supertimor

Ok, but even if some politicians run on a platform of capping the age for eligibility to run for congress or the presidency, getting 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to actually vote for it is near impossible, especially in today’s polarized (frequently gridlocked) political climate. But also, regardless of how popular this might be publicly, most politicians don’t run on platforms that curb their own power.

The last time we amended the constitution was 32 years ago, and that was more than 202 years after the amendment was originally proposed and approved by Congress. This amendment effectively does not allow Congress to get a pay raise until their next elected term. Unsurprisingly, when this amendment was brought to the public’s attention in the 1980’s, Congress majorly pushed back about it. But the amendment was gaining popularity publicly and it was ratified by 2/3rds of the states, so congress had no choice but to accept the amendment as valid. This may have been otherwise impossible to pass if congress hadn’t already approved the amendment over 200 years ago in 1789.

Just because Congress should be a certain way, does not in fact make it reality. Congress frequently makes unpopular decisions. And when you have some representatives that have an equal say in the vote that represents a fraction of the number a people of another representative, what the majority of people want doesn’t really matter politically in most cases.

Now you’re right about one thing, if this platform is popular enough, there still might be a possible path forward to achieve a constitutional amendment. But it’s far from a certainty and more likely a long shot at this point. It could take decades or more until the amendment is both approved and ratified, if it’s even politically possible at the moment. It’s not as simple as, if the people want it, they can vote for it; because that is just not the current reality in American politics.

The median age of Congress is 59 (58 for the House, 65 for the Senate). Good luck getting the 2/3rds needed to pass a constitutional amendment when over half of the Senate is 65 and older, and over a third of the House is 65 and over.

Doubt any of these people are going to want to legislate themselves out of their jobs or the possibility of becoming president.

Ah yes, a not invasive at all super viable solution. I think most women would prefer to be single than participate in a state sanctioned dating app that requires that they be spied on for four years.

“Dating apps are popular in Iran, but from now on only Hamdam will be legal.

Iranian law also criminalises consensual sexual relationships outside marriage.

According to Hamdam's website, users will have to verify their identity and undergo a psychological test before they start searching for a partner.” [0]

When a match is found, the app "introduces the families together with the presence of service consultants", who will "accompany" the couple for four years after their marriage.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57818758

Yep, I honestly don’t get how people can seriously read this platform and claim in good faith that these are valid policy positions. The “evidence” they linked to support their claim ended up instead just supporting your original point that they were trying to refute. Agreed. Just completely mad.

I got it to work with Siri but had to give it a slightly different prompt. “Play Heigh-Ho from Disney’s Snow White soundtrack,” seems to work.

Edit: I tried it a couple of more times with the same prompt and this is not consistently reproducible, so yeah, Siri is still pretty bad at this.

In most of Canada the drinking age is 19 (only a few provinces are 18), but it’s also slightly harder to get your drivers license in Canada. You’re required to take a written test and then two driving tests in order to receive a full license.

I’m not sure if you read their education proposals, but their platform basically boils down to spend less money on public education and instead support charter schools, private schools and home schooling, etc., teach the bible in class, get rid of national educational standards, support abstinence instead of sex Ed, get rid of student counselling for contraception/abortions, get rid of government funded student mental health support, reinterpret Title IX to apply only to women/girls, and privatize the federal student loan program.

None these proposals are very education-forward at all, and are mostly just hot button issues to rile up the base. Each of these policies just decreases educational support and funding. How will any of these policies have any beneficial effect on the quality of education American’s receive?

Don’t even get me started with their stated tax policy. The Republicans’ entire platform on tax reform is to repeal the Johnson amendment, a ban on non-profit political campaign activity that prohibits non-profits (which includes churches) from participating in, or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office; and to make the tax code “so simple and easy to understand that the IRS becomes obsolete and can be abolished.”[0] This is a literal quote from the 2016 Republican Platform that you linked. Yeah, let’s just abolish the IRS. That’s a super realistic policy.

Their tax policy is just laughable.

[0] https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Resolution_Platform.pdf

You can try and rephrase it as much as you like, but that’s just not how copyright works. And even if copyright somehow did work that way, you are not making any financial gain by telling your friend about a book so it would still not even be considered infringing on copyright.

Of course copyright law is going to look absurd when you make up absurd scenarios that have no relevance to the actual law.

Man that’s bleak.

I dunno, seems like this scenario could easily devolve into some sort of Lord of the Flies mob rule situation.

Might I suggest the Withings watch. I love mine. I also wanted something rather simple without all the bells and whistles of an Apple Watch. It’s a hybrid smart/dumb watch. It looks like a classic watch but tracks HR, sleep, fitness, etc and you can receive notifications on it if you want as well (you can’t respond however). If you don’t have your phone on you, you can sync the data later on, battery lasts a month or more and it’s waterproof.

