notch898a

I think searching for a general common solution is precisely why we are getting nowhere. It may be there are some "unpopular" opinions that turn out to be factors. Many small pieces make a large one, and important hints often come in unexpected places.

The desperation to argue against a straw man is real. If trans people went from no school shootings to one in 2020 and one in 2023 there may or may not be a "trend" but it's still worth finding out why that is happening.

Edit:

re pupptailwags: Yes we should be examining whenever people are engaging in violence, factors behind that happening. I'm quite certain, unlike assertion made below, that people indeed have studied the qualities of males in particular engaging in this kind of violence.

rethelopa: I was replying to a comment talking about why something (male disposition to this kind of violence) hadn't been studied; it has.

[note I'm rate limited, which is reason for replying this way]

I've specifically said they weren't shooting up christian schools in the old days, with no commentary on the (non-zero) number of schools shot in modern days, so I have no idea what you're even arguing against. Your whole comment is a side-step strawman.

Although for the record it doesn't even make sense to say "trans person wasn't shooting school in the old days." Pluralization is an appropriate use of English here.

In the old days trans people weren't shooting up christian schools out of frustration. I wonder if perhaps society made a mistake by so many members giving them the false impression that society should accept them for who they identify as. In the old days they pretty much had to learn to accept themselves for who they were and not worry about what other people thought, both because no one was encouraging them they deserved acceptance and because few would have budged.

Young white progressive teens in general seem to be following a path that advances the idea society should be progressing towards acceptance, inclusion and mutual progress. Sadly lip service doesn't overturn human nature. Boomers for better or worse seem to take an attitude of "fuck you, on your own" and at some point perhaps it's lower stress just to not be thinking at all times you can control the thoughts of others.

re: minortom

Not an advocate against those able to consent doing whatever want with their bodies. Don't think my argument works against that. Although it would be a fallacy to suggest anything other than the current medical standard results in more deaths and thus advocating otherwise is advocation for suffering; the medical studies never claim it's impossible to achieve less suffering some other way.

I'm hopefully wrong but it seems like you may have made some assumptions that I want to control treatment options for trans people. It feels like I've wrongly been presumed as wanting suffering for trans people; in fact my whole premise was to find out why they are frustrated this way indeed with the hopes they can find new coping strategies.

To note, I don't see why justification is even needed for transition surgery. The (hopefully) wrong assumption I made here is that you stated it like it was relevant in the decision as to whether I should be in favor of it being an option. Even if it made them worse off, they shouldn't be stopped. It's a bit terrifying one even has to include efficacy to justify whether a consenting adult is allowed to modify their body, and worrying comment you've made IMO that presents exactly the kind of problems we have with hyper concern over the opinion of others on what we do with our bodies.

And yet fertility rates had another strong step down around that time.

One conjecture could be that fewer young women with children is correlated with higher rates of diagnosis of mental illness. And if I know I had mental illness, I'd be scared shitless to let it known on the record I had a disorder that a CPS worker or family courts could use against me -- without a child those concerns are lessened. I can also attest having a child means you have way less time for your own personal care, which means perhaps these women now have more time for their own care.

Social rank is zero-sum. Better positioning for previously unfavored group/races is the right thing but lowers relative social rank of those above.

Suicide also appears to be a"luxury":

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/401-450/db450-fig...

I'd be interested in the explanation behind the aforementioned.

Do high earners consume progressively more proportion of their income in public resources than the poor? Why would you jack up their tax rate? Also note you picked the literally only one of 11 states in [0] above California that is (R).

The interesting history is people will behead even themselves to get at the elite. See everyone in Zim / Rhodesia driving out the farmers that they surely knew they needed to eat, followed by utter destruction of their foodstocks and hyperinflation.

I wonder if fundamental ethical values are mostly absorbed in childhood or through genetic instinct. At some point it seems most people would just use greater knowledge of law, ethics, etc to either become better at arguing why what they did was right or wrong or use the details to get better at not getting caught. Teaching a grown adult to internalize a new value system would appear quite difficult from my observation.

