328 karma · joined November 26, 2018
Generally speaking, this is caused by too much policy, not too little policy -- and adding an official code of conduct (which a university likely already had!) isn't going to solve that.
This is actually a case of toxic empathy: that view isn't the one that leads to the best outcome, because it destroys your capacity to help for short term improvements, leading to long term negative outcomes and an increased number of victims. Tempering raw empathy with rational evaluation increases your capacity to help and leads to a greatly improved outcome.
To use a cliche: during a rescue, don't become a victim.
An overabundance of immigration disrupts the host culture, which is the feature of the world that is causing the good outcome -- that the host culture causes more human thriving than the culture being emigrated from. When you draw too much from the resources of healthy cultures to try and fix systemic problems in other cultures, you end up damaging the healthy cultures, not fixing the problem. This simply degrades the situation, whereas a slower rate of change would remain stable, and lead to a genuine improvement in the world.
It's a cancerous idea, caused by failing to regulate your emotions: you're not being genuinely empathetic, you're shirking responsibility to get high on good feelings because look at how woke.
An anthology is not exempted under 512.c.
Edit:
> Making A-10s into drones doesn't solve any particular problem.
Just wanted to call out -- it actually does solve one problem, and one I've heard expressed as a concern, which is the potential loss of pilots involved with low-flying, slow CAS aircraft, such as the A-10. It also substantially changes the performance requirements when you're not trying to safely house a pilot -- fuel capacity, electronics, lighter or smaller craft (if we're talking future planes), etc.
Hence the reason for my suggestion: it shifts the risk envelope in terms of sending them as CAS, while offering a distinct platform from say, Predator style drones, with relatively lighter armaments.
Let me just conclude by saying my information on military hardware largely comes from Wikipedia, may not include various platforms that haven't been widely publicized, and certainly doesn't include accurate information on combat.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to talk.
For someone like the Army, it seems like a drone version of the A-10, which drops a lot of the pilot armor for increased munitions and dwell time, would be a decisive factor in CAS.
If you look at say, the ambush on American forces in Syria by the Wagner group, substantial amounts of fire were provided by helicopters and AC-130s.
So I'm just lost at how a plane which can reach target faster than a helicopter, but provide similar close in support doesn't have a role in such engagements.
That's not to say that stealth penetration, ECW, and targeted strikes aren't important -- eg, providing openings in IAD, hitting fortified targets quickly, etc. Just that given how things with Wagner went, it seems like long-dwell, high munition count CAS is useful.
They're welcome to censor to editorialize, but they lose their protections from copyright suits for relaying copyright material uploaded by their users.
For Facebook to be immune from copyright liability for my uploads, when they display them to others publicly for profit, they cannot express prior restraint over my upload. Such commercial copyright violations carry heft penalties, in the thousands of dollars per view: Facebook and Google can't operate in an environment where they're liable to such a degree for uploads.
The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) They're free to not accept that deal, but they're liable for their commercial copyright infringement in that case.
Many right-wing people claim that in practice, there's not: they're accused of being "white nationalists" for being "white and a nationalist".
Edit:
If people downvoting me think I'm wrong, explain why people like Jordan Peterson, who merely espouse non-leftist positions and happen to be white, routinely get accused of supporting the alt-right and neo-Nazis.
For the people who doubt what I'm saying -- here's a video of Jordan Peterson. This is who the leftists routinely call "neo-Nazis" or "alt-right": moderates who refute their positions and calmly assert values like personal responsibility over collectivist victimhood culture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2bFzK2EdIo
Edit 2:
I'd originally written "conservative"; I'm not sure Mr Peterson would describe himself in such terms. I've made it more neutral.
I'm not sure I agree, but I think there's an argument to be had that she'd have more freedom to leave a job if she were living somewhere that she were also free to relocate, and that at scale, this economic distortion leads to high friction.
This isn't true though, is it?
GTA V is simply cheaper for the sandbox space: but you're actually perfectly free to get some paintball guns, some cars, some gasoline, buy an old 7-11, fence it off, and play paintball GTA V.
That would just be more expensive and tiring, while less convenient.
