imustbeevil

Do you need the lat/lon for this? Usually you'd just put in the nearest city.

Moment.js is probably the most prevalent time and date library.

I read it as: regardless of Robinhood's volume, their popularity has caused other organizations to restructure their investment opportunities, and that has benefited all users.

It's the same as Tesla making electric cars popular. They don't sell the most cars, but you'd have a hard time arguing they haven't moved electric vehicles forward.

Another thing is that the way we store information in our brains is different than the way we store information on paper or in computers. It's not possible to communicate ideas directly between brains so we're always going to be losing information in that transfer.

> Texas, for instance, is one of the four states that hasn't expanded access to mail ballots in response to the pandemic, and Republicans there are engaged in high-profile court battles to keep it that way.

> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said in statements that "fear of contracting COVID-19 does not amount to a sickness or physical condition as required by state law." He also said that his office would prosecute people for voter fraud if they use a mail-in ballot in a matter he said is improper.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-ma...

> And nearly 56,000 of them re-registered within the same county, according to the AJC/APM Reports analysis. If their registrations hadn’t been canceled, they would have been able to vote without having to re-register.

> More than half, almost 30,000 Georgia voters, re-registered too late to participate in the close 2018 election for Georgia governor. It’s impossible to know how many of them attempted to vote, but those who tried wouldn’t have had their ballots counted.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/many...

> Long lines and malfunctioning voting machines marred statewide primary elections in Georgia, renewing attention on voting rights there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/us/politics/atlanta-votin...

> Hourslong waits, problems with new voting machines and a lack of available ballots plagued voters in majority minority counties in Georgia on Tuesday — conditions the secretary of state called "unacceptable" and vowed to investigate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/georgia-secre...

> In the 2014 midterms, only 33 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot—setting the record for the lowest turnout in any national election of any advanced democracy (except Andorra) since 1945.

> In 25 states, employers are not required to give their employees paid leave to vote; in 19 states, employers are not required to let their employees leave work to vote.

https://www.countable.us/articles/12558-americans-get-day-vo...

> Maybe it would help a good deal if people started losing their jobs for clearly false allegations and for not protecting people they are responsible for?

I totally agree (with at least this part) and mentioned that in my post.

If someone sent my boss a picture of me buying Chik-Fil-A and he asked if I was supporting anti-gay companies I'd say no I just like the taste of Chik-Fil-A. If people are actually getting fired for things like that, or buying Goya beans, or having something untrue claimed, I would certainly hope most bosses would ask the person about it before indiscriminately firing them. In some cases that may not be happening, but I would argue that anywhere firing people for such small things was probably looking to fire that person anyway (to say nothing about the "not small" things like the guy screaming obscenities at the asian family a few days ago, or all of these people going crazy about having to wear masks). That's why you don't see most people getting fired.

I can't respond to this without being mean, so I'd recommend just googling "us voter disenfranchisement".

https://www.aclu.org/facts-about-voter-suppression

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-...

https://prospect.org/politics/the-many-varieties-of-voter-su...

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20...

No one gets that day off, and voting closes before the line outside is gone.

It is disturbing how much voter disenfranchisement is allowed in this system.

It goes both ways. People have just as much right to post "cancel" posts as they do to post the kinds of posts that get "cancelled".

Society chooses how to react. No one is losing their job because they got caught calling someone out for being racist or sexist. If people actually go too far, or lie about their allegations, they're at just as much risk of having the tide turn against them. This is already built into the system.

> So how do you get people to do anything they don't want to? How do you get people doing the jobs no one may want to do but will need to be done?

Don't pay them enough to have everything they want. Everyone deserves food, water, healthcare, and shelter. Basic income covers those things (I'd go so far as to just have those things be the "basic income" instead of money).

For anything like Netflix, Rock Climbing gym membership, plane tickets, or video games, you could need a job to pay for them.

I wouldn't find value if arguments about the Confederate flag or the morality of eating meat ended in that level of nonsense.

We're trying to talk about reality in a way where we can make decisions about it. If only 63% of people can agree that "true != false" then it will be impossible to build any arguments on top of priors.

The S&P tracks a certain basket of companies. If other companies held more value it would track those companies. There are a lot of percentage points between 7 and 0.

Deflation means USD value goes up. It doesn't mean USD value goes up 5%. A "deflationary world" could have 0.5% deflation. Or 0.00001% deflation. Again, it is incredibly narrow to view economics in this way. You lose 50% of the possible worlds you could inhabit and the economic systems and incentives you could have.

That can be true and it could still be higher than the rate of deflation.

Right now banks lend businesses money because the business is projected to be able to make payments at an interest rate higher than the federal funds rate. People have to buy food. People will buy the new iPhone. People pay rent. People like to travel. All of those things happen no matter what the value of money is doing, so there will always be economic incentive to start businesses that can be profitable.

My point is that it's not so one dimensional. Deflation doesn't have to be bad. You can create value without reducing the value of everything else.

Nope.

People invest because the return is higher than the return on deflation. For example, if cash is worth 1% more next year, you can invest in the S&P 500 and make more money than holding cash. If cash is worth 10% less next year but the S&P 500 crashes, you'd make more money (have more purchasing power) with cash. It has nothing to do with whether money is more or less valuable, it has everything to do with comparative investments.

People spend money because they want things more than money. No one spends money because they expect it to be worth less in the future. That's a very narrow economic interpretation.