I got the sapphire glass model so I don’t have to worry about the watch face getting scratched up.

Edit: Got my watch a few years ago so I have an older model . Don’t think they carry my model anymore (Sapphire Steel HR) but their newest models look pretty comparable and probably checks all the same boxes.

Edit 2: my bad, didn’t see you’re requirement about not wanting to know the time of day. The Withings watch looks like a classic analog watch, so might not actually be what you’re looking for after all. Maybe try the Oura ring.

I mean, in your list Iceland is the number one nation for wages which very much follows a similar Scandinavian model.

I mean, that’s great that you can make your schedule work for you but everyone’s situation isn’t the same. You clearly have a very unique situation that you can work with your wife and consider your job your hobby. Not everyone can maintain their relationship by hiring their spouse. Do you work a desk job? Do you WFH? Do you have downtime during the day? Are you your own boss? People’s situations vary greatly and not everyone has those same luxuries.

Add in 1-2 hours of commuting and those 4 hours become 2. That’s 2 hours to make and eat dinner, cleanup, take care of pets, shower and get ready for work the next day in order to get 8 hours of sleep; and that doesn’t even factor in time to get ready in the morning. If I want to do anything else beyond that, then it will have to cut into my time for sleep.

The point is absolutely the hours worked. I shouldn’t have to sacrifice my sleep and health in order to take care of things in my personal life because the entirety of my waking hours are taken up by work.

Edit:

I’d also like to point out that in one of your comments you claim that you got 3-5 hours of sleep a night throughout your 20’s working at your first company, so clearly you haven’t actually managed to be happy and well rested for all those 30 years. It seems you’re only sleeping 8 hours a night now that your older and financially comfortable.

“Never slept better getting older; I used to do 3-5 hour nights in my 20s because of stress for my company, sold the company and had no worries anymore so slept 8-9 hours/day. Opened another company but with far less worries (if it fails it's sad but far from the existential stress the first company was) so now into my 50s I lay down, pass out and wake exactly 8 hours later.”[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38514444

The market can “bear it” because the alternative is homelessness.

As well as under the “Recommended uses for product”section it says, “ Pet, Spy”

Yeah, this logic is seriously flawed.

For this analogy to work you would need to say “if people drove zero hours, then zero people would die from driving.”

No one is suggesting that people stop working and it’s pretty disingenuous to imply that.

As someone who really enjoys their job and also typically works 10-12+ hrs a day full time, I can tell you that the lack of sleep and lack of work/life balance really adds up. It’s just not very sustainable long term and requires entire weekends to recover from and inevitably leads to burnout.

Because even with loving your job, there are still only 24 hrs in a day, and spending most of those working leaves very little time to take care of anything outside of your work life. So even if I may not be stressed out over my job, trying to get everything else in my life done in between work can cause huge amounts of stress.

>”And most of those billion people will never be on HN. The average HNer is just as wealthy when compared to them as a billionare is when compared to us.”

You’re severely underestimating how much a billion dollars is if you really think this is true.

The wealth of an average HNer is much more comparable to the average American than to the wealth of billionaires.

Probably the Aedes aegypti. Super invasive mosquito species that are currently spreading across North America. They like to feed during the day and will bite a person several times for their blood meal. Their eggs can remain viable outside of water up to 8 months to a year and they require only a very tiny amount of water to hatch.

A quick google search says Ford assembly line worker salaries range from $20-38 an hour, with the typical wage of $28 per hour. It’s not a terrible salary, but I wouldn’t necessary say they they’re doing “very well”.

If we’re going off of OP’s math, the average autoworker only has a fifth of the purchasing power that autoworkers had in the 1960’s.

>”For decades, the UAW tugged wages upward. In 1960, a UAW member made 16 percent more than the average American manufacturing worker. By 2006, the figure was 74 percent. Today, new hires in the UAW make about 20 percent less than the average.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna37789668

Not OP and don’t have GPT 4 (used 3.5), but I played around with a couple of different prompts and this is what I experienced.

For the first try, I came up with my own wording for this logic puzzle. I think it’s different enough from the original wording of the puzzle for the LLM not to base this from the original logic puzzle. I asked the ChatGPT 3.5 if it recognized the puzzle, and it seems to have hallucinated (I’m guessing because it did not actually recognize it as the original puzzle— unless the 3 orb puzzle/3 wizards puzzle actually does exist, and from a quick google search, it does not).

On my first try, it got pretty close to solving the puzzle, but after the 5th point, it seems to mix up the white and black orbs. When I pointed out the mistake, it gave me a new sequence which was even further from the correct answer.

First try:

https://chat.openai.com/share/f8505609-46ca-494b-95d9-56685e...

I realized that I didn’t specifically say that all 3 orbs needed to end up at the post office all together. So I tried again and the outcome was even worse. I wonder if ChatGPT 4 would answer this better?