(It sounds more fun to me, but YMMV -- and economically, you can probably rent the space to the police for training to break even.)
"Purely for optics."
Why would the optics look bad?
Because what they did was a way in which corruption often happens, eg a foreign government rewarding someone for losing an election but causing a political disturbance, and they lied about it because they knew it would look bad during an investigation. We can see the Chinese rewarding the Trumps with various favors, eg trademarks, for an example of how this kind of corruption actually happens, and why people would have been suspicious of the Trump dealings.
You're correct: each misdeed of the Trump organization could be explained by bumbling -- a coin-flip between incompetence and malice.
Unfortunately, there's a large number of such questionable practices, and the intersection of a high number of overlapping events is actually a large degree of certainty.
The simplest explanation is the preferred:
Trump is a career criminal, who committed multiple kinds of crimes during the presidential election, ranging from campaign finance violations to colluding with Russian intelligence operatives. He did this not because he's some kind of deep-sleeper agent from Russia, or whatever media narrative has formed, but rather because he's an out-of-touch sociopath who has been sheltered by wealth and legitimately doesn't understand why breaking national security law to enrich himself is wrong. But he did it, along with the other crimes, and knowingly orchestrated the whole series of crimes. As he's been doing for years, through the Trump Foundation, Trump University, his frequent defrauding of contractors, etc.
So yes, he "colluded", but out of stupidity and incompetence, not thoughtful malice.
> assuming the majority of people actually wanted it because they believed it would solve the problem.
The poster is omitting that most people in Seattle were opposed to the tax, because it would have significantly harmed labor unions and regional businesses, like grocery stores.
The Seattle city council crafted a tax without consulting businesses about how economics works, doubled down and told people to stuff it when they pointed out that it was going to damage the local economy by crippling mid-tier businesses that had high-gross, low-margin revenues, and were then forced into an embarrassing retreat when labor unions started campaigning against it and neighborhood organizations circled the wagons to protect their historic businesses.
It was also a pocket change, feel good tax: Seattle spends over a billion dollars a year on poverty, between low-income subsidies and homelessness, and has nothing but a degrading situation to show for it.
People in Seattle just have a simple question: both Amazon and the SCC have spent about $25B over the past decade -- Amazon to rebuild SLU, and the SCC on anti-poverty; why does Amazon have a campus and tens to hundreds of thousands of lives changed, while the SCC has literal poop on the streets to show for it?
Michael Cohen testified that their claims of doing this was a lie, and they continued their business dealings after having claimed to have ceased as a candidate.
If they didn't feel they were doing anything improper, why did they lie to the American people and during subsequent testimony?
This is incorrect.
"Collusion" isn't a specific crime, but rather, a euphemism for a family of crimes.
We've seen Trump associates charged with and convicted of those crimes, relating to improper communications, obstructing an investigation into foreign influence, lying to the government during an investigation, etc.
We've seen the Russians charged with the related crimes, such as hacking the DNC. We've seen Mueller trace out the connection between GRU and the campaign convicts, via Wikileaks. We've seen multiple Trump associates who lied under oath about their or Trump's financial dealings with Russia. Or in the case of Stone, about many many things.
We've seen additional evidence that Trump is the center of a vast criminal syndicate with ties to Russia, given the multiple branching investigations across jurisdictions, the related campaign finance crimes, and the testimony of his decade-long "fixer".
This is what is looks like when a criminal organization is prosecuted -- and the reason that Trump has not been charged with conspiracy relating to the criminal acts he ordered, acts for which others face jail terms, is policy against indicting a sitting president.
There's no speculation involved, and considerable evidence of their criminality.
What's fanciful is you ignoring all of the facts to say things like:
"Well, it doesn't matter if associates of his are going down for related crimes, and that he's the connecting feature between their criminal acts -- that he hasn't been charged with something made up means that nothing happened!"
(All of that aside, the media is a travesty and their coverage of this has been click-bait driven fantasy.)
Yep, there's basically there's two groups of things:
1. Those with smaller orbital radii (ie, Mercury which orbits between the Earth and Sun) will always be closer on average -- with a limit of the center point having the minimal average distance of "1 orbital radius".
