rhapsodic

You also seem to imply that you're entitled to afford the kind of house you want in the area you want, and that should impose some obligation on me to modify my behavior so you won't have to work as hard or as long to get what you want out of life.

The person I originally responded actually used the phrase "formal societal taboo." This is the secular version of religious busybodies wagging their fingers at other people who aren't behaving in a manner that suits them.

Uh, no, I would say that I really, truly, seriously, do not care what you choose to do with the 24 hours in each of the days of your life. So please, don't try to tell me what I should or should not do with mine. I'm sick and tired of busybodies and crybabies who pine for new "societal taboos" for the rest of us to observe.

The majority of people on HN are not like that, but a sizable portion are. And I'm more than happy to incur the inevitable downvotes to call them out on it.

It may be important for you, Dan, but it's not important for me. Please, don't try to impose any more "formal societal taboos" on me. I've really had a bellyful of them. It seems like everyday there's a new one.

There is nothing stopping you from choosing a path in life that allows you plenty of time for "contemplation and separation from the bustle of the world." So go ahead and choose your own path, and let me choose mine.

Fair enough?

That statement speaks volumes, and probably in ways that you did not intend.

If you think the only possible negative consequence of that act is federal prosecution, you are astoundingly ignorant of how things work in the United States. Here are a few possible consequences off the top of my head:

1. It could be used by corporate boards as grounds for his removal as a corporate officer. Or it could be used as ammunition in a shareholders' revolt.

2. It can be used as a grounds for denying his companies federal licensure for commercial activities that require it.

3. Those who politically oppose the massive federal subsidies his companies receive (and presumably want to receive more of) can demagogue this issue to mobilize public opinion against him.

> The laws are outdated and will be changed once it makes it's way to more states and we don't have an ignorant orange muppet as a leader.

Could you please keep this sort of puerile garbage off of HN?

No. But I still think it was an egregious error in judgment. Do you disagree?

Drinking whiskey is not a federal crime. Smoking pot is.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...

But it's a federal crime in the USA. So maybe it wasn't a smart thing for a CEO of a publicly traded company to do on camera.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...

> Course that doesn't fit the narrative of "Regulation is bad"

I would argue that it does.

Well stated. And that's why the busybodies and the bullies who are constantly dictating new rules of acceptable speech for the rest of society to follow must be resisted at every turn. I will not concede one ounce of moral authority to these power-hungry bullies. It's particularly gratifying when one of them attempts to "correct" my speech in person, and I can respond to them right to their smug faces.

I suspect it's not obvious to the overwhelming majority of English speakers that there is some problem with referring to females as females, or describing them as female.

In my observation, claiming that using the word "female" to refer to females is somehow problematic is the fringe view. Not the other way around.

I am, and I'm not aware of any. But if there are, they probably grew out of the weird taboos that, in some segments of English-speaking culture, tightly control what terms one is permitted to use when speaking about gender-related issues. Most of us, fortunately, don't consider ourselves bound by these taboos.

ONE two three TWO two three ONE two three TWO two three

and that indeed sounds more similar to the article's 6/8 example than its 3/4 example.

Do you have a reference that supports any of this? It runs counter to all of my observations.

  > “Our communications — which Reitman now claims
  > constituted sexual harassment — were between two
  > adults, a gay man and a queer woman, ..."

Uh, yeah, I think a five year old would get that. Things that one craves taste quite good when they finally hit one's taste buds.

But this:

> Salt really only tastes good when you need salt.

Logically implies that when a person does not need salt, salt does not taste good to that person.

Well, yeah, I won't argue with that. I've experienced it myself during intense hangovers. But how do you get from that to "Salt really only tastes good when you need salt"? I love the taste of salt. I would never eat french fries that had no salt on them. Nor would I consider making a margarita without rimming the glass with salt.

So people who scarf down potato chips by the bag are low on salt?

That sounds like a value judgement. What difference does it make?

I think if you dig into the data for US universities, you'll find that women are underrepresented in high-paying STEM majors and over-represented in low-paying majors like Dance or Early Childhood Development or Pre-1860 Russian Literature. Until that changes, I don't think your prediction is likely to come to pass.

You can't logically conclude that based on that one data point.

From what strange and wondrous land do you come?

American here. What is this "washing of plates and crockery" of which you speak?

That's your takeaway from this?

  > “You’re not getting anything,” he said. “You understand?
  > Nothing. You’re getting nothing.” Did he mean about the
  > car, something else, bigger? I didn’t know. His voice
  > hurt—sharp, in my chest.

He was not only an awful father, he was an awful person.

Is it really not obvious considering that the post to which I was replying said this?

>> His reaction in denying her the Porsche seems to me to be about telling her she has to earn such trinkets.