Second try:

https://chat.openai.com/share/71292efa-c3c7-471e-954a-55966c...

Anyone want to try this prompt on Chatgpt 4 and see if it fairs any better for them? This is my version of the river puzzle.

————————

> I have 3 orbs of different shades (black, white and grey) at my store and need to bring all 3 orbs to the post office in my pick-up truck but can only travel with one orb at a time. All 3 orbs need to end up at the post office together.

In this scenario, the following is true:

-If the black orb is left alone with the white orb, the black orb will absorb the white orb

-If the white orb is left alone with the grey orb, the white orb will absorb the grey orb

-the grey orb is unaffected by the black orb, and vice versa

-when all three orbs are together, they do not absorb any orbs

How do I get all three orbs to the post office while keeping the orbs unchanged?

————————

I also tried a prompt with the original puzzle. 3.5 could not figure it out without me hinting that the goat needs to go first.

https://chat.openai.com/share/e384b96a-25b1-40d7-adc5-5afb07...

And with even more clarification in the wording of the puzzle, it still didn’t give me a correct answer. This time I didn’t hint what the right answer was, and after many tries it still could not give me the right answer.

https://chat.openai.com/share/bb9ba6b0-f46b-4cc4-bd54-abbf2e...

>Why would machines be interested in rivalry over resources or territory? Like a pond of water? Or women?

Which one do you consider “women” here? Territory or a resource?

As far as I can tell, this is not true at all.

“There is no limit in the Act on the number of hours employees aged 16 and older may work in any workweek. The FLSA does not require overtime pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, unless overtime is worked on such days.”[1]

“In general, federal mandatory overtime laws follow guidelines set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA establishes the primary regulations for overtime pay affecting employees working in the private sector, as well as in federal, state, and local governments. The FLSA outlines the following guidance about overtime:

-Nonexempt employees must receive overtime pay for hours worked over the 40-hour workweek. -Pay for overtime must be a minimum of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay. -There are no limits to the number of hours employees 16 years old and older can work during a workweek, other than the fact there are obviously a finite number of hours in a workweek. -Overtime pay is not required on weekends or holidays unless overtime is worked on those days.” -Employers may penalize employees who refuse to work required overtime. Though the penalties can vary by employer, there are no federal guidelines for employer penalties on employees refusing to work mandatory overtime. In some cases, employees may be subject to discipline, reassignment, demotion, or even discharge. -Employers can require nonexempt employees to work beyond their 40-hour workweek hours without any notice, such as requiring employees to work another shift without any notice.[2]

So basically there is no limit to how much an employer can ask their employee to work mandatory overtime, as long as they are paid for their over time hours at a minimum of 1.5x rate.

[1]https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime#:~:text=There%20is....

[2] https://blog.namely.com/mandatory-overtime-laws-for-each-us-...

I work in a industry that is not at all related to any type of emergency services, supply line or transportation sector. People in my industry still regularly work at minimum 50-60 hour work weeks and very often 70-80 hours a week (in often relatively physical jobs). We are usually guaranteed a turn around time of 10 hours (how many hours we can have between our shifts— which is really just 8 hours if you factor in travel time), and that is only because our union recently fought for that in our last contract negotiation.

US labor laws are still very much the Wild West of labor laws.

What? So you’re just going to blame the guy in the $5000 suit? COME ON!

I generally agree that these are all issues that need to be addressed if these bans are to be put in place.

But— my biggest issues with these bans (aside from the ban itself- I am pro choice), is that they were hastily put into place with little to no thought into the actual implementation of the ban. It’s not like they didn’t have time to come up with reasonable legislation as this has been a major discussion leading up to the reversal of Roe vs Wade. But instead of taking time to legislate this properly (or talking to healthcare providers or doctors about what an emergency in cases like these might look like), they instead just pushed through these laws with zero clarity— in turn, affecting the quality of healthcare that women can now receive.

I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist or anything but leaving “emergency” in the legislation without a single definition of what that is suppose to mean, seems almost intentional. If that’s not the case, then these legislators are so incredibly inept at their job that they should not be legislating at all.

To your second point, I think it is unfair to leave any of the blame at doctor’s or hospital’s feet given that these laws don’t actually define in any specific way what would constitute what an emergency is. You cannot blame a doctor for not wanting to perform an abortion if it will land them in jail. Without certainty in the law, the risk is way too great. Your point might be more applicable if the laws clearly defined what would constitute a legal abortion. But right now, the law is so nebulous that it is basically up to individual judges and no doctor or business is going to risk their lives on such an uncertainty.

