You mean misANDRY, right? Because white cis het Christian men are truly the most oppressed minority in the history of the world.
Right?
/s
Huh. A MAGAt rioter that wanted to undermine due process and civil rights also wants to be a cop.
Whoda thunk?
Quick counter: lower kelvin lights are terrible for color reproduction. Pure sunlight is around 5000K, and has a CRI (color rendering index) of 100. Switching to warmer (lower kelvin) lights is going to also alter your CRI, and will change the way that you perceive colors. If you need high color discrimination, that's going to be bad.
For outdoor lights, in most cases that's not a problem.
Usually. In most cases, you aren't going to notice just how much the colors have shifted, because your brain automatically adjusts. Youre perception of color is usually how colors appear relative to other things; you will see a red as red because your brain is comparing it to other objects with a known color. OTOH, if you're taking photos under poor lighting conditions, you'll see a significant shift in color. If you've ever taken film photos under fluorescent lights, you'd see that everything looked sharply green, when you don't perceive them as being green at that moment. (Digital cameras often make color adjustments, and the sensors are often not as sensitive as film can be.)
Going to an extreme, if you use a red filter on a light source, all colors are going to end up looking brown and grey; switching to red lights does the best at minimizing light pollution and loss of night vision, but at the cost of most color information. That's not bad, just a thing to consider.
...But that's not what Christian nationalists are working towards. They want to teach their religion, not teach about all religion.
THIS is what's going to bite him in the ass.
This is a huge case. It's going to take hundreds, if not thousands of billable hours. Any attorney that's competent that takes this case has to know that they're probably not going to see even a fraction of that money, meaning that they'll be without income for a long period of time. A competent attorney that's not ideologically motivated and independently wealthy is unlikely to be able to take the case. (An _in_competent attorney that doesn't realize this fact might take the case, and then not be allowed to withdraw from the case by the judge.)
Second, Trump has a history of running his mouth in public. The attorneys that are going to be defending him need to have national security clearances in order to be effective counsel. If Trump talks about the cases in public, he could cost his attorneys their security clearances, which would not only impede their ability to defend him, but could also prevent them from being able to defend similar clients in the future. If I was an attorney, that would be a really big fucking deal. Not only would I be unlikely to be get paid, but there would be a real risk that Trump could harm my ability to earn income in the future.
If I was a competent attorney with a track record of defending this kind of case, this case would be radioactive.
Fun fact: you can be opposed to capitalism without being a communist.
You [tankies] maybe opposed to capitalism, but you're still in favor of the coercive control of individuals by a state-level entity. That's just another flavor of authoritarianism.
I can't go back; they banned my account, after 12 years, and a few hundred thousand karma. I like to think that, in some small way, I helped make reddit a better place than it had been. And now I couldn't contribute, even if I wanted to.
But really, why would I want to? The point of contributing to a community is to make it better for everyone. Huffman/spez has made it clear that these contributions are not valued, even though they're the currency that allows them to make money by selling advertisements.
...Which is pretty much par for the course for a lot of sexual assault cases as well. RAINN reports that, out of every 1000 sexual assaults, 310 get reported to police, 50 result in arrests, and only 28 result in convictions. So the DA dropping the case before even going to trial isn't all that surprising. It doesn't mean that he isn't guilty, just that the DA didn't think they were going to be able to prove it in court.
Most instances also defederated from lemmygrad (commies) so its not generally politically left either.
IMO, Stalinists aren't exactly tolerant either. You're still talking about a totalitarian and authoritarian viewpoint, even if they're on the left on economic matters.
IMO, if your point is to make a community welcoming, then you have to get rid of intolerant voices. That--broadly speaking--means that you have to remove people advocating for any kind of absolutist, authoritarian rules. It's easy to see at a macro level, but it's all fuzzy at a micro level.
Well. Yes. This is true though. And that's a 'problem' with a lot of things; they can be 'true' when looked at from a certain perspective, but not necessarily useful in any meaningful way. For instance, pain is a sensation, and that sensation is not, by itself a 'bad' thing. It's just sensory information. Pain in the context of BDSM can evoke positive judgements in the person experiencing the sensation. An identical sensation experienced in the context of being physically abused by an intimate partner will likely evoke a negative judgement. Your judgement about those sensations is based on your context and past experiences.
But at the same time, looking at a larger picture here, if times are getting tougher, then rather than looking inward to the self and your own perception, it makes more sense to look outward to community, to try and change circumstances in a way that is positive for the entire greater community.
GOOD swords are expensive. I can buy a cheap chunk of 440C stainless for $50 at a flea market that is absolutely enough to hurt or kill someone.
But I'm in favor if villain control, and not sword control. You can have my sword when you pry it from my cold, dead gauntlets.
