Galacta7

That makes too much sense, which is why it won't happen. Though I'd be all for it.

Night City eurodollars?

We're through the looking glass now.

I think if Luigi had merely assaulted the CEO to teach him a lesson, and not killed him, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion nationally. Or at least not to the same level of debate. That (admittedly arbitrary) line is a reason most DC characters like Batman and Superman generally refuse to kill even the most deserving of villains.

See also theologians and philosophers (also good at finding loopholes in theories).

My understanding is that the Confederacy did seize federal armories, navy yards and other military depots located in the South, which would have supplied a non-insignificant amount of small arms and canons. But most of the antebellum industrial capacity for manufacturing more was in the North, so the Union always had a strategic advantage there.

In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare.

That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.

This would assume that there is consensus on what the "United States" is. If a significant portion of the US Military feels differently, then a civil war is inevitable. This is what basically happened in the actual American Civil War, as a number of U.S. officers and soldiers formed their own forces (under their new Confederate government) to fight against the United States.

Yes, I think you've eloquently summarized my thinking on this. Thankfully I've never had to witness people trying to take justice into their own hands, as you have, though I imagine it must be harrowing to witness especially in a mob situation.

It sounds like you're trying to be part of the solution, which I deeply commend. Thank you also for your very thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.

Retribution shouldn't be the driving force, but I can understand it from a societal standpoint. Victims and the families of the victims will want to see a punishment applied for the harm they've suffered. It's in the state's interest to make sure that it's not excessively applied, but to degree there's a mix of correction and retribution that has to be taken into account at sentencing. One person's spite is another's justice.

I think that if too many people see retribution as no longer being applied, some people will start to take matters into their own hands to seek vengeance.

The state has an interest in preventing that and assuring retribution is applied as evenly as possible, and counterbalanced by other mitigating factors (e.g. the degree of offense, the circumstances under which it occurred, likelihood of reoffending, penitence of the guilty, etc.).

It could save others from clicking on downed sites, but not itself.

Sounds like something Philip K. Dick would right.

"Please scroll to bottom of Terms and click 'I Agree' to begin 7-day trial citizenship."

Yeah, that's a pretty bold claim. I almost stopped reading their otherwise valid post when I saw that.

Most rental cars I've used already had 100% fuel, so I definitely had to return them at the same level. I think there is a little more flexibility with ICE, since analog fuel gauges are probably less accurate than EV charge level meters.

So I was usually able to find a gas station near the airport rental, and get as close as possible to topping off (if the car was a full tank when I first picked it up). I've never tried to rent an EV, so I'm not sure how easy that would be in a comparable situation. Probably not very.

> "The show Silicon Valley well parodied this phenomenon."

Yup, often hilariously. Basically summarized in this scene (especially the very end of the clip):

https://youtu.be/PdCoadVSfXg?si=VVwDsNw84WoZx8XD

Try this link instead: https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Let's take it to its logical end: Unix time for the whole planet.

Top Gear once tried to intentionally kill a Toyota Hilux, ramming it, parking it in the sea, dropping a trailer on it, and literally setting it on fire. Nothing worked. It still drove.

I'm convinced that whatever remains of the charred Earth after WW3, somebody will still be driving a Hilux.

https://youtu.be/xnWKz7Cthkk?si=wE7S-iFl2yxIxQ-O

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and accept it in cordiality! :) And I hope you will accept my replies in the same kindly spirit.

I think perhaps I inadvertently implied that the Qur'an was copied from earlier sacred texts, when I only meant that it was likely influenced by them ... in the same way that the New Testament was strongly influenced by the Hebrew Bible (in some cases referencing portions directly - especially regarding prophetic literature, but in other ways making very different claims). Where I agree with you is that it's simplistic to say that Islam was simply a distant branch of another religion -- it's clearly it's own tradition, but my understanding is that most Muslims would agree that it both shares common roots (i.e. a foundational understanding) with Christianity and Islam while also superseding them.

In my mind at least, that indicates that there is some narrative progression, of which Islam would see itself as the most recent, or most complete, revelation; building on what came before while also correcting it (where it is seen as erring from Allah's/God's intended message). In that sense, I think it shares a lot in common with Christianity, a religion that more or less treats Judaism the same way.

While I perhaps agree in principle, I think it's also fair to say that while Islam isn't strictly based on Christianity or Judaism, it was strongly influenced by both, to the extent that the Qu'ran borrows quite a bit from the New Testament, which in turn borrows heavily from the Hebrew Bible. The overlap is not accidental, but rather intentional in order to provide a sense of credibility in their teachings.

In that sense, both Christianity and Islam view themselves as supersessionist to the respective religion that predated them, with Judaism being more or less the root of the Abrahamic tree (though you could argue that Zoroastrianism may have been the precursor for monotheism as a concept, predating them all).

Thank you!

This is pretty cool. I hope you'll add MARC and Brightline trains as well, as your app evolves.

The original show's creator, Glen Larson, was a Mormon - so it tracks that the show incorporated a lot of that theology. Also, one of the main antagonists is Count Iblis, someone who seeks to lead the colonists to follow him, though he is revealed to be essentially a prince of darkness. "Iblis" is the Islamic name for Satan, so another religious element. Even his backstory is similar to the Abrahamic view of the devil, "he [Count Iblis] was previously a Being of Light who fell from grace after using his powers for evil purposes."

Ron Moore's reimagined version of Battlestar includes strong themes of reincarnation and life being a cycle, which also tracks with Moore's past interest in Hinduism and other Eastern religions.

I'm curious why the audience would not accept him eating the paper pulp in large cake form? Perhaps because he couldn't reasonably eat the whole cake in front of them (and thus his words)?

Too late, if you're in the US. The FDA has an allowable level of insects or insect fragments in much of the food you eat. So you're probably getting a decent amount of insects and other things (probably best not to think about) in your food. A ground beef/insect blend only adjusts that ratio upward, and would be more transparent about it. Bon appetite, lol.

Good observation. Though to extend the analogy, LLMs may be capable of giving rise to true AI in the same way that the Enterprise's main computer could fairly trivially create sentient (and seemingly sapient) individuals like Dr. Moriarty, or the Doctor, despite not having that property itself.

I feel like anarcho-capitalists fall into this same trap, believing that a stateless world ruled by the individual will lead to the most freedom. When it reality it will almost certainly lead to the worst kinds of tyranny and oppression imaginable (as Chomsky observes). In my very experience, the very people who pine for an ANCAP future reality would be the ones most crushed under its boot heel.

> This is kind of hard to discuss since it seems like SBF didn't engage in EA "in good faith" and we can't really know if other billionaires are either.

I wonder if EA could ever be implemented in a way that proves or disproves it as a viable strategy? It seems to me that the inherent problem is that people will always behave in subtle and not-subtle self-interested ways that make "true" altruistic behavior devilishly difficult to carry out in the real world (especially under the conditions that arise granting you the billions to carry the philosophy out). And therefore almost impossible to falsify.

Sort of reminds me of the old adage, "Communism cannot fail, it can only be failed." With some people today exclaiming that true Marxism has never been tried. But I can't imagine what perfect conditions could exist that would allow either communism or EA to be carried out, without having to account for human nature in the end.

Ah, thanks -- still disturbing but a little more understandable now.

Ah, that makes much more sense. I must have missed that. Thanks for the clarification!