I looked through their scientific paper and couldn't find any data about the demographics of the declined patients. The only information I can find is the classification of their groups, which seems to exclude the two classes I mentioned above.

If we assume that the majority of "non HCQ" patients were of group (e), young people, then their rate of mortality in this paper would be at least an order of magnitude higher than that of any previous paper, therefor I would expect group (d), old people with complications, to be more likely to have higher representation in their "non HCQ" group.

I didn't conduct this study so I don't have access to the raw data not provided in the paper.

I was only trying to respond to the political claims you brought up. I'm not sure how you can read what you wrote and not see that you're making claims about political extremists on one side. I'm not the one who brought that up, and in my post I mentioned both the burning business and the harassment that the left is doing that I disagree with. Lastly, it's not a game. People are oppressed. People are dying. The specific problem of wording in git repos may seem unimportant, but the conflation of that with the reality of what "extremist" means is what I take issue with.

I don't really care about what political side you're on (I'm an independent), I don't even really care about the git repo thing (people can choose whatever they want, it doesn't really affect me) but your claim of what is "extreme" is quite frankly not reasonable.

So my understanding of the legal requirements of terms of service (which are generally not strongly enforced either way) is that if it changes you just have to sign the new one, or decide that you disagree enough with the changes that you won't sign it.

To the "extremist" point, I have to say I really don't see it. Changing "master" to "main" doesn't seem like an extreme political position to me. Extreme would be someone murdering protesters, tweeting someone chanting "white power", or hanging black people from trees in Texas. Those are pretty easy things to not want in your society. The same with people setting businesses on fire or brandishing weapons in public. But I don't see how someone trying to reduce their harm externalities by changing words is particularly extreme.

This may come down to the difference between the ideas and the people holding the ideas. I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea. I think we can both agree that we wouldn't want people harassing each other for either making or not making this change, as anyone should be free to make whichever decision they feel is right. To the extent that the "left" is the cause of the harassment, I can agree I'd rather those people deal with this more calmly. But again, they're not the ones murdering people.

Based on their "risk stratification requirements" it's unclear whether the majority of "non-HCQ" patients were (d) over 60 with pre-existing conditions or (e) under 60 with no symptoms, as those seem to be the two groups excluded from the study. My initial hypothesis, that the paper doesn't mention once anywhere, would be that they were unable to treat significantly more older people with pre-existing conditions, leading to the obvious result of those people being more likely to die.

Sorry if I'm just missing it, but I'm not sure how this relates.

Something I've noticed in my own writing is that the more I write the less likely it is to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. By that I mean, it would be easier to have a dialogue if I knew what connection you were drawing between people choosing to update their projects and my acceptance of terms of service. I can imagine many connections, but to respond to the connection you're making I'd need to know which one it is.

Luckily we aren't having any political belief system forced upon us. People are independently choosing to remove terms they personally don't want included in their projects. If someone feels the same way about the use of the term "child" in code they can freely update their projects today; they don't have to wait for any pendulum.

They also state that most of the patients that died had pre-existing conditions, but no mention of if that would have prevented them from taking HCQ, leading to the majority of the "no HCQ" cases being people who were already more likely to die. If that were controlled for, we might see the same results we've seen in every other study, that taking HCQ actually led to increased mortality rates.

> If a private corporation gets to decide by virtue of ownership - property rights granted by societal contract to begin with - then they have unilateral, unaccountable power over society.

Again, I have the opposite interpretation. If the government gives a private organization property rights, the government is the holder of power over society. The organization has authority over what the government gave it the rights to, and the government gave them the right (with section 230) to moderate their property in the way they are now.

> Social media is what i would consider a public space.

This is where the true disagreement is. We can both believe in the constitution, in the first amendment, and in section 230, but I don't believe social media is a public space, because the person paying for the server is not the government. To me, these are very explicitly private organizations running web applications. For it to be a public space, it would necessarily not be limited in existence to the ability of a private organization to keep it running profitably.

Madison Square Garden is a private space, because someone owns it; it cost money to build, it costs money to maintain, there are finite seats, etc. The organization paying for the thing to exist has authority over the thing. If you want a public space, you can either create one explicitly, or petition the government to create a social media platform bound by the first amendment. It isn't Reddit or Twitter. Those are someone else's property.

You realize that people will look through 20 years of post history, triangulate every piece of information you've ever mistakenly let loose that you haven't thought about in a decade, and use that information to harass you outside of the internet, right?

You are misunderstanding.

The Supreme Court held that Visa boycotting Gab (or anyone associated with Gab) is protected Political Speech. I'm pointing out the contradiction of everyone in this thread only caring about Gab's rights and not Visa's rights.

> National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling 8-0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.

> In a decision by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Mississippi's decision, holding that the nonviolent elements of the petitioners' activities were protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and holding that the petitioners were not liable in damages for the consequences of their nonviolent, protected activity. This decision means that "boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech, occupying “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Claiborne_Hardware_Co.

That, again, is a result of measuring the wrong thing. The measurement should be "relationship strength" or "spouse/child happiness" not "time spent".

The problem that most of us seem to have is that we're only tracking easy things to measure. Everything valuable is difficult to measure.

Reading a book is worthless. The purpose of reading a book is to gain something (learn something, read faster, practice public speaking, etc.). That's what we should be tracking.

That's one interpretation.

Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours:

> But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done.

> All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law.

It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. We can agree that the pendulum has swung too far, without spiking it in the other direction.