OpieCunningham

I saw it in mid April. Walked right in at the scheduled time. But I did feel that was anomalous. Both d’Orsay and Louvre should really be capping daily entrants - it’s becoming a significant waste to go when you’re 5-10 meters away with a crowd between you and most works of art.

The US accepted 22,645 refugees in 2022. Since 1990 the U.S. has accepted, on average, roughly 75,000 per year.

In 2021, the US accepted 11,411 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 28,900 citizens), and Finland accepted 1,282 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 4,300 citizens).

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-of-refugee...

* https://www.worlddata.info/europe/finland/asylum.php

Am I supposed to be more concerned with leave no trace than I am with people slipping through the cracks of society? Because I’m not.

Le Corbusier, a pioneer of YIMBYism.

To be fair, housing costs in Paris would be much more reasonable, both due to such a glut of housing and the subsequent decreased interest in living there.

“They say the smog is the reason we have such beautiful sunsets.”

Nice.

> I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. > Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels.

There is one person who controls all the constraints: Zuckerberg. He even went so far as to enforce that through his stock classifications. It’s entirely understandable and acceptable to have empathy for those working at FB who are attempting to solve the problems. But Zuckerberg made the decision to be the single source of the constraints that bind everyone below. And his constraints are: profit over all else. He should face consequences for setting those constraints, just as anyone should who set a constraint of “address climate change without adversely effecting GDP”.

Separately, and as the “revelations” of Zuckerberg’s immoral behavior continues year after year, those who work for him but are attempting to solve the problems, should recognize at some point in the future, now, or in the past that the problems are insurmountable within the confines of the constraints. As that knowledge spreads, then the question becomes whether those idealistically earnest individuals are justifiably ignorant of the reality: that all their best intentions are moot in the face of the constraints as were determined by Zuckerberg. And when or if they are no longer justifiably ignorant, they become culpable.

Life span is increasing very marginally. You are probably referring to life expectancy, which has been increasing.

Life span is how old a human is capable of living. This number has not changed much in hundreds or thousands of years. Life expectancy is how many humans reach any specific age. Life expectancy increases are primarily driven by decreases in infant deaths (which bring down the averages), and secondarily by better diagnosis and treatments of disease in older humans.

In any case, the existence of better medicine is not predicated on the development or consumption of ultra processed foods. There is no “same package”.

Bits ‘n Picas is pretty good.

https://github.com/kreativekorp/bitsnpicas

“After the Equifax breach, everyone learned that until there are actual repercussions for cyber attacks (like fines and people going to jail for negligence), if you can weather the storm, over the course of a year or two, there is effectively zero impact to your bottom line.”

It’s even worse than just weathering a storm. Lax security has been incentivized. The Equifax CEO, Richard Smith, stepped down shortly after the public became aware of the breach, with a $90m severance package.

https://fortune.com/2017/09/26/equifax-ceo-richard-smith-net...

Put it this way: if you’re lucky and work hard, you could be like Messi. If you’re very very lucky and don’t work hard, you may still be like Messi. If you’re unlucky and work hard, you won’t ever be like Messi.

Just ask Babe Ruth, he didn’t work hard like Messi. He was very very lucky to be born with phenomenal talent.

Luck is the critical factor, hard work is secondary, though beneficial in that it decreases (but can never eliminate) the required amount of luck.

I just watched the scene in For All Mankind with the astronauts/lunar surface/duct tape and it seemed to match this article. Which aspects of For All Mankind are you referencing that got it wrong?

Asked and answered.

Ignoring context is a thing I guess. But can you imagine if being an asshole was a protected class? The world would be a terrible place if the loudest, most obnoxious people never faced consequences.

Maybe their reputations weren’t all that impressive to begin with. In any case, “allowing” is doing some heavy lifting there. No one is allowing anything. This is just how a society with mostly free expression works. Are people not supposed to express their dissatisfaction with other people? If I don’t like something, and enough other people don’t like it, such that an organization responds in a way to appease us, should there be a law to prevent that? What are you suggesting exactly, that no one should complain about another person? That organizations shouldn’t appease people? Or should they just appease you when you disagree with a “mob”?