Not to distract, as these are all valid concerns, but why on earth is anyone leaving anything on an exchange for longer than it takes for the deposit, transaction, and withdrawal to clear.

Couldn't you chain the derivatives to achieve the desired pair?

I think this depends on when you enter the labor market. Entry level jobs seem to often have a cutoff point of "good enough." During bad years like 2010 you need every leg up possible, including bullshit reputational advantage. During boom years like early 2022 a code diploma mill and a pulse gets you in the same door. Once you make it through the first door (assuming you last at least a year or so) to an extent you're a "made man" it becomes more about your next step.

>Multiple texts describe Binance helping Hamas circumvent money-laundering flags by moving small amounts

I was unable to find these. The only hamas bit I found in the indictment was Binance describing generally how Hamas launder in low value quantas like $600. Not texts showing they identified specific hamas accounts and developed individualized plans to assist them.

Perhaps not, but I've heard the best way to get better at something is to practice.

Crickets from you regarding the whole premise here that relies on my counterparty's "stereotype" that a drug user will choose "inevitable death" when able to dose themselves with clean pharmaceutical grade drugs without cost. At least I didn't make it a personal comment about the individual inclination of the counterparty's children like they did about mine.

I reject your use of the word "stereotype" here but if it applies it is clear you're using it with extreme prejudice. Although it is kind of hilarious to see essentially don't stereotype drug users, who will all kill themselves with drugs if given the chance. Which of course is a position that is neatly and compactly contradictory.

Thank you for the recommendation!

I prefer to go where everyone hates what I say. If I go somewhere where people agree with me, I start to get worried I'm in an echo chamber.

I'm merely advocating these individuals be given their own territory where they can pursue their dream with freedom and excellent knowledge of the content of their drugs, free from threat of arrest for possession or the irregularities of the unknown black market stomped on cocktails.

What if my child hits a rough patch and becomes the victim of a drug user? So much the better if that drug user instead chose voluntarily to enjoy all the drugs they like on Swain's Island.

The road crew knowingly helps DTOs launder money by building the interstate system known to assist with exactly that.

If I walk up to the road crew and tell them the local mob is going to be driving drugs across it the day after completion, are they then complicit when they keep going?

Honest question and not trying to disagree with you here. What are the specific customers that Binance had individualized knowledge were assisting in committing crime? I'm curious to see the sources.

Common law, like all law, boils down to if the state wants to fuck you they will find a way. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisies and double speak along the way.

In that case they need to prosecute all the road crews and gas stations. Those people know with certainty they are providing for criminals, and they do nothing to stop it.

Is it illegal for me to sell gas to gang bangers in the ghetto? When is it a crime to knowingly be selling to criminals? Everyone knows there are customers in Russia, and in Camden NJ, there for crime. You know with 100% certainty when you run a gas station in a bad part of town you directly are selling to aid people to commit felonies. Hell even the road crews know when they build the interstate, they are there to amongst other things to build the road that facilitates money laundering (and indeed they take no action to stop it).

Maybe we should just offer a one way ticket to anyone who desires to go to Swain's Island, where all the fentanyl and other hard drugs they like will be provided with pharmaceutical grade purity. Anyone caught performing property or other crime with an identifiable 3rd party victim will be offered the choice to serve their term in California or a one way ticket to Fentanyl town on Swain's Island where they can get high to their heart's content.

Only after bank failure can you truly determine what your FDIC insurance limit was. Per Yellen's own admission it is decided by several committees after the bank fails how to retroactively apply the variable insurance, depending on whether they deemed it "systematic." Of course if the depositors are mostly politically connected VCs or investments of politically connected VCs you probably have a better shot of being deemed systematically important.

FDIC's reserves are less than 2% of insured deposits and far less than 1% of GDP. Perhaps the banking system is broken if 5x more spooked VCs pull their money out in similarly correlated banks means everything goes up in flames.

It wouldn't surprise me if FDIC can act quicker in taking over a small bank than a large one, though.