Rule35

> Your potential is an utterly subjective objective

Good one.

> but feeling "fully self-actualized" is equally accomplished by achieving your goals or lowering your goals until they're easily achievable.

It's more correlated with finishing what you set out to do. But there's definitely a useful component of comparing yourself with others - if your bar is too low you'll know it even if you don't have the courage to raise it.

> Those with healthy self-esteem feel self-actualized, those with poor self-esteem will feel as though they're never at their best.

Why with the worst way to interpret this? Those who feel accomplished build self-esteem. Yes, it is circular, but it needs to start with something real. You can't just wait to feel good without doing anything to cause it.

> I have a hard time believing any generalization about such a large group of people.

It's the self-selected group of people who have chosen it. Much different than a random sampling.

Uber drivers have pretty clearly chosen being a contractor, and if you listen to them they say they like the freedom - require it even. You can usually moonlight as a contractor without permission from your primary job.

Other drivers, driving as full-time employees, have obviously made their decision in the other direction and seem happy.

It seems wrong to tell either that they must change.

No, because I don't lie about peeing in a bottle at my job and make trouble.

But if there was a union there'd be a never ending parade of shit I'd have to watch out for. Like having to pretend that we have to piss in bottles rather than using the washroom or else having my stuff vandalized and maybe being beaten in the parking lot. Unions use lies and violence to get their way, been there, had enough of that.

What was reasonable in the early 1900s against literal Pinkertons with guns, because of acid leaching into the mine in a company town a hundred miles from anywhere, is now ridiculous and you should try turning down work you don't like instead of making up these stories.

Did you try to catch a serial killer today? If not you helped kill their victim.

Now either explain the limit to that logic or turn yourself in to the police.

Your 'everything is connected, inaction is action' argument is only compelling if you can provide a counter-example. A place where your rule breaks down. A rule without exceptions, in a complex domain, is just wrong.

Yes, we all breathe the same air. But at what point is you not fighting my battles with me reasonable disinterest - neutrality - rather than an active choice to hinder me? Clearly if you don't know me, and if you don't know the facts, etc...

I obviously reject it sooner than you, but if you don't reject it at some point then it's ideology and I reject that out of hand.

> Because black frees us of any argument over coding style in merge requests and this is great. It helps us focus on the important things.

I hear this all the time, along with 'Juniors will be confused' but it never seems reasonable. Sometimes I line up variables:

    name_field_id = 0x01

 address_field_id = 0x02

Sometimes I don't. I do it when the cognitive load is more on the values or the identifiers, as a group. No tool is going to help with this judgement call.

Sometimes stuffing a method on one line is best because you get ten boilerplate methods on ten lines and can see the similarity, other times that's just silly and they'd be best spaced normally.

Sometimes I use a rightward assignment { ... } => x because it fits the code better, leaving the reference to x right next to the next statement which will use it.

> so we regularly argue over them and this is a waste of time.

Strange disfunction. It sounds like your team is too opinionated to allow other opinions.

> I wish it were much more opinionated

Suggest turning on more rules but leaving them as suggestions. Where any reason to not follow them is enough. You do want to make sure people have some reason to make sure they aren't just leaving a mess but it's easier to get them to care about style if they have a say in what clean looks like.

As an aside, part of the issue is comfort with the tooling. If I have to work in someone else's file and I hate the syntax and it's a big deal, I first run the linter to make the code look my way, make the change, run the linter to go back to their style, squash it onto my change, and rebase away the first lint. Work done, no problems dealing with someone else's style - even in the case that it would otherwise be a problem. I never have to, but because I can it doesn't bug me.

> I think the same problem is starting to show in all of the assist technologies in cars. People are starting to rely more on those technologies than they should.

Have you seen the commercials where someone is driving and almost gets everyone killed by taking their eyes off the road. The system slams them to a halt, barely saving them, and the parent happily smiles - family safe, nothing to learn here. In one commercial, the parent is supposed to be teaching their child to drive.

These driving aids should work differently. If they ever have to emergency-brake to save you they should immediately activate a small packet of thermite in the ECU, rendering the car into a brick. You proved you can't use it safely so you shouldn't have it.

It would be different if these devices worked, but they don't. They just tell you that your lack of skill is okay.

It's society's attitude. That we can fix a problem by making it someone else's problem. In the end it costs all of us more because we're still stuck fixing it but also dealing with the consequences of bad and badly enforced laws.

We want a minimum wage so we go after the only person paying someone, the boss, and demand that they pay more. If instead we paid a (temporary) UBI to bring up the compensation it wouldn't all fall on the business owner and we wouldn't have to force them to do it.

We want morbidly obese people to be welcome on airplanes but we forbid the airline from charging them for all the seats they consume.

If we want people to pick up the disabled, and not shirk the task, then we shouldn't stick them with the cost.

We should act like adults and pay (directly) for what we want, what we feel is right - trip subsidies for medical reasons.

> I don't think you've really answered the last question

That's pretty much a textbook example of sealioning. Why are you so anxious?