2. Those with larger orbital radii (ie, Jupiter which always has the Earth between the Sun and itself) will always be further away on average.
This effect happens even when talking about abstract circles and measuring points on them -- not about real orbits.
A quick Python script suggests that a point on the circle is about 1.273 radii away from the other points on the circle on "average", while (by definition) the center is 1 radius away from all points on the circle.
So this fact about orbits seems related: the closest point to your orbit (on average) are things in the middle of it, which are near the center of your "circle".
Further testing supports this -- there's a gradient from the 1.273 at the "edge" to the 1.0 in the "center", as you shrink the radius of the circle you measure from.
Neither snark nor a Wiki labyrinth are a specific citation for what you said: "The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans."
Nothing on that Wikipedia page supports that claim, and certainly not with a citation from the Snowden documents.
You're just bullshitting, and you're bullshitting on a serious topic like national security. It's transparent you're doing so, because you're citing non-specific things like a general Wikipedia page on the topic, after alleging a very serious thing was supported by the Snowden documents.
If you were serious, and being honest, you'd have cited a specific document. Or set of documents. Or an analysis which supported your position.
But you're not.
(Nor is that Wiki page: several things listed as mass surveillance are nothing of the sort, and just regular ol spy work against foreign targets.)
And they have, repeatedly.
For all their bluster, the legislation that they've passed immunized the corporations who participated, left standing the punishment against Qwest (who didn't), and created new avenues to collect information in secret.
They held no one from either the Bush or Obama administrations, both of whom supported such programs, to account.
Congress did approve, modulo some theatrics, the actions of those administrations, because it's what people, that is, their constituents wanted.
> NSA is a traitor to the American public.
This kind of rhetoric when people didn't do what you personally wanted, but which much of the public did, isn't helpful and is a large portion of why the current politics are so toxic.
As far as anyone has been able to document, the NSA largely spends their time fighting terrorist organizations and hacking other nation-states -- doing things that legitimately keep safe Americans, in a world that isn't all that nice of a place.
It's trite to snipe at how the guards do their job, safe under their watch and without anything at risk -- particularly when you're also safely the minority, so don't run the risk of your opinions being put into action.
> can't even begin to imagine how blackmail will be used to silently and invisibly form the political landscape for the next 50 years
Good, I'm tired of lizard people.
Also, "Hoover-esque" comes to mind. Of course, the real danger for your conspiracy is the private consultancies and large corporations, which have considerably better access to information and substantially more sophisticated systems.
I'm personally considerably less worried about the NSA (or other government) archives and systems than the privateer ones, particularly in the age of rogue billionaires with aspirations of nation building -- to the point I'm willing to risk it to enable the nation to defend itself from, eg, another 2016-style PSYOP campaign.
This seems to be completely unfounded, and out of line with my experience of the people who work there.
> they should perform their civic duty and do as the patriot Edward Snowden has done.
The truth is that you and I are part of a minority in the country: most people are actually vaguely okay with the idea of the government spy agency trawling through domestic networks looking for people trying to attack the US.
The NSA has owned the globe on a shoe string budget in response to a civic outcry about two decades back. They did their duty, as the people of the nation asked them to.
Now, you can argue that it was a poor national strategy -- that it's going to lead to a civic-society corrupting influence, and problems like parallel construction. But it's a bold allegation that people didn't do their duty because they struck a hard compromise that the majority approved of, but you personally don't.
> patriot
I wouldn't describe anyone who leaked legal spy programs or who took a laptop full of classified secrets to both China and Russia a patriot.
There were technical means by which Snowden could have better secured the materials, and there's the simple fact that he leaked a lot of perfectly legal military spy programs to the entire world, intentionally.
I'd certainly describe Snowden as an idealist, but he's not particularly a patriot.
Waving your hands and mouthing the word "Snowden" doesn't support just any defamatory statement you want to make about the government spy agencies -- and making up allegations cheapens the legitimate charges against them.
Sets with the same cardinality can have wildly different topologies, which describe the possible paths through the space, which in turn describes the nature of functions into and out of that space, as well as transformations and relationships within that space.
