Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A
Posts
2
Comments
730
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • The two aren't mutually exclusive. Consider certain graffiti. The person tagging a building doesn't think that he is improving it. Rather, he is showing that he has the power to put his name on places where other people don't want it. In doing so, he asserts dominance. That's what legacy is in a zero-sum mindset where success must mean someone else's failure - a record of whom he defeated.

  • I don't think the intent is to make the center look good - it's to humiliate.

  • I can imagine how someone who is still a good person overall might commit certain serious crimes. But the petty stuff like this or littering immediately places whoever does it in the "person I detest" category in a way that, say, robbing a bank would not. The thought of having all that money is a genuine temptation, and maybe the robber needs it for something important. Meanwhile playing audio in a subway car is just completely unjustifiable.

  • But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won't be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents "the establishment" and the other side doesn't.

    Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.

  • I don't agree with this. The stuff written by, for example, the "vaccines cause autism" people can sound as sophisticated and authoritative as any textbook. A high-school education isn't going to help someone judge it according to its merits. Thus the problem is a collapse of trust in authority rather than a lack of basic knowledge, because ultimately an ordinary person can only decide to trust the scientific consensus without meaningfully verifying it.

  • Enforcing contractual obligations isn't unconstitutional. We don't know what the contract actually says but it might plausibly include damages for cancelling in these circumstances.

    Edit: With that said, the center isn't helping its case by claiming things like

    Your dismal ticket sales and lack of donor support, combined with your last-minute cancellation has cost us considerably. This is your official notice that we will seek $1 million in damages from you for this political stunt.

    Calling the action a political stunt may allow the defendant to argue that the lawsuit is motivated by retaliation against speech even if the lawsuit would otherwise be valid, and admitting that ticket sales were dismal isn't great if you're going to seek damages for lost ticket sales.

  • "Controversial" here seems like a basic statement of fact. One might think that she ought not to be controversial, but she is.

  • It's the Justice League cartoon from twenty years ago. Worth watching if you like superheroes.

  • That's not how it would work even for an ordinary person. This is an accusation about something rather far-fetched happening 35 years before the accusation was made, with no evidence for it except the accusation itself. It wouldn't lead to criminal charges.

  • The advantage of that last approach is that it has side effects and cannot therefore be optimized out by the compiler.

  • I can think of no one I would rather see in bed with me when I wake up than Darth Vader.

  • I don't think the 1/e strategy changes just because candidates have a chance of rejecting you.

  • I would often use both the title and the person's nickname, but never just the name. So, for example, "Papa Mike" but not "Mike" or "Michael". It made more sense for grandparents because I had two of each, but I did it for my parents too.

  • There is an old video game called Lords of Magic in which the Order faction (which is about unified effort towards the greater good) has as its top-level spell "Heroic Demise". Mechanically the spell gives one unit a big boost to all its stats, but the catch is that at the end of the battle that unit always counts as having been killed.

    I was very reluctant to use it when I was a little kid because I didn't want to kill my own units, but of course the lesson is that units will die anyway and fewer will die in total if you deliberately sacrifice some. Very thematically appropriate...

  • I refuse to separate out my compost.

  • In the eyes of anyone who wants to elect pragmatists who don't tilt at windmills.

  • I'm not sure why people want him to humiliate Democrats by trying something doomed to failure. Hegseth can't be impeached successfully unless multiple Republicans support doing so.

  • So we're at the "I didn't do it, but if I did then it isn't so bad" stage.

  • They grab the hook because they intend to pull you into the water.