skissane

You are advocating for some controversial positions in psychology, without naming them – something roughly along the lines of Gabor Maté, "inner child work", reparenting, "Internal Family Systems", etc

Many psychologists who belong to different schools of thought – e.g. CBT, positive psychology – don't agree those practices are helpful and don't agree with their theoretical underpinnings

There is a lack of high quality empirical evidence for both the safety and efficacy of the kinds of practices you advocate, and also for the theories which motivate them. By contrast, more mainstream approaches such as CBT have significantly better empirical support

If I showed your comment to my psychologist, I'm confident he would strongly disagree with it–as would many of his professional peers.

> You need a trusted therapist to guide you into exposing what the subconscious mind is holding onto from infancy.

This sounds like a great way to implant false memories

> I'm not a scientist, but from personal experience every single person I've met with ADHD has had severe childhood trauma

I have an ADHD diagnosis. The only particularly traumatic thing in my childhood was my parents getting divorced when I was a teenager because my mother had an affair. I already had some symptoms of it before that happened. Prior to that, my parents might not have been the best parents you could possibly have, but they didn’t do anything that would merit the label “severe childhood trauma”

> it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.

This video was played in the sentencing phase. In a non-capital case, the sentencing phase is normally judge-only, the jury has already been discharged. So the video had no impact on the jury, since by the time it was played their role in the case was already over.

Here is the actual decision: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/S...

Musk’s problem is that the intersection of “votes AfD” and “willing and able to buy premium electric vehicle” is relatively small

> I mean the distinction is pretty obvious

I don't agree it is obvious

> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,

I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?

Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?

> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.

Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-op...

A common consequence of taking GLP-1 receptor agonists is losing interest in alcohol.

Now, I agree that’s not the only factor — there’s something else going on reducing alcohol consumption even in people who’ve never taken GLP-1RAs — but when you have >10% of the population taking them, that’s another significant factor contributing to falling drinking rates.

I’m Australian and I’m not sure it is

In some ways Australia is more US-influenced than the UK is though

It also wouldn’t surprise me if one’s experiences of the topic depend on factors such as which generation you belong to, your subculture, etc

Is opposing polygamy denying the humanity of polygamists/polyamorists?

Is opposing first cousin marriage denying the humanity of people in romantic relationships with their first cousins? (The first anniversary of Connecticut's first cousin marriage ban is later this week.)

Israel bans both same-sex and interfaith marriage domestically – although it recognises both when performed overseas – if the former is a denial of someone's humanity, is the latter equally so?

> Lovely pics, but no country as much as America idolizes and worships its adolescents.

I don't think US culture is significantly different on this point from that of the rest of the core Anglosphere. So, I doubt "no country as much as America" is true.

You can also see a lot of buildings demolished on the Egyptian side too.

In 2015, the Egyptian government announced a plan to demolish the entire Egyptian city of Rafah, in order to deter smuggling with the Gaza Strip. More than a decade on, most of it is gone. The residents were forcibly relocated to elsewhere in Egypt.

I think racially restrictive covenants were originally legal basically everywhere; but only in the US, Canada and South Africa did they become common.

Under English real estate law, while there are some constraints on your ability to make covenants, the rules are quite broad. A century ago, racial discrimination wasn't illegal or clearly contrary to public policy in most common law jurisdictions – indeed, many of them had explicitly racially discriminatory laws on the statute book – so racially restrictive covenants weren't obviously disallowed. The US, with its constitutional prohibition on discrimination in the 14th Amendment, was actually the only common law country in which there was a decent argument they weren't legal – but SCOTUS rejected that argument at first, then changed its mind over 20 years later. In the 1945 case Re Drummond Wren, the Ontario High Court ruled them illegal – but it cited the just signed United Nations Charter as grounds for doing so.

The US Supreme Court upheld racially restrictive covenants in the 1926 case Corrigan v. Buckley; they then overturned that decision in the 1948 case Shelley v. Kraemer.

So, between 1926 and 1948, there was a US Supreme Court case upholding racially restrictive covenants. There were also many state court cases reaching the same conclusion. So yes, the US courts had reviewed them and found them to be legally binding.

Furthermore, although from 1948 onwards they were officially legally unenforceable, it didn't stop new such covenants being made, which served as a social signal that non-white residents weren't welcome; the 1968 Fair Housing Act made it illegal to create such a covenant, as opposed to them merely being unenforceable in the courts.

> Remember that there are plenty of houses today in America which were bought under the explicit promise that their neighbors would always be white people. That got taken away. Why should the promise of single family housing be any more precious?

I'm not saying I oppose abolishing either racially restrictive covenants or single family zoning. On the contrary, I support the abolition of the former, and am open-minded about the abolition of the latter.

What I'm opposing is particular arguments to those conclusions – what one might call libertarian(-adjacent) arguments – not the conclusions themselves.

I think, a legal right to racially homogenous neighbours is a property right, and taking it away was an expropriation of property – but an expropriation I support. And I don't think one is always owed compensation for such expropriations either. Legally speaking, not all "regulatory takings" are entitled to compensation; and I'm unconvinced the answer is different if we look at that question through a moral lens rather than a legal one.

Real property is a bundle of rights in land and its fixtures – that's the standard definition in academic legal theory

If there was already a zoning or restrictive covenant, and you knew about that when you bought the land – then the ability to do with the land what that zoning or covenant prohibits is not part of the rights to the land you acquired, and the enforcement of that zoning/covenant isn't denying you any of the rights you paid for.

