SerLava

I would bet money that's a yes.

No, that is not what free association means, you are using the phrase "free association" and pretending "association" is interchangeable with it.

Living on the same planet is a form of association, asshole. Please go to the moon, you are infringing on my right of free association.

Obvious fascist.

My comment really didn't intend to rule out mergers, or even businesses changing by themselves. I'm just saying they inevitably end up that way, by replacement if necessary.

Is that thing explosive or something?

The "right place and time" to fight corporate power usually turns out to be the most ineffective place and time anyone can think of. It's such an odd and consistent coincidence!

You can't simply acculturate businesses against it- they will slowly be replaced by other businesses headed by ruthless sociopathic maximizers of shareholder value.

This is the guaranteed outcome given this way of organizing commerce. Just as if you organized everyone into medieval guilds, we would replicate the behavior of medieval guilds.

It's not association to live in the same neighborhood as another person. I very much doubt the seriousness of this question.

So the GDP goes up, but do the people inhabiting the country live better lives?

An embargo does wonders for that pesky disposable income

Question was did any, and a lot did. Most didn't.

And the only reason they obsessed over killing high speed rail was that it would make southern Wisconsin slightly more attractive to young people, who would tip the voting scales.

It was mostly Republicans, and yes they fell for it hard.

Twitter should prevent you from reading instructions on how to make chlorine gas that pretend you aren't actually going to make chlorine gas.

Extension can include duplicating functionality, or making something barely easier and also proprietary.

I don't think he's proposing that we politely ask microsoft to quit being exploitative.

Even if the study is true, this doesn't follow.

You only get to limit your response if you have the capability to do actual testing... which we didn't and still largely don't.

It could be a good thing for Amazon at this moment, due to the reasons you listed, or it could indicate unknown issues.

And from the descriptions of Bezos I've heard, he can be an obsessive micromanager type, flying down to make super low-level decisions for some random warehouse when he gets set off by some mistake. Having worked under a CEO like that, I can imagine Bezos suddenly steamrolling some important internal processes out of some mix of passion and narcissism, driving even more damage.

We can't test people doing deliveries because we don't even have tests.

Even if we did have tests, at some point nearly everyone is going to have the virus- especially delivery workers. There will literally not be enough people to make clean deliveries.

Quarantining the population is easier for us because the majority of us have dwellings already. We do not have tests or ppe.

It's close, but their lives are marginally more valuable. Because when someone says "oh, looks like somebody is going to have to commit suicide for the group" that person has just volunteered.

That's terrifying.

The answer to financial ruin is not to force everyone back into contact again, it's to give normal people their fair share of the bailout. We took something like 15,000 dollars out of everyone's future earnings for the bailout, and threw them back 1,200 of it.

With those people taken care of, the protests are reduced to landowners demanding blood for their haircuts and Fuddruckers.

>People who are financially secure can stay at home till 2021, nobody can force them to go to work, this is obvious.

>It's a question of being able to make a personal decision between staying at home or going to work.

Double speak. You mean rich people can decide to quarantine until 2021, and poor people can decide between work followed by exposure and possible death, or homelessness followed by exposure and possible death.

1. We can't even get PPE. We won't have PPE for a long time. Not even doctors have enough.

2. We're not going to train minimum wage workers and quarantined vulnerable individuals to follow sanitary procedures to any adequate degree.

3. We don't even have enough trained medical workers to treat dying people, so no they aren't going to make the deliveries. This problem will only get worse if you go all "herd immunity" because a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable"

The only option the US has is quarantine, because it is a failed state.

It's not reasonable.

You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enormous number of quarantined people will die.

You can't tell who's going to die from it.

You can't have everyone getting sick at once. The death rate will go up tremendously if nobody can get treatment when they have treatable symptoms. This is what "flattening the curve" means.

We don't have enough protective equipment, medical supplies, hospital beds, healthcare workers, or even morgue space. The only tool left is staying inside, and so that's what we're doing now.

"Herd immunity" uses the word "herd" because we don't normally use it to describe actions taken toward human beings.

Sweden absolutely bungled their response and have 10x the number of deaths from this as compared to their neighbors who shut shit down.

>I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that.

Wait, are you talking about the people who want to send everyone back to work now, even though we don't even have masks for doctors yet? Are you saying they are trying to minimize death and misery? Or are we talking about completely different people here?

I don't understand. We had Rahm Emmanuel on the job.

Seriously though, this is classic pablum. The kind of thing that gets whispered and then can't be turned off, and ends up being eagerly adopted by people who know they're going to half-ass it.

"Eta" is a Japanese derogatory slur referring to the descendants of butchers, funeral workers, executioners, and other people who handled dead things for a living. It means filthy person. They are still discriminated against, and in the past it was incredibly severe.

Maybe it's that.

>he only real counter-argument to this is that it might affect people's ranks.

No. The difference between chess and and MOBA is it's 1v1 instead of 5v5.

The counter argument I'm implying here is that nearly every game would go like this:

-Game start

-Lane phase begins

-Top laner dies at level 2

-Top laner tries to get revenge at level 3, dies again.

-Top laner unilaterally spends the token to jump into another game. It's game over. You spent 15 minutes getting a game together, and 5 minutes loading the game, and 3 minutes for the boring part of gameplay to start, so that you could experience 2 minutes of the boring part of gameplay. That will be every game. It's already a decent amount of games with the punishment.

>If it were me, I'd create a system where you get free games and treat it like a currency. If someone is being an asshole, just turn in your token, you leave the game unpunished and you get to flag the player(s) that caused you to do it.

The issue there is that the game has 10 players in it.

Say you have only 3 "leave" tokens per month. That's small and will probably only slightly address the issue.

If the average player plays 30 games a month, they can leave up to 10% of their games.

And if someone uses this "leave" token, can you really punish the other players for not wanting to play a broken match? You can't require them to burn their own leave token. So it's one leave token, and everyone can leave.

If 10 players leave 10% of their games... then on average, there's one missing person per game. And most of those games will simply end.

Then, when you have 5 losing players, they have 15 tokens between them per month. With 30 games a month, your players can leave very roughly half the games.

Matchmaking aims for 50/50 win/lose.

You could literally just leave every losing game. And the other team would do this if you were winning.

You would only really get a few serious games toward the end of the month when all 5 or 10 people happen to run out of coins.

This system would actually probably just make people scream death threats at their own teammates for doing too well because the only proper way to win a game would be to eke it out at the last second.

In other words, the toxicity is built in to MOBA gameplay inherently and can only be suppressed.

When you treat the screen as just a sample of all the cats, and you assume that every question is really asking "out of the ones that are on the screen" then 0 makes more sense. The language used by the quiz treats the cats as real, so it's like you're sampling and then evaluating the sample.

If I apply your logic to that, then we never know any quantity of any type of cat in any question, because there are more off-screen.