Anyone that is familiar with the ways that communism has existed in Warsaw-pact countries, in China, in southeast Asia in general, etc., should be able to see that. LGBTQ+ people were, if anything, even more fucked in most communist countries. There certainly wasn't any meaningful religious tolerance, since religion was banned in at least some communist countries (or wholly controlled by the gov't).
I'm in favor of communism in principle, but not in practice. I'd love to live in a commune, but I don't think I'd want to live in a communist country.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don't. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren't causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: "Exploiting" is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
...And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that's ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I'd rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
First: Dispatch pays shit.
Second: the PTSD is usually a bigger problem than the depression, since you're going to hear people die as you are trying to talk to them.
Depends on the disagreement. "I don't like shoes that have separate toes". Yeah, okay, that's your choice, I love my VFFs anyways. "I think Jews should be murdered", no, sorry, you don't get to have an opinion about the rights of other people to exist and occupy space.
Not strictly necessary. If his parents were US citizens--and they aren't--then it wouldn't matter where he was born. Kind of. I think that there might be residency requirements for children of US citizens that are born abroad, e.g., if your parents are expats and you live all your life in another country, you might not be a citizen, but it's complicated. You'd def. want to contact an immigration attorney if that was the case.
BUT...!
The point is that Musk, since he wasn't born to US citizens, and since he wasn't born in the US, isn't eligible to run for president.
It's an open question as to what happens if he ran anyways, and how votes would be tabulated, etc. It would get messy, but I don't think that it's ever happened that someone ineligible has run for president and won any significant amount of the vote.
Well... Yes, it probably is. Because it's political speech, and because there's not a direct link to fraud or causal harm. See US v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. When Trump says that he's a stable genius, that's protected speech even though 180 degrees opposed to the truth.
You'll notice that e.g. what Trump's attorneys said in public was very, very different from what they said to courts; it's a criminal offense to lie to courts, but it's largely legal and protected to lie to the public for political ends.
It is in fact very, very hard, when your entire country is planned around the automobile. You're talking about building infrastructure that doesn't exist, and replanning every single town.
When I lived in Chicago, I drove once a week, for groceries, because I lived in a food desert. Otherwise I rode my bicycle (yes, in the winter too). That's not even remotely practical now, because I live in a very rural area.
Again: don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
...Why should we be concerned about Putin saving face? This is his fuck up, and he was given ample opportunities to put the brakes on before he ever invaded.
Huh. I got 1312 confused with 1349, and was wondering why left libertarians would care when the black plague arrived in Norway, or why they'd all be super into a black metal band.
But yeah. 1312.
I don't think you have any idea how difficult that is, particularly since the US isn't a totalitarian dictatorship. There are a lot of factors in play for the average person, and you need to convince that person that they should change everything about their life and pay far more in taxes, for something that a significant percentage don't believe in or care about. You can't win with a fact-based argument; you need to successfully appeal to emotion. And so far, climate activists are doing a really, really bad job at that. Getting people to make incremental change is more likely to be effective, even if make reform is needed.
There's also a prisoner's dilemma here; if we bankrupt the country building this infrastructure, and China and India don't, then not only is climate change not significantly affected, but we also lose economically.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent to the ruling joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision "unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment."
...What the fuck? Am I taking crazy pills? In what fucking world do Thomas and Barrett advocate for a sane and rational approach to anything?
Ah ha! Okay, now I see it. It took me a while. I was clicking on the 'Moderators' that's on the lower left, and that was the one that's giving me a 50x error!
I think we're already seeing that a lot of the groups are going to be left-leaning, and since the system is decentralized by design, it's not going to be attractive to people that are right-wing and have authoritarian views. E.g., they won't be able to force other people to see what they say. (Remember the shitstorm of whining when TheDonald was removed from the front page so that 99% of people didn't see it anymore?)
...Or Oblivion. Or Daggerfall. Probably not Battlespire or Redguard though, and I don't know if you could get Arena to run on a modern computer. Daggerfall was a bit tricky; I think it bugged out for me before I got out of the first dungeon.
I think we should give them both Bowie knives and tell them to go at it, and may the most reprehensible person lose/win.
Lawyers can potentially get sanctioned for client conduct. I can see a potential problem if attorney are given access to classified information for defense prep, then Trump accesses the information, and then disseminates that information. It's a bit of a stretch, but given how bad Trump's behaviour has been, that's not a stretch I would ignore if I was an attorney.
I'm not sure that you can separate the concept of safe spaces out from politics, in much the same way that you can't separate your individual identity from politics. I'm not saying that they're a bad thing, but I do think that they're inherently political. People tend to want to segregate into spaces where they don't have to constantly keep their guard up.
The problem is that it's not "proven"; the only side presenting any evidence is the person seeking the protective order. If you make it an adversarial process so that the subject of the protective order can try to refute claims by the person seeking the order, then sure.
But right now it's strictly one-sided. Most places do require some form of evidence, but that evidence doesn't have to meet normal evidentiary standards, and the evidence isn't being questioned in an adversarial way.
