Gabriel_Martin

Sadly, his fate is still unlearn’d

Oh wow it's like a rare free pass to talk about shills here on HN :)

A representative of the luddite contingent perhaps.

I'd be curious if there's anything people would consider their primary source, I find myself picking concepts from various sources when the need arises.

Here's are a couple from poking around on the topic:

https://css-tricks.com/intrinsic-typography-is-the-future-of...

https://github.com/clagnut/webtypography

https://cssreference.io/typography/

https://type-scale.com/

It's not so clear, in that this fallacy seems to be more accurately what's happening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

<3 no u

This extends to videogame manuals.

To be fair, that obscurity is partially what keeps the balance of power intact.

kind of a silly test, what is the proper order?

In the trend of questions we kinda know are dumb questions, why not just capture it where it comes out, at the powerplants?

Sorry, I took the bait. My bad.

"Forced conversion to Catholicism from a blood thirst cult that stained their monuments with the blood of innocents"

Not sure you want to bring into focus Catholicism's history as it relates to the blood of innocents..

I'm not sure why my replies got deleted, pretty wack

> Compared with what?

I really don't get what is the glitch here? You seem fixated on finding logical parallels to an ongoing response to a global pandemic, which is honestly getting quite repetitive to discuss.

It's compared with the current level of deaths to vaccination rate given it's not going away.. The logical conclusion of unsurprising policies as a response to the novel coronavirus, or any highly transmissible zoonotic virus.

Are we even on the same page here that less deaths is better from the perspective of public policy?

Honestly your rhetoric, message after message gets so tiresome to engage with, by virtue of hyperbolic it is. "Relentless propaganda", "daring to have different opinions gets you attacked bullied fired etc etc".

It's a national healthcare apparatus' response to a virus, nothing more or less.

After reading it all, repeating it every which way, it's just not compelling to me. This doesn't need to be some hyper-emotional, hyper-politicized topic, where parents of young boys need to fearfully victimize themselves as patriot-martyr enemies of the fascist state. I'm getting to the point of having a kind of second-hand embarrassment at the characterization.

I imagine the case would be different for different interests, but "a few hundred to a few thousand people die of covid every day" would be my go to if I were the one making it.

You felt compelled to speak out in their defense, but your choice of comparisons and rhetoric is precisely why I felt compelled to clarify as well and what made me raise an eyebrow on the logic in it. That is to say I think you chose your example, and to make it in a intentionally hyperbolic way with things like "banned from civil society" and "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" because you saw that it would make the most emotional impact to compare to your acquaintances' situation, but that's precisely where I felt it was becoming absurd.

Having just now re-confirmed that levels of nasal virus drop faster in vaccinated people to make sure I'm not being illogical, the creation of laws that allow businesses, schools, and others to legally stop you from entering isn't "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" the way you characterize it at all, like banning obese people due to their burden on healthcare costs would be.

To me, it really does come off as a trying to point out the issues with mandates by drawing it to the absurd conclusion of excluding overweight people from society. So hopefully that clears up why I saw it that way, but maybe I'm incorrect definitionally.

There are always going to be mandates or policies that conflict with what parents, or people in general want to do. To me that doesn't make it nasty or bullying, though they may feel horribly bullied if it affects them. If anything I'd say those feelings (and most examples of nasty bullying I've seen) extend from the acts of anti-science politicization of masks and vaccines, which in my opinion is a great disservice to the public. We now people who now feel like nasty bullies are creating new mandates in a nasty dystopian nightmare world, which I think is extremely unfortunate.

Because that's just how I understand reductio ad adsurdum to mean, there's a valid chain of reasoning that leads from the initial premise to an unacceptable conclusion. In this case you believe that being "banned from civil society" (your characterization) for being unvaccinated is ok, you must accept the same for being overweight.

"Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"

If I'm understanding you, you don't personally believe in "banning overweight people from civil society" but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent? Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me, if so, since you're trying to characterize the belief in vaccine mandates as inevitably leading such a ridiculous, absurd conclusion. In this case banning overweight people.

I mean no platitude necessary, by your logic if debt is bad then no debt is good. But last time that was the case it caused the longest depression in American history. How does that add up?

The run-proof nature of an 'approaching-cashless society', is a facet of this I'd never considered, I suppose the point is that it'd be infinitely propped-up thanks to be so detached from any real world asset. I'll have to learn more about the other points and their relationships to money creation and supply though. I'd never thought about the reversibility of money, outside of normal means of destroying it, and I'm not completely sure if I understand it well enough to agree or disagree. That said I feel like if there's a context for these creations (or maybe realizations) that reminds me of a kind of monetary inertia and that puts me on the fence still. Always so much to learn about this kind of stuff :)

These are the exact sentiments I believe personal/household finance analogies evoke, and basically why I oppose their use. It evokes comparisons to some kind of possibility of something happening analogous to bankruptcy when in fact:

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default." Alan Greenspan

So yeah, it's just my opinion but to me the mechanics and context of the US's federal debt is so departed from that of household finance, that it's more detrimental than beneficial to even use them in the first place. But again, I understand the desire to anchor it to something people recognize.

When it comes to comparing the amounts of US gov spending to US household spending (not that I could propose a better mechanism, meaning I understand the value of framing things in such a way, and fully admit I can't think of a more salient way to do it) I'm just not a fan of comparing state level spending to household or personal finance.

It leads to other examples being used that just are not true. Like: "It is similar to a person using his or her credit card for a purchase (rather than cash, check, or a debit card) and not paying the full credit card balance each month".

I cannot sell access to my debt to pay for past debts, which is how the government has paid it's debts since 1837 (probably so long ago because that the last time we sought to destroy debt and not pay for things by monetizing debt, it caused the longest depression in American history due to Jackson's monetary policy in 1835). Nor can I create credit out of thin air, by buying treasuries my member banks. Also, I most definitely do not owe 50% of my non-intergovernmental debt to my own central bank and state and local governments and their pensions. Much less, all the while operating with a currency I control.

So yeah, I don't love it, but I get it.

From your link, wouldn't: "the multiplier being the maximum amount of commercial bank money created by a given unit of central bank money" be interpreted to mean that as soon as central bank monetizes it's debt, i.e. the money is initially created, it inherently is equal to a certain amount of commercial bank money, as long as it doesn't remain unlent? So it's not really the new creation of money, but rather the realization of it's value, upon being lent by a bank?

I know this is unrelated, but the closed caption's text accuracy is embarrassingly poor for an organization of Reuter's stature.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table" In this case the table pounding is in the form of saying it's not dispassionate enough for their high standards.

Possibly worsening the Zoonotic viruses issue we're already experiencing?

Not to be too meta, but I kinda like that this just has [flagged] in the title, without much else changed. Hopefully it serves as a challenge to discuss the topic while following the "interpret each other generously" rule, and discussing reasonably. Ever since I got called on being less than charitable in a past comment thread, I've really come to love that rule here.

Ah oil, the path to peace for so many countries! No but in all seriousness there certainly must be better goods to trade which could replace oil, if peace is the goal.

I mean ladders already existed

FWIW, I don't think one needs to believe in capitalist conspiracies to feel repulsed by a situation in which stranded food is being buried in bulk to minimize losses, because there's not market mechanism to get it to people during a pandemic, while there are miles of lines at food banks, and record levels of food insecurity. Not everything needs to be couched in an ideological battle between capitalism and socialism, IMO.