UIUC_06

Typical response from a sketchy party:

"Their document is full of misinformation!"

without actually naming any.

So now we're discussing implementation? Does that mean we've moved on from "this is a good idea"?

You want to ban all social media for children under 16/18? Fine with me. There'll be fewer children walking into you on the sidewalk because they're staring at their phones.

Point: Tobacco is especially bad for young children. Therefore we must restrict it for children.

Counterpoint: Caffeine is bad, too. Therefore, should we also outlaw Coca-Cola for children?

The argument that "TikTok is no worse than other social media" is the Counterpoint.

TikTok is very bad for children and adolescents, and we should do the difficult-but-honorable thing and prevent them from using it. If that's difficult, TikTok will have to deal with it.

I suspect that the EU will do this.

There is a presentation by Edward Tufte claiming that PowerPoint caused, in part, the shuttle disaster. Hang on...

The claim is that PP's economy of words meant that the presentations to each level of management got more and more dismissive of the danger, the higher up the chain they went. Euphemisms got more and more bland, until the top people thought "screw it, we're launching."

Note that I'm not endorsing that theory, since I haven't seen the slide decks that got used. It's disputed here: https://eagereyes.org/criticism/tufte-and-the-truth-about-th...

I find that dismissal to be completely missing the point. Tufte wasn't arguing physics, he was arguing that PP euphemisms caused top execs to minimize the danger.

I was going to say "arbitrage." I thought of the pizza place guy who discovered that DoorDash or GrubHub was charging customers less than they paid him. Promoting the delivery business, you know.

So he'd just order pizzas for himself, and pocket the difference.

I have a Chrome extension that disables JS for a specific site. It's for getting around (some) paywalls. If you want to be pedantic, let me save you the trouble: no, it doesn't work for all of them.

So I picture a "Densify" browser extension as well. How exactly that would work is left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm done arguing. Go ahead and have the last word if that's important to you.

All good tips, and not just for lawyers. They're all things I try to do.

Calling them "zinger verbs" is really underselling. The general principle is to use words with impact, be they nouns, adjectives, adverbs, or whatever. In the example, "feed" and "sap" and "vault over" are just much more exciting and evocative than "sustain" and "undermine," which are something a bureaucrat would write. "Shuffling along" gives you a mental picture of some old person moving slowly.

I do find The Economist tedious and boring, but that's a problem of its outlook, which aims to never say anything that contradicts conventional wisdom.

I'm not saying that's wrong, but I know that many or most patent infringement cases are tried in front of a jury. There are no criminal charges in those.

So in at least some civil cases, one side can request a jury trial. I'm not sure in which ones.

#whataboutism

"invading Afghanistan and killing two hundred thousand random people"

there's that word "random" again. You disqualify yourself from any serious discussions when you keep using that. You're throwing around crazy numbers like someone on The View.

What garbage. "Obvious even to you" should be that poor people commit more crimes against other people and against property, the very thing that police are looking for. That's why more of them are locked up.

Just for due diligence, I looked at your "references":

1) the first two are from the same person, and are unattributed. So I kind of doubt they're even true.

But let's pretend they are: "irrelevant formality" -- going to your probation appointment is pretty important. It's not "nothing." Probation is what they gave you instead of prison. I thought you were in favor of keeping people out of prison.

"Dirty urine" probably means they were using drugs. They were let out of prison on the promise that they'd stay off drugs. You think people should use drugs after pledging not to?

2) your third one: One extremely biased side of a case which I assume has other sides, from an extremely biased source. Try to do better.

as for the "felonious" people in China: what did the Uyghurs do to deserve it?

If you talk to almost any defense attorney (as I've done), they'll freely admit that the vast majority of their clients are guilty.

Exactly. Many options would be fair to consumers AND to merchants. Except the sleazy merchants.

Your reference is mainly about Chinese nationals returning. 300,000 refugees and 200,000 Africans. Out of over 1 billion.

As for "millions of random people for being poor" I think you'll find they were imprisoned for committing crimes, and imprisoned after a jury trial or a plea bargain.

As opposed to, I don't know, publishing a newspaper in Hong Kong. Or being Uyghur.

> the vendor, or their bank, can easily determine you gave them a privacy.com number

evidence for that, please?

There are numerous advantages to a privacy.com number besides cancellation:

* you're sure that your real credit card will not leak out when (not if) they get hacked.

* You get notified every time the card is charged (or declined).

* You can set dollar limits so they can't pile on other charges.

* You have a complete record of all the charges on that card. You know that no other vendor can use it.

So refusing a privacy.com card, if they can even do it, would be a consumer-unfriendly act.

OK, well, I guess you're right that "our society" does not value boys over girls as much as China and India. I don't really see the relevance if you're arguing "no, sex-selective abortions will not happen."

It's no more evil than paying cash and making them ASK you to renew. Designing the service as a roach motel is what's evil.

Correct.

If there's an issue about whether a question is admissible, the lawyers argue it. If the judge decides it is, they just say "Overruled; answer the question."

That's why your lawyer will tell you to look at them before answering.

I've been to actual trials, and yes it does happen.

You're right about one thing, though; it's much briefer. All the lawyer says is "Objection. Leading." They do it so much that they don't waste words like on TV.

The second paragraph is silly. Their business would collapse in a heartbeat.

If a large percentage of customers did this, then there would be pressure on legislators to crack down on it, but the compromise to emerge would be that online services ALSO have to make it as easy to cancel as it was to join.

> presumably the privacy.com credit card number you give to the merchant can be traced back to privacy.com.

Unknown. Do you have some evidence of that?

Please read the whole thread. That's been debunked multiple times.

HN is a US-based service.

By the way, how is China coping with the vast flood of immigrants trying to move there? Oh, that's right -- there aren't any.

you said "If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions?" and he gave you the answer, notably China, the largest country in the world.

So now you're saying you actually meant just North America?

> if your gym bills your credit card at the end of the month

does that actually happen? Most places make you pay up front, at least one month's worth, even if they subsequently bill at the end of the month.

In any case "No services rendered, no accrued charges." is actually the case I'm talking about. You pay a month's worth, then forget about the monthly renewals, and they love to keep billing you anyway, but surprise, surprise: the CC declines. At that point, you can decide if you want to keep paying or not. Which is how it should work.

I think I explained the "special skill" pretty well at the top of the thread.

You insist "this can't possibly work." That's funny; it's working for me. Maybe you should try it out?

Or keep paying. It's up to you.

Interesting, I haven't seen that.

I know they can detect that you're on a VPN; at least, one of the popular ones. I'm not sure about obscure VPN services.

Actually, the dialog would go like this:

Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?

A: Yes.

Q: Despite your contractual obligation to pay?

Defense counsel: Objection, your honor. Leading the witness.

Judge: sustained

Want to try again?

One pedantipoint for that

Maybe you can't. I do it all the time. Credit cards become invalid in the normal course of human activity, esp. because of their expiration date. Their software handles it routinely.

I usually attempt to cancel the "legitimate" way as well. No collection agency has ever called me. But hey, do what makes you comfortable.