Personally, I'm not comfortable removing rights when the person losing rights can't contest it.
Eh, sexuality is political though. It's easy to think that it's not, or shouldn't be, especially if you're straight and surrounded by other people that are also straight. The personal is always political, and the political is personal. Most of use don't have to worry about needing a space of refuge because we conform well enough to the majority viewpoint that we're not constantly in tension. The mere fact that someone has a different skin color than me shouldn't be political, but we've got centuries of racism to one degree or another demonstrating that it is.
I understand what you're getting at, and I agree that sexuality, gender identity, skin color, etc., shouldn't be a problem for everyone, or anyone. OTOH, I also think that certain worldviews--such as the idea that black people should be forcibly expatriated to Africa and Jews should be murdered, and that both of these things are morally correct--should be both politicized and excised from society. I'm fairly libertarian, in that I think that what I do as an individual that doesn't cause direct, immediate harm to other individuals shouldn't be an issue. But borders get mushy and slippery, because no one exists in a total vacuum.
Anyway. Shit's complicated.
That's closer to anarchism then communism. Communism, as it's generally developed, has a central state authority.
Personally, I see the existence of a state and individual liberties as always under tension. You can't have a state without some infringement on individual expressions. But some restriction on individual expression is necessary for a functioning society. The question is what infringements and under what circumstances are acceptable.
Economics is political. Always has been.
Just a thought that's gonna disappear into the aether...
The amount Huff-spez was going to charge Apollo was the opportunity cost, not the real cost. That is, they figured that each Reddit users was worth X amount each month, give or take, in revenue that could be generated from tracking and advertisement. That actual cost per user was more like 5% of X. If Huffspez was being honest and transparent about this, he could say to users, hey, if you pay X per month, we'll turn off all advertisements, not sell any of the data associated with your usage, and stop tracking you as much as possible and still have our site work. (I know tracking can't stop completely, but it can be reduced.) But that's not what is being presented to end users; they're only being given the ability to use the official reddit app.
Then again, the promise of cable television and streaming services was that we would pay for the service, and not be force to watch ads. And then companies figured out that they could be more profitable by also selling ads, and then requiring subscribers to pay even more to reduce the number of ads. So any claims from Huffspez that you could subscribe and not be tracked etc. would have been, rightly, viewed with derision.
It really depends on where you are though. Much like other public policy debates, a lot of this comes down to where someone lives. People that live in dense urban areas can very reasonably go without cars, and trains (specifically light rail) make a lot of sense. Once you get out of urban areas, suddenly trains don't make any sense at all, and the ability to realistically take public transportation evaporates.
This is compounded by urban planning that doesn't prioritize dense housing. Everyone says that we need more and better housing, but no one wants high rise apartments and condos in their neighborhood of single-family homes. That ends up leading to the kind of urban sprawl that makes public transportation impossible to work. Until zoning is taken out of local hands--so that wealthy communities can't prevent high-density housing--you aren't ever going to see this kind of thing change. (BTW - this is overwhelmingly happening in the US in communities that have a Democratic supermajority; that's why housing is so expensive in California, because new housing isn't being built.)
‘Cities should be better designed so that we don’t have to use cars’
...Which I agree with. And it's incredibly frustrating to me that, on the one hand, Republicans actively don't give a shit about sprawl, and on the other hand, Democrats don't want to ruin the charm and character of their lovely urban single-family neighborhoods with half acre plots of lawn in order to build dense housing that can make light rail economically viable. E.g., the people that should be on board with this shit talk a good game until it's their own neighborhood.
I recognize my own hypocrisy here, because I moved to a rural area to get away from a city, and I am now finding that it isn't rural enough because I can sometimes hear my closest neighbors. I just want to live in a shack like Ted... :(
As far as pay goes, doing from web development to dispatch is (probably) going to be a pretty big step down in most cases. Going from warehouse to EMS dispatch is probably going to be largely a lateral move (although likely with better benefits, if you're working directly for a municipality).
As far as my own pay rate is concerned, I would be fine with the amount that I was paid if it was annually adjusted for inflation and cost of living. As it stands, I make less money--in terms of purchasing power--now than when I started five years ago.
RIP Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
From what I understand, when people that are good become cops and try to hold fellow cops to the same standards, they end up getting hung out to dry and forced out.
Check this case out: https://archive.is/2jzIx, and then consider that this kind of thing is only slightly extreme.
Cops that stay in enable the shitty cops or become shitty themselves, good cops get forced out. The entire system is rotten, and needs to be entirely reformed. I think that it probably needs to be handled in a way similar to the way that Reagan handled striking air traffic controllers: fire every single cop, use National Guard MPs on a temporary basis while entirely new cops are recruited and trained, and have iron-clad oversight and standards established before the new cops take their positions.
"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".