ruthmarx

> Dismiss away, you do you.

With, as I said, good reason. That's important.

> I don't regard this as a "strong claim" requiring "extra-ordinary proof".

Not extra-ordinary proof, proportional proof. For a strong claim, strong evidence.

Saying the US has more loopholes than other developed nations that exploit and bypass the legal system and checks and balances in place compared to other developed nations is indeed a strong claim.

> Technically it is a claim, I suppose. Many statements are.

Many statements are opinions. Many are speculation. Some are claims. Some are strong claims, like this one.

> I strongly disagree that it any of "speculation" or "Ameriphobia".

Ameriphobia is a possibility, not an accusation. Until you are willing to support your claim, it's entirely reasonable that I should only take your claims as speculation.

> And they are, yet again, dismissive.

Because there is reason to dismiss, because you don't want to support your claim. Even though it would have been less effort than typing your last reply, and less effort than typing your reply to this comment, especially since I'm sure you'll respond to each individual point.

> "All countries are the same" Is quite a claim though.

That was never my claim. That's a strawman fallacy and nothing else.

> You seem defensive.

Just not a fan of wild claims that lack evidence.

> "require" makes it seem like I'm obligated though.

In the sense of any obligations inherited whenever implicitly agreeing to engage in civil debate, it is.

> Counterpoint: as the wise man said regarding when someone disagrees with you online and demands you prove your point: "I've known you for ten seconds and enjoyed none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you."

Supporting a claim isn't homework. You calling it homework is you attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me, which is dishonest.

> Can you?

Generally the burden is on the person making the positive claim.

> I'm happy to simply continue to hold a different opinion to you.

Sure, I have no qualms taking your opinion as just speculation/belief/Ameriphobia.

> You are being dismissive of the issue though; and it's never helpful.

Strong claims require strong evidence. Without evidence it's reasonable to dismiss.

Can you support your argument with some examples?

That's not a US thing, that's an every country everywhere thing.

> and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video.

I didn't know that, that's pretty interesting.

> Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all.

I don't think that's true. That's true for not cooperating, but you should do so with a lawyer. You shouldn't' talk to police until you get a lawyer. That's all.

And it only took them how long to do this?

If our supreme court wasn't compromised, this kind of thing should be heard there to not only prevent this in all states, but hold accountable the thieves an make them return their ill-gotten goods.

Well then you ought to go somewhere more appreciative of your pitches ;)

> Where we struggle is maintaining attention on things that don't interest us for long enough to meet employer or school expectations.

Yes, this is something I deal with as well.

It's interesting because as a kid I got diagnosed with ADD, and my sibling who was more physically hyperactive got diagnosed with ADHD. My parents thought, and thus I did also for a long time that the 'h' difference was due to his physical energy, but it seems unrelated.

I've wondered if I am on the spectrum also but I don't match a lot of the base/core traits, although I feel ADHD or ADD alone doesn't explain some of my, ahem, quirks either.

I want to again stress there was no malice behind my question, just interest in trying to relate through my own experiences. Thank you again for answering.

> As someone with this condition, I think it may be helpful to note that while your comment may not be intended to be disparaging, it can be interpreted in such a way. A lot of neurodivergent folks or people experiencing mental health issues are commonly told their problems are imaginary, or aren’t a big deal. [0] It’s a pretty big sore spot.

Not my intention, but I was diagnosed as a kid when over-diagnosing did seem to be a trend, and I've become skeptical in these times of self IDing.

When I mentioned over-diagnosing it was more referring to the 90s, but I think a lot of adults who were diagnosed then may have been misdiagnosed and never checked.

Thank you for answering.

I don't doubt the research, it's more I doubt how many diagnoses were accurate.

I was diagnosed with ADD as well, so I'm not being entrely dismissive. In this age of self ID I think there can be reason to be.

> All of the adults I'm thinking of have had serious interference with their daily lives in ways that rise to the level of a disability. I'm the only one of the set that has been able to build a steady career, and that's due to a lot of luck and due to developing an anxiety disorder that, while not at all fun, at least allows me to keep track of things that I used to miss.

If I may ask on this point, how would you distinguish ADHD from possibly being on the spectrum?

> "Special" makes it sound like you think I think we're better. I don't.

Not my intention, I should have said unique or significantly different in the contexts you mentioned or something.

> I gave it my notes and pasted output.

Yeah, don't do that, please.

If you think it's something people will find useful, you can share the prompt.

If the prompt isn't anything special, then you probably shouldn't bother.

> The customer is not always right,

An uninvited door-to-door salesman is rarely, if ever right.

Were you the downvote I got instantly after commenting, lol? I'm simply curious and that should be sufficient, I'm not really sure what it has to do with you though.

ADD/ADHD was over-diagnosed for a long time. Why are you so sure all the people you mention have it vs other explanations? What is it you think makes ADHD brains special?

At least in the US the education system is so incredibly bad for anyone reasonably intelligent where homeschooling is an option it should be the clear preference. At least until high school.

> Japan has smartly designed and compassionate infrastructure.

Except for the justice system.

> I put in the footnote precisely to try to pre-empt this tedious digression.