If pro-life legislators were actually concerned with their law being misconstrued, I’d expect that they would actually want to put more clarifications into the law, not less. With the recent laws an activist could right now rule that they think an emergency applies to an abortion case (just as much as a judge could rule that their was no emergency, even if there was one). As it stands, the current law creates so much uncertainty that doctor’s and providers will just not take any action that might put them on the other side of the law. I suspect that the purpose of this lack of clarity is to insert as much uncertainty into the law so that people will be just too afraid to act. To me, it appears that these legislators are not acting in good faith.

Yes, you are right. They should have gone with that headline.

Except most people wouldn’t really know what BVO is (or what it is used for), so soda additive is actually informative here.

Not the OP, but there are many documented cases where the recent lack of access to safe abortions have risked women’s lives. These are what I found just with a quick search.

>“She was denied an abortion in Texas - then she almost died”

”Doctors told her she had cervical insufficiency, which is a weakening of the cervical tissue that causes premature dilation, and that her unborn daughter would not survive. She and her husband were devastated. "She was a baby that we desperately, desperately wanted," she said.

A standard course of medical treatment for an unviable pregnancy at that stage of development is to terminate, and extract the foetus. Waiting to miscarry naturally can put the mother at risk for infection, which can prove fatal. But doctors told her they couldn't terminate her pregnancy, as under the state's laws, it was a crime to perform an abortion when there was a foetal heartbeat, unless the mother's life was threatened. Essentially, the message was that she was not sick enough yet to legally justify an abortion. Three days later, Amanda developed a life-threatening infection and went into septic shock.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65935189.amp

>“Texas abortion law means woman has to continue pregnancy despite fatal anomaly”

“At her 20-week ultrasound appointment, Beaton said her physician discovered the fetus had a rare, severe anomaly -- called alobar holoprosencephaly -- in which the fetus's brain does not develop into two hemispheres as it normally would, and the major structures of the brain remain fused in the middle.

The brain splitting into two hemispheres is a "critical stage in the development" and can impact the development of the nose, mouth and throat, Dr. Katie McHugh, an Indiana OB-GYN and abortion provider, told ABC News. The condition can result in a very painful life and death for the fetus, McHugh said.

Beaton said her physicians told her the baby could survive out of the womb for a couple of weeks, at most, in the event that the pregnancy ends in a live birth. Rouse agreed with this assessment, pointing to what she said is a lack of development of normal brain tissue and empty fluid filling the head.

"This anomaly is typically lethal for most infants within days to weeks," Rouse said.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-abortion-law-means-woman-con...

>“8 women join suit against Texas over abortion bans, claim their lives were put in danger”

“The suit alleged that Texas' abortion bans have denied the plaintiffs and countless other pregnant people necessary and potentially life-saving medical care because physicians in the state fear liability, according to a draft of the complaint shared with ABC News.

Texas has several abortion laws in place, prohibiting all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, except in medical emergencies, which the laws do not define. One of the bans -- called SB 8 -- prohibits abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which kept several plaintiffs from accessing care despite their pregnancies being nonviable, according to a draft of the suit.

Under Texas' bans, it is a second-degree felony to perform or attempt an abortion, punishable by up to life in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The law also allows private citizens to sue anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion.

The lawsuit is asking a judge to temporarily and permanently suspend the Texas law due to the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the exception in the state's abortion bans.”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/8-women-join-suit-texas-aborti...

>”Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted.”

“Last summer, a Mississippi woman sought an abortion after, she said, a friend had raped her. Her state prohibits most abortions but allows them for rape victims. Yet she could not find a doctor to provide one.

In September, an Indiana woman learned that a fetal defect meant her baby would die shortly after birth, if not sooner. Her state’s abortion ban included an exception for such cases, but she was referred to Illinois or Michigan. An Ohio woman carrying triplets faced a high risk of dangerous complications, including delivering too early. When she tried to get an abortion in September through Ohio’s exception for patients with a medical need, she was turned away.

The abortion bans enacted in about half the states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June do not prohibit abortion entirely. Most make exceptions in certain circumstances, commonly to protect the health or life of the patient, or in the case of rape or incest. And as conservative state lawmakers prepare to take up new restrictions on abortion in upcoming legislative sessions, exceptions will be at the heart of the debate.

But in the months since the court’s decision, very few exceptions to these new abortion bans have been granted, a New York Times review of available state data and interviews with dozens of physicians, advocates and lawmakers revealed.

Instead, those with means are traveling to states where abortion is still broadly legal or are obtaining abortion pills at home because the requirements to qualify for exceptions are too steep. Doctors and hospitals are turning away patients, saying that ambiguous laws and the threat of criminal penalties make them unwilling to test the rules.

“Having the legal right on the books to get an abortion and getting one in practice are two distinctly different things,” said Laurie Bertram Roberts, the executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund, a group that supports abortion rights.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/21/us/abortion-b...

The description in the video said they were using FSD beta.

Yes, but the Cruise dragged her for 20 ft first before stopping and pinning her. So it didn’t even remain in place initially, just after dragging her for 20 ft.