tootallgavin

Anyone read the Phenomenology of Spirit and notice the same ideas?

Historically, even violence and war does not change people's beliefs.

How is this a real comment?

weird. Currently, natural gas is 62.4% of the fuel mix

https://efte.twc.texas.gov/d_breaks.html

"Rest or coffee breaks, defined as 20 minutes or less, are compensable hours worked under 29 C.F.R. 785.18, since they are regarded as being for the benefit of both the employer and the employee."

This is 29 C.F.R. 785.18, a federal regulation

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/s...

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB02127F....

Maybe I didn't read it properly but water breaks are not under attack

I mean would you say the same of S.B.F of FTX who was playing league of legends while on the clock?

If everything were running smoothly there would be no reason to look. But if mistakes are getting made while on the job, could it be because an individual is doing more than the job description?

I'm a full stack desktop/mobile/web developer.

I'll build you a product or tool for a fixed quoted price in 4 to 8 weeks. I am stack agnostic, though I have my go to tools.

GavinStringfellow.com

Remote: Optional

Willing to relocate: Within Texas

Technologies: Rust, React Native, C#, Java, Postgres, Redis, NodeJS

Résumé/CV: GavinStringfellow.com/resume

Email: StringfellowGavin@gmail.com

Some peoples standards for a job are severely too high.

Hegel and Hofstadter seem to be trying to find "spirit". To keep it simple, spirit can be defined by the "I" aka self-consciousness (but it could also be an ant colony, the Church, the State, the biosphere, etc... all the way up to "God").

Hegel tries to notice the becoming of the notion of the Concept (which could be noticed as the basic thought-tool) into (and through) the notion of the "I".

Hofstadter is trying to do something similar but instead of the Concept as the base (or starting point), he uses the Axiom. Hofstadter then tries to discover if "I" (or "spirit") can emerge from a system of axioms.

Please Note: In order to keep it short I gloss over about 1500 pages of Hegel's & Hofstadter's works.

Anyone read the Phenomenology of Spirit and notice the same ideas?

I wonder what the point of piece like this is for. To dissuade people from migrating to Texas?

The long answer is the whole of history

Would you say the same for the books by Spivak or Resnick? What about a college degree?

Brown is not black, and I am not my hair color

Mr. Cole: That money could be put to use, to gain more money.

Paul: Explain how!

Mr. Cole: Money can be exchanged for stocks and bonds. The value of these securities shifts over time. Performing analysis on these securities can help you produce probabilities on how the value may change.

Politicians trade stocks

Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped.

> So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks.

Some people see this as an issue, others don't. But, I understand that I am messaging in a place that has opinions that are different than mine. However, I owe my livelihood to having read this place as a teenager. So, here I am. I know when I one day run for office, the members of this board, likely, would not vote for me. I still like to exercise my thoughts and ideas in a familiar community.

> The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on.

That is one ideology. There are many others. Can you think of a honest, good reason that a politician might have to trade stocks? If you can't think of good reason, you're ideology has given you bias against someone (in the same way that it has given you bias for someone else). There many different ways of life, most people think theirs is the best way.

> The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks.

I don't think this is the best direction to go in.

> The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward.

We'll see if the policy shifts in this direction

> And this is a thing we voted on.

Who is we? Not me.

> So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well.

But if the politicians aren't following current laws, why would they follow new laws? (The law I am referring to is the stock trade disclosure one, but there are others)

> You're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading

Agreed

> Whereas I think there are shades of gray.

Agreed, even private citizens have to declare their trades to the SEC once a trade reaches a certain value.

> that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level.

I disagree, shifts in land value happen for many reasons including legislation. Are these shifts in value as volatile as the ones seen in stock market? The answer, IMO, depends on the time frame.

> There are a ton of injustices that still occur.

Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.

What happens when they exceed the budget?

that will happen regardless of the monetary incentive

> that benefit someone's personal finances.

I don't know how to contextualize this. There should be no slaves.

> "why shouldn't they be able to pass laws based on their investments?"

Hopefully, they are invested in their community, their city, their county, their state, their country. I don't know where you want to go with this. Obviously some people are... invested differently. Don't vote for these people

> You're looking at this from the wrong direction

we have different viewpoints, this why it seems this way

There are laws in place that govern congresspeople's trades. These are ignored. They should be enforced. If congresspeople (or who?) are ignoring/not-enforcing the previous laws, what are they going to do with these new ones?

I am trying to assert that political machines require money. Taxpayer money is one avenue the stock market is another.

I am also saying that the money allocated, by taxpayer money, may not be enough. One way to alleviate this tension is investing in the stock market.

If I am not mistaken, if this ban passes, would they not also vote to increase their salaries? (I would think so, because a source of income was made illegal) So, to conclude, I don't want to give more money to politicians. Let them make money in the stock market and actually enforce the laws already in place that governs their trades.

> Congressmen are supposed to report their trades within 45 days

contradiction

> But that's too long to make a difference in something like the current stock market

I disagree, the strategy an investor deploys could make the difference. Blindly following someone else's trades is likely not a good strategy

You lost me here. Participating in society is okay. Maybe in the case of a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, this could be the case. But an insulated lawmaker is definitely not the way to go. If a lawmaker riuns his financial status via the stockmarket, cool! Elect someone else.

> So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that.

They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else.

Imagine a politician attempting to pass a law banning guns but just before it passes that politician buys a bunch of guns.

Or, in 1930s, when an order was given that made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world.

> What we want to do is separate "what's good for me" from "what's good for the country" and remove conflicts of interest like that.

Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc.

Every politician gets elected because what they'll do is "what's good for the country". And then we elect the next politician