Next time, just don't try to advocate for your personal view of language, and use a less contended term, as the parent said 'raises the question' would be fine.

> I believe a different phrasing would have been (marginally) less effective communication for readers who were sincerely trying to understand.

Nope. Raises the question is far clearer and less ambiguous.

> The only people who try to "correct" the phrasing are people who weren't actually interested in communication in the first place.

Or people who care about misinformation being spread.

> Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.

Sure.

> Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.

It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage.

> The last research I saw claimed otherwise.

Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?

Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.

> to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage

You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct.

> (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different)

No, it is absolutely the correct usage.

By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.

> is not active at least in general writing

Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage.

> Certainly it's a minority use.

Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.

> English is defined by its usage

To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also.

> the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.

No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.

> begs the question[1]

> [1] in the usual sense of the phrase, not the historical one recorded in some dictionaries

Wait, are you calling the correct usage here historical despite it still being frequently used in contemporary times, and advocating that the incorrect usage should be normalized?

I thought this post was going to be about avoiding using a GUI at all. 20 years ago or so I was running linux that way for a bit, just with every different take on a different virtual terminal. Mplayer playing video to the framebuffer if I need it, one terminal for mp3blaster, a couple of terminals for coding/editing etc. If I really needed it I could have a gui on one terminal for browsing also.

I still see people doing that kind of thing nowadays, but I mostly think it's an oddity or a quirk. GUI makes the same thing simpler without any downsides.

As for staying in the linux console in general, it's so much more efficient for so many things once you know, but it's not always superior, and it's odd to me there will always be people who argue that it is.

> There's no longer the same level of passion around which people wage wars over which Linux distribution is best.

Yeah, that was always kind of weird, not to mention the many contrarian BSD users. All the linux distros found their niche, and most now are a variation of some other distro with a different default desktop environment. These days the religious war is over systemd I think.

> Some people find it easier to select files to copy with the mouse in Nautilus, while others prefer to use the cp ~/photos/{photo,video}_*.{jpeg,jpg,JPG,avi} /media/BACKUP

This just depends on the use case. Trying to select photos containing a certain person only named numerically is much easier in a gui with thumbnails than on console.

What does apt do that pacman doesn't?

What role did Musk do other than invest? You could even say he just got lucky with a gamble.

Excluding hate, bigotry and wilful ignorance isn't being "held on a short leash", it's just excluding hateful people from spreading hate.

Before Facebook introduced the option to unsend or delete sent messages, you could only remove them from your view.

Does anyone know if there is an option to restore them, so you can then remove them from the people you've sent them to?

Before I delete my account, I'd like to make sure I delete as many messages I sent to people also.

> You have yet to show that tripling denials of a particular category of claims is even wrong in the first place.

Honestly this is a pretty bad faith argument. They are denying at a significantly higher rate than their competitors, their internal policy focused around denying, and enough people are getting screwed over that a murder was committed.

But yeah, sure, assume this is all business as normal and not at all morally wrong to make your argument if you must.

> Nobody had shown any evidence whatsoever that anything like that happened.

Basic. Reasoning.

If claim denials triple during a time when a particular CEO is in place, that CEO would have had to have something to do with that.

> Not only are denied claims not automatically wrong,

They are on this scale and when the denials are bad faith. I can't prove that to you unless their documents get leaked, but that's for legal matters. For moral matters, the evidence supports that the difference from the drastic increase were indeed bad faith denials.

> What decision? You just assume that there had been some decision, that Bryan Thompson approved, and that it was nefarious.

Exactly, because he was CEO.

> There is as of now zero evidence for this, this is just your speculation.

He was CEO.

> Murdering people based on speculations like that is profoundly evil, and so is excusing it.

He was CEO. He oversaw a company going out of their way to deny claims even if you want to play devils advocate and pretend to be ignorant and deny that.

What he did was far more evil than a single murder, and what you are doing in defending the system that caused someone to feel that they had to murder it also more evil, the system that allows for shitty health insurance companies to cause so much pain and suffering. THAT, is evil.

> Again, you exemplify the exact attitude I describe.

That's fine. I think you exemplify the attitude that lead to Thompson's murder and will lead to many more similar incidents.

> Can you point to any single decision that Thompson made that cost live and causes suffering? You can’t, but you assume there must have been some,

If denials tripled under his watch, as CEO you don't think he necessarily was involved in that? He clearly approved of profiting off of literal unnecessary deaths.

> because you start with assumption that the victim here is guilty

The most basic of reasoning shows he has some moral guilt, just not legal guilt.

P1 - He was the head decision maker

P2 - Decision was made to actively increase unnecessary deaths for monetary gain

C - He ultimately approved of that decision

Born into money and making obvious investments that plenty of people with similar opportunity would make isn't particularly impressive.

It's not outright bad like failing to make money from a casino, but it's not particularly good either.

> vigilante justice (especially against nonviolent offenders) is considered to be wrong.

I guess hiding behind the veil of legality and murdering thousands if not hundreds of thousands if considered worse. Rightfully IMO.

You don't see a moral error with a health insurance company going out of their way to more than double the claims they deny, not because it's ethical or necessary but because they find ways to do so legally and the motive is profit?

Perhaps you're not well equipped to evaluate moral errors in the first place.