noqc

>projection

Please elaborate. I do not know what you could possibly mean.

taxing tobacco is not to generate revenue. That is, in fact, exactly the point. Taxing tobacco is to discourage tobacco use. The point is to have close to zero tobacco use, which results in close to zero revenue.

Sure, but my point stands regardless.

All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.

Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.

You should always be wary of arguments from people who name themselves "The correct people". Less wrong, and the "rationalists" generally, are engaged in magical cult-like thinking.

whether they claim to possess a high fidelity magic state is also relevant.

A iff B exactly means "A is the only way for B to be true". The rest of your comment is gibberish.

I think all 3 of these things are valid concerns.

You could not be more wrong, and I am in a very bad mood unrelatedly, so that is all I will say.

Because the article doesn't actually say so (presumably because the author doesn't know the difference between "if" and "if and only if") the statement:

(3n^3 − 13n^2 + 18n − 8)M_1(n) + (12n^2 − 120n + 212)M_2(n) − 960M_3(n) = 0

is equivalent to the statement that n is prime. The result is that there are infinitely many such characterizing equations.

When you ignore or don't click on the ads, is that also immoral?

You are no more freeloading by ignoring the ads they serve you than by watching them.

>The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance.

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is the system that disputes my indisputable right to ignore them. If I paid someone to cut the adverts out of my newspaper before I read it, would I be stealing from the publisher?

Silicon valley has spent the last 30 years getting the internet to run on lies, and depends upon the charity of people willing to be lied to. Now that trillions of dollars depend upon this system, they can no longer afford to leave it up to charity, and believe that they must go to war. This is a war that they will lose.

Ban advertising, formally enshrine the right of adblockers to operate, and use the new regulation to work out a new business model, or perish in the arms race that you are absolutely destined to lose.

I just let my wisdom teeth grow in and it seems to have worked fine. I was told that they were impacted.

I think probably the easiest way to remember under/over is just to remember that euclidean distance is a very common admissible heuristic.

>aesthetically useful

Commutative diagrams are to these squares what category theory is to analogy.

Key distribution is already solved until someone can actually solve a large discrete logarithm problem with a quantum computer.

You cannot use this mechanism to send messages, only to agree on a secret that neither party chooses.

> I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech.

You seem to think that being sent to your own country is a punishment. I do not. This is going to be a sticking point if you are trying to convince me of something.

>> heinous shit

>Code for - things you don't like. Check.

Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?

>forcible deportation comes with a period of imprisonment.

You are at any point free to get on a plane home.

>Let's not forget that people being sent to El Salvador

Sure, but they aren't being rendered to El Salvador for their speech, which is what this particular conversation is about.

I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".

You're not being imprisoned, executed, or fined. You're being sent home.

Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?

You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.

Winning an election in a democratic country is a mandate. I also wish Trump wasn't elected president, but he definitely was.

I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above.

Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.

>insurers strive to avoid it.

This is not true, and nothing you have said contradicts my argument to that effect.

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence.

And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.

>Another classic detail of insurance markets is that insurers need to diversify the risks that they underwrite: for example, if you provide flood insurance, then you wouldn’t want to write all your policies in a single town by the river: when one house gets flooded by a storm, chances are that all the houses get flooded, and you go out of business. That’s concentration of risk, and insurers strive to avoid it.

If I have insured a whole population by the river, then I'm heavily incentivized to sell an additional insurance policy to someone else by that same river, after all, if there is a flood, I cannot become more bankrupt, and in the other case, I collect one more premium.

I'm not sure that I believe this study.