them off are less effective than we thought - as the Coyote population drops in one area it creates a vacuum filled by coyotes from another area + increased reproduction, resulting in areas that underwent "coyote control" having spent a lot of time/money/effort and being back where they started at the end of it.

I can't verify a word of this, but I found the possibility interesting.

(I'm generally against any indiscriminate traps like these. I'm fine with hunting coyotes, but a device like this is too much of a risk to non-coyotes - as other commenters have already pointed out.)

1. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/14/730056855/killing-coyotes-is-...

Not disagreeing, but calling out that if you get a significant lump sum you can easily set aside x% for taxes, but if you get the same amount of debt forgiven there's no pot to "set aside" from. You need to come up with that money now* from your existing money which can be challenging if the forgiven amount was significant.

* Granted, you can usually arrange to pay a large tax bill over time, but that is basically debt which you'll be annoyed/surprised to find yourself back in...

Pattern Trolls

> When I find myself itching to interrupt someone with my thoughts about a topic I try to ask myself “what am I being asked to be an expert in here?” Often I realize that in my enthusiasm to show my casual knowledge I’m about to correct someone that who has devoted a considerable amount of time and effort into developing their expertise in the topic. I never regret keeping my mouth shut and letting them speak.

This definitely resonated with me.

"Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." - George Orwell

Perhaps?

> "The French prisoners included former prime ministers, generals and a tennis star. It is the only known time during the war in which Americans and Germans fought side-by-side. Popular accounts of the battle have called it the strangest battle of World War II.[4]"

> "He was taken to Major Josef Gangl, commander of the remains of a unit of Wehrmacht soldiers who had defied an order to retreat and instead thrown in with the local resistance, being made its head.[23]"

> "Gangl died during the battle[35] from a rifle bullet while trying to move former French prime minister Reynaud out of harm's way[37] and was honored as an Austrian national hero,[38] and a street in Wörgl was named after him.[39][40] "

> "The battle was fought five days after Adolf Hitler had committed suicide[4] and only two days before the signing of Germany's unconditional surrender. It was also the only battle where Americans and Germans fought alongside one another during the war.[41]"

Do report back if you find it! I'll check it out.

Part of the premise of the Deus Ex games (thinking specifically of Mankind Divided) is "augmentations" that can make people better in all kinds of ways, but are generally only available to the wealthy elite which leads to all kinds of trouble. What happens when the "elite" don't just seem better - but objectively (and universally) _are_ by real measures. Longer and more accurate memories, longer life spans, more knowledge of their surroundings, better judges of character, stronger, faster, smarter - etc. Not necessarily "faking it" they really do remember more, but that's because they can store their memories in a chip in their head. All at a cost that prevents the 99% from having these advantages. (Though, the progress made by these folks can be broadly beneficial.)

Yes, yes, I know somebody is already itching to comment that this is present state - I'll leave you to it.