> HIV

Are they asking for charity? If not then their circumstances shouldn't be relevant, just their ability to pay.

> you're obviously aware that in general, obese adults are not deprioritized for treatment as compared to non-obese adults.

They are. If you're up for a contested treatment (a rare organ, a diagnostic machine that's always in use) you're given a score that represents your health and ability to benefit. Obesity isn't a total black mark but it absolutely is considered. However, we don't consider why you're fat, fat is just a health risk and we recognize that and don't waste effort where it won't be rewarded.

> In the case of organs there's an inherently limited supply, since people have to donate voluntarily and all sorts of other conditions have to be met.

Yes, and charity spending on one person necessarily takes away from spending on another too. To support someone whose choice of behavior impacted them means you can't support someone who was injured entirely through 'acts of god'.

> It's not as if we're throwing away livers rather than give them to alcoholics.

No, but but they do go to the back of the line. Especially if they still drink.

> I'm sure you must be aware that we do treat all kinds of obesity-related conditions – and at great expense.

Sure. But thankfully we prioritize them to below children with heart defects, and non-obese adults with the same conditions.

> Are you in favor of conditionally refusing treatment to HIV patients depending on the manner in which they contracted the virus?

No more than I am for prioritizing treatment downward for everyone whose injuries were self-inflicted. That's only fair for the people whose were not.

I reject your absolutist ideology. If it's a forced choice of with your or against you, then you've asked for against.

Edit: With them or they'll do anything from downvote you to set your car on fire. This is why people don't believe you, or support you.

Look at the modern intellectual arguing the equivalent of Wickard v Filburn. Anti-union would be going out of my way to lobby my government to forbid unions. Neutral is just not supporting you because I can't tell if you have a valid case or not. As for being a coward, that's the modern unionist screaming slurs at other workers and beating them up in the parking lot.

The sad truth is that original unionists, who fought for safety in mines, etc, are being conflated with marxists who are really anti worker.

> You're either a scab or you're not; that's definitional, not rhetorical.

No, I'm an unaffiliated potential worker. Scab is a derogatory term. It's not surprising unions are losing support with that attitude.

You're thinking you have a right to the job and that by not supporting you I'm taking it away. You don't though and from my point of view a union is a threat of violence (try crossing a picket line) and is one tiny step away from domestic terrorism. You're demanding to take a job that could be mine but you're not willing to negotiate to win it. Turning a free-market opportunity for me into a political struggle where I'd need to win my way into the 1000 through your support. No thanks.

Every little thing Unionists do is about punishment and control, you can't even not downvote someone's honest opinion. Imagine if your job was controlled by such politics and you had to kowtow to the right opinions just to keep it.

And the drivers don't want to be employees or they'd be stuck driving for one company with a set shift.

We need to fix contracting which means fixing access to affordable (ie, the same actual cost the company would pay) medical. The problem for Uber drivers is that the money they make can't pay for coverage because companies get highly discounted rates.

This attitude that everything is the service providers problem is why service for the disabled is shitty. It does take longer to get into a car, etc, and that does cost a hungry driver more money.

The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride for the same price we should make that part of medical coverage and pay the driver for the extra time spent.

As is, any sensible driver will ditch these fares with any means possible. More work, less money, and generally bitchier customers. The next time your fare comes up they'll pull over and take a bathroom break rather than responding.

If we want something, we have to pay for it, not try to stick someone else with the bill.

> “Only help others if you think they deserve it” is rather obviously not a precept that’s the basis of Christian charity.

No, only help people if they didn't bring it on themselves and would probably be able to receive the help. There's no sense wasting a bunch of help on a junkie who won't use it, but once he's off the smack and willing to receive help then maybe. But only if a needy mother's kids don't need it more.

> Charity is voluntary.

Right, but you present it as an obligation. These people aren't being funded so you could just do it yourselves.

> About 35% of adults are obese, and in almost all instances that’s due to their behavioral choices. Do we send a third of the population “to the back of the line”, or refuse to pay for their medical treatment?

Oh boy, you're gonna hate this. Yes. And we already do. Try asking for an organ while you're a smoker. They give that sucker to someone who can use it and will take care of it.

What misguided sense of honor could force you to dispense treatment in the order people arrived in versus their need/ability to receive?

It still has American military bases. The war ended in 1945.

It didn't get a choice in receiving them, unlike other countries.

> claim maliciousness.

To be fair, malicious was someone else's word. It's close enough I ran with it, but perfidy and incompetence might be better. We're trusting the guy to be a chief scientist and he's making political statements.

> You can't pick and choose only part of the message and

I'm not. I'm picking on the whole message as being something he could not have known and thus was damaging to claim.

> But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith.

His job is to not say unsupportable things so that we can base policy off of his words. What is it other than bad faith to conflate your politics and your job?

> You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody

Speak for yourself. I've got family.

> Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians.

Nobody made him fight the lab leak hypothesis, etc. He's borrowing partisan fights. The WHO hasn't officially investigated so it can't know, and if it doesn't know, he doesn't know.