A line through the center of a sphere doesn't necessarily touch the sphere in a "4 dimensional" connectivity structure, must touch the sphere in a "3 dimensional" connectivity structure, while a sphere doesn't even exist in a "1 dimensional" connectivity structure.
The main reason that we use "4 dimensional" spacetimes for particle physics is that there are three independent components of motion with respect to time, and so it makes the math simpler to allow for independent variation of those parameters to functions, instead of compressing them into a single encoded number, eg, derivatives wouldn't function correctly (or likely even be defined) on a single parameter model. An additional reason that we don't use a "1 dimensional" spacetime is because the product of a "1 dimensional" time and a "1 dimensional" space is a "2 dimensional" spacetime -- and we don't have any models of reality that lack either space or time. (Which is good: any model needs to explain both, if only as an emergent feature.)
Topology is about connectivity, not scale; dimension is a topological fact.
Could you provide a citation on this?
> Most of their measurable activity is illegal and violates the rights of Americans.
This is a useless metric: it's true of both healthy and unhealthy spy agencies; the former because we wouldn't hear about the useful and legal things they do, only the occasional whistleblowing, while the latter because of the point you're trying to make. (I also disagree it's true.)
However, without a solid metric on their total classified activity, there's no way to determine if it's unhealthy or healthy.
In fact, that seems to be the problem: no amount of discrimination against men resolves that women simply are choosing careers in a different distribution to what men do, but the only policy lever that can really be utilized is discrimination at various stages of education or employment.
This has left people aiming for a fantasy, and using increasingly aggressive discrimination to try and carry it out, biology be damned.
That if they really believed in financial equity, they'd reshape their own privilege before insisting that they have a right to collect money from others (eg, raising taxes) or harping on the privilege of others (eg, corporate practices).
Yes, except the thing you claimed people believed has nothing to do with what anyone claimed.
You're baldly asserting that people who disagree with you on tax policy additionally hold this bad belief, and hence are bad people. That's a gussied up ad hominem, and is extremely common in certain political groups.
> "We", in this formulation, are already pulling our weight. "We" have also recently increased what weight we are pulling.
...with a tractor paid for by collective money.
Your whole position is that California or New York created this wealth on their own, through their own policies, and that's factually incorrect.
What you describe as "pulling our weight" is merely hoarding the returns on others' investments into your state -- the exact kind of hoarding wealth frequently decried as disequity by people within those very states.
That's clearly not true: you're making ad hominems at people who disagree on tax policy.
Which is common of the entitled people from those states: receive massive subsidies which pay off, and then refuse to return that wealth to the rest of the nation at an equitable tax rate, pretending you're some virtuous self-starters who through your benevolent policies created all that wealth -- hoarding it for special privileges for yourselves, while harping about how others should pick themselves up by their bootstraps.
Perhaps if California and New York stopped hoarding the benefits of federal investments, the federal government could afford to make large Silicon-Valley-starting style investments in other regions of the country, and help them recover.
The entitlement to think you deserve to buy yourself nice things with the ROI on federal money, rather than having to pay back so the federal government can help other regions is staggering.
No wonder people from California and New York talk about "equitable" so often: their entire society is designed around their inherent entitlement from the rest of the country, and it's a Freudian admission that needs to end.
This isn't incompatible with what I said.
California pays more than it receives, but less than it should given the benefits that it receives (and the agreed upon national tax rate).
It's good that SALT has been limited, and the investment that the US has made in certain urban environments (eg, founding Silicon Valley) will be properly distributed across the country instead of hoarded by the states where those investments were made.
We subsidize their social services at the expense of the nation by allowing them to deduct local taxes from national taxes -- lowering their effective national tax rate as a reward for giving their residents back tax money via services.
I'm for tax equity: stop subsidizing the wealthy states for hoarding their money.
This is a deep fallacy, and why the "halo effect" works.
The institutions which made those gains no longer exist, and over the last decade or two have had their name stolen by shallow ideologues. Their downfall was much longer, but it's clear that in many cases, adherence to "politically correct" dogma has replaced genuine inquiry and the standards to which these institutions used to adhere.
Some of which, while we're on the topic of Russian political interference (as a society), was originally sponsored disruption by the USSR now spawning child political movements in the US.