Considering most cancelled subscriptions are cancelled within a trial period, the average subscription duration is heavily weighted down. Your point would be something worth considering if you had an average that excluded all cancellations within, say, the first month.

I’ve lived and driven in cities my entire life. If I was a police officer and saw any single event captured in that video I’d keep my eye on the vehicle. The vehicle in that video repeatedly followed up questionable activity with additional questionable activity. It was inexcusable reckless driving. As a human I have zero doubt that many combinations of events in that video would have resulted in my being pulled over and potentially fined. That the driver in the video wasn’t pulled over was simply luck that there were few (1 to my count) police in his proximity. But the video was publicly broadcast and the human is ultimately responsible for the activity of the vehicle they control. So that driver should be fined.

Any non-AV driver seen doing even 1/4 of what FSD did in that video would have been pulled over and fined. Regardless of their personal driving history. When FSD does cause an accident, the driver who enabled it can also be charged with more severe offenses.

Until someone does, the people posting these videos, and anyone found to be driving with FSD enabled should be fined and have points applied to their license for reckless driving.

You mean Not Banksy the pretend street artist, or Not Not Banksy the pretend commercial street artist, or Mr. Brainwash?

Or a game of Chutes & Ladders, during lunch, in a forest

This 2038 bug won’t stay buried for long.

From that link:

“A large retrospective cohort study found a significant association of mercury based fillings with the development of Parkinson's disease.”

(Reference to 2000 - 2008 study in Taiwan.)

> The Wire is not about police, nor about drug gangs. It’s about the city of Baltimore.

It definitely takes place in Baltimore, and is based upon experiences of David Simon while a newspaper reporter in Baltimore, but it definitely is about police and various types of crime (most often drug related). It is also about education, the news industry, and city government policies and bureaucracy. Having grown up in Philly I can assure you it could easily have been set in that location with no major changes to the story. In this respect, Baltimore is just a stand in for East Coast.

Everyone does it so I can too?

You have to start somewhere. But yes, let’s also cut off all the others you mentioned.

How much time do I have?

>But 95% of everything is really people decrying textualism and actively choosing their ideology.

Of course the textualist thinks only he is above ideology. This is how you can tell they're clowns.

Textualism outside of law is fun. Enjoy. In the context of law, and this entire thread, it's nonsense used by people to make themselves think they are smart, or trick other people into thinking they must be smart. In law, everything is textualism, and therefore anyone who claims textualist jurisprudence as a distinct thing they practice are simply attempting to classify anyone else as not smart enough to form valid opinions about what words and phrases mean.

The Supreme Court issues opinions. That's the actual word they use to describe what they write. You can either form an opinion or you can discover a truth. The Supreme Court does not discover whether it is true or not that a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. Each member forms an opinion, and whichever consensus opinion includes the majority of justices, that becomes the opinion by which other courts proceed to interpret the law.

You might want to mask "discover the truth" with "finding a provision", but the Supreme Court does not "find provisions that conflict with other provisions", they interpret things to form opinions. In this case 5 of them interpreted a provision to be in conflict with the way they interpreted a provision of the constitution. 4 of them did not share either or both of those interpretations.

OK. My interpretation seems to be much closer to the words as written. I'd give myself credit for being a textualist, if I didn't think that label was just a scam.

In any case, your read is that the court had an opinion about the constitutionality of CU (which is exactly what it had). And my read is exactly the same: opinion = interpretation.

Textualism is nothing more than interpreting something in a way that you believe doesn't align with some older thing you also interpreted in a way. "I believe this new law is incompatible with what I believe this old rule says."

You may be right or you may be wrong, anyone can do it, and anyone who does will mostly come to their conclusion based upon their personal political beliefs. Hence, a reason the Supreme Court has so many partisan split rulings.

Textualism is pure nonsense, used to present a false sense of rationality to an opinion. Any self-proclaimed textualist is either deceiving themselves or attempting to deceive others.