Also, just fyi, there's no such thing as right wing anymore. The term means royalist. Left means communist, which there sadly is no lack of. Perhaps breaking free of these antiquated labels will give some clarity.

No, your post clearly lacks cites for your claims because you expect me to go look them up on my own. By your logic that's not logic.

The OPs claims were not flippant and are easy to verify. Erhk was being lazy and trying to pin that laziness on the OP. It's the very behavior LMGTFY was invented to expose.

Demanding citations for easily checked facts is one of the primary signs of bad-faith arguing.

Funny, it almost sounds like you're blaming your unwillingness to educate yourself on the OP. In a data-free post no less.

Vietnam was addressed as less successful. And Japan was treated like a colony after WW2, like Germany. Both lost most autonomy.

> If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay

If I feel you brought something on yourself why would I help you and not an innocent victim? And how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others, it would just be me instead of all of us, but still subsidizing.

> It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment.

No, only if that money couldn't do greater good elsewhere.

> And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut.

In some proportion to the number of donuts, yes. Of course. Or at least they should go to the back of the line after we've helped people who didn't self-inflict.

> You are looking at this with hindsight.

I wasn't when I criticized it the day I heard it. It was obviously not right.

> Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances

(I quoted this just because I laughed at 'shirt distances' in this context.)

> Was it malicious? Unlikely.

Was using his authority to say something absolutely unproven and implausible malicious? Or just extremely obviously going to have negative consequences which he ignored?

> the trump administration [...] Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.

Fauci and the WHO both go out of their way to say things that they can't know. Sure, Trump is also awful, but that's not relevant to our "scientists" overstepping. At this point Fauci is a politician. Better than some, but still.

Because they're just as correct when you switch the labels.

With two parties both jockey for position in being as close to center as possible while still appearing unique. To leave the center is to sacrifice those voters to the opposition. This is why first past the post voting is stable yet nearly useless.

Democrats consist of actual liberals, marxists, authoritatians, etc.

Republicans consist of actual fiscal conservatives, the religious, libertarians, etc.

Both are unhappy alliances and occasionally fracture and spill one of these constituencies and the opposition rushes to appeal to them.

I could have said the same thing but I thought pointing them out was more efficient.

Presumably he can change compensation easily, as long as it's equivalent. A company a friend was at made the change and they got more money (than they'd have made with RSUs that were sold at acquisition). The 'more' part made it legal without renegotiating.

Removing stock options just means that many fewer communionists have a say over other matters in the company because they won't buy stock.

> They're both examples of coercion by someone with power over a subordinate,

No, the teacher is (indirectly) your employee and it doesn't matter. If they threaten to withhold a grade you've earned it's clearly criminal, regardless of the threat used.

> they both involve trading your body (in the form of labor or sex) for money (or some sort of compensation)

If prostitution and a job are the same then it means prostitution isn't bad. But maybe your equivalency is wrong.

> they're both generally recognized as exploitative

I bet you'd say that letting your starve by not hiring you would be exploitative too.

> [someone] originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position.

It shouldn't be that hard to not say things you can't support. Fauci should have told the truth, which is that however effective masks are they were in short supply and would do more good for doctors/etc.

At some point, being more concerned with controlling people than educating them is maliciousness. He wanted masks for doctors but was willing to give bad advice to citizens to make it happen.

We deserve honest scientists, not politicians, making policy.

> The general public are not scientists, yet they distrust institutions

Of course. They'll lose trust the soonest when they see political statements coming out of the WHO, etc. And they should. An organization that can't stay neutral can't do good work in a politicized climate.

> Few can look at data and know what it doesn’t answer, or what questions should be asked but aren’t being

No, this is actually one of the easiest things to teach. "If you were paid to sneak in and ruin this team's research, what simple bias could you add? If it was the other way around, how would you protect against this?"

Teaching people to recognize a poorly controlled study is not difficult. But it's not PC these days because people are supposed to shut up when told that all scientists agree! We did this to ourselves a decade ago by tolerating the climate change debacle attacking dissent, now everything is fought through fake consensus.

> Correlation is not causation, but that escapes almost all of us

When it's not it almost always means there's an unseen factor though, so that wonderfully dismissive statement is usually just a red herring.

> The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are ...

Lying. They're lying. They're saying things they can't know as if they're fact. The WHO isn't saying that a lab leak seems less likely than other things, they're saying it didn't happen. Unless they can point to what did happen then logically they're not able to make that claim.

People might be scientifically illiterate, but luckily spotting lies is much easier and gets you mostly halfway there, able to spot when you're being manipulated even if you can't tell what the truth is. The real problem the media is having is that people aren't quite as dumb as expected.

> GDPR is just sensible guidelines for how to handle personal data

And yet it doesn't say "don't give it to me if you don't want me to have it."

> GDPR only applies to personal info for a start so if you don't store personal info then you have nothing to worry about.

So logging IPs is fine?

Still no worse than some hash key that can be invalidated in the next version with a blacklist. At least a DRM key is something that NFTs are somewhat suited for.

For fuckery, there are still cracks.