Besides that, private property is (almost always) a creation of the government. [0] I own a house. If I trace the chain of land titles, it ultimately ends in a government land grant; the government got it by stealing it from the Indigenous people. The government land grant was issued on the condition of obeying the government's laws as in force from time-to-time. You can't sell what you don't own; the original land grant recipient didn't own the land independent of that condition, so none of the subsequent purchasers could either. So the government restricting my ability to use the land I purchased isn't an infringement of any of the rights I actually paid for.

[0] I live in Australia; under Australian law, "native title" is considered to pre-exist Australia's current British-imposed system of governance, but all other land titles derive their legal existence from being created by that system; I don't think the situation in the US is fundamentally different, all non-Indigenous US land titles derive from action of the state or federal governments, or the colonial governments, or the Mexican or Spanish or French or Dutch or Russian or Hawaiian governments

> Isn't restricting what people can lawfully do with their own land a form of expropriation?

Imagine you own land subject to a restrictive covenant. The restrictive covenant might actually have positive value to you – if the entire neighbourhood has a restrictive covenant prohibiting certain land uses, that gives your neighbourhood a character, people are willing to pay for the character the covenant enforces – maybe the existence of the covenant was actually a factor in convincing you to purchase this specific property. Suppose a legislative change invalidates the covenant – that's the government taking away from your land something you value about it. Isn't that an expropriation?

And I don't think there is a fundamental logical difference between a restrictive covenant on the title, and zoning as a government-imposed land use regulation. Some buyers choose a property because of its zoning, its zoning is something they know about and value; if the government changes the zoning, and that takes away from their property something they valued about it, isn't that an expropriation?

Note, I'm not arguing that removal of zoning and restrictive covenants is always wrong – maybe sometimes it is the right thing to do, all things considered. I'm simply arguing against the position "land use limitation = expropriation, removal of it = not expropriation" – even if something is expropriation, sometimes expropriation is justifiable

> requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane

It isn't that hard to have above-average income – around 40% of Japanese workers do.

I think "a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts" may be much more challenging to meet, however.

I don't think that's generally true outside the English-speaking world.

The majority of people worldwide don't know English well-enough to consume English language media in the original language. A lot of people globally, if they watch US TV shows or movies at all, they'll watch them dubbed, which means the issue of Americanisms largely doesn't come up.

> and crosswalks are not called that in most of the world

As an Australian, I'd never call them that, but I know what the American word means.

In fact, the average Australian has a pretty good understanding of Americanisms, even if they've never been to the US, due to lifelong consumption of US TV shows, films, and other cultural exports.

I actually found I had more success with reCAPTCHA when I made myself think less about what the answer was.

I also learned this trick that a lot of the questions have a standard number of answers – e.g. there are always three buses, or fire hydrants, or whatever – so once I've picked three, I'm done. (There often is a fourth ambiguous case, which it accepts but doesn't require.)

I created a skill "feasibility", which is basically "evaluate feasibility of this idea and propose solution options". So I can check that Claude's idea of how to implement the requirement is close enough to my own before it starts working. It is a lot more lightweight than plan mode, because the skill says not to build a detailed plan, just a high-level summary.

Most crimes require intent — if you set up an AI agent and it ends up doing something you didn’t intend it to do, criminal intent is lacking

Now, there are certain crimes where mere recklessness or even negligence is sufficient to convict — e.g. criminally negligent homicide, negligent driving, etc. But, those are exceptions to the general rule of criminal law, either domain-specific or justified by the severity of the consequence (someone died). Thus far, AI agents haven’t gone there.

If we eventually get to the point that AI agents start unintentionally killing people, then you could prosecute their operators for criminal negligence.

I don't find it that opaque. Even without trying to deobfuscate the obfuscated source code which Microsoft ships (I haven't tried but it wouldn't be hard) a lot of details about how it works become obvious just by reading its logs.

Of course, it is a pity Microsoft doesn't open source it. But there are some well-maintained open source alternatives, e.g. https://github.com/jeanp413/open-remote-ssh and https://github.com/F1yingWhite/fast-remote-ssh (I haven't got around to giving either of them a go–but I really should.)

> A twist on this theory: One-Observer Universe.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

> I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix".

For PR/commit descriptions, I mainly use Claude Sonnet 4.5. It isn’t perfect, but it produces significantly less of this weird gibberish than 5.x models or even Opus 4.x do

I also use an iterative process in which it writes the description, I read it, and then either manually edit it or ask it to make changes

> One day, the clock was turn off and on and it went 1024 weeks backwards because the time GPS time protocol sucks and use a week counter with too few bits.

As I pointed out in my other comment below, this is only true of the old L1 signal, not the newer L2C signal. If they had a newer GPS card, this would never have happened.

> Mine would be to have bought one or two more GPS clocks and not from the same provider.

I think it would be more important to have a newer one that doesn't have this problem, than two old ones which both do.

One thing it doesn't make clear – the GPS card only supported the original L1 signal, which is what causes the GPS week rollover issue. The newer L2C signal has a much longer rollover period (157 years vs 19.6 years), which means no rollover until next century. If the GPS card had supported the newer L2C signal, then likely this would not have happened even if the other misconfigurations had still occurred.

I don’t think that’s right.

Unit tests check whether a specific code module is implemented correctly given its (implicit) specification.

Good “laws” are independent of the structure of the code.

Tests may be a useful source for inferring what the laws are, but much of the actual content of the tests aren’t “laws” at all.