This is basically the opposite of how juror psychology works. Jurors in these cases tend to vote against defendants they identify with because they prefer to believe they’d never act like the defendant. Source: I’m a former jury consultant who researched and consulted on these kinds of cases.
You mean like the million dollar McMansions on the same block as a gas station, across the street from an office high rise? I think you’re over-estimating the effect of land prices.
What's the problem with gas station (provided it keeps mandatory distance from the buildings) or the office building near the residential ones? In fact, close offices are often cited as a pros for certain locations, people are even trying to rent as close as they can in some cities.
PS: I've lived the whole last year approximately 100m away from both gas station and large office complex. Neither bothered me at all, and it was a first floor.
In theory, sure, but in reality, please god no. 99% of LinkedIn messages you get as a hiring manager are “Hi I applied to your role”, “Hi I applied to your role and I’d be a great fit when can we talk?”, “Hi I’m really interested in learning about your work can we meet for coffee?”, or “Hi I’d be a great fit for your role because <insert enormous AI-written cover letter>.”
You're right, it seems obvious. Considering the number of self-professed "free speech absolutists" I have encountered on this site over the years, I'm surprised at how much benefit of the doubt others are giving this.
I'm not. The last few years have made it very clear what the actual political goals of the VC-tech world are. I was as disappointed as anybody, but I'm not surprised anymore.
I was trying to be more neutral, but after some thought, this isn't the time for that. My "surprise" was more than a bit sarcastic. Between this and the FCC going after Kimmel, now is the last chance I will give for anyone claiming to care about free speech to prove they weren't lying. There's no plausible deniability anymore, free speech is unambiguously under attack.
What’s even more hilarious are all the anti cancel culture warriors from the past few years going on about how the Kimmel situation isn’t cancel culture.
Especially since this is probably the only incident in the last couple of decades where the cancelation was a result of the government threatening consequences unless a specific individual was not canceled.
It is a pretty big difference when the left wing cancel culture is a grassroots efforts of the populace trying to enforce moral behavior versus the right wing cancel culture we are seeing today in which the government is the one exerting pressure and not the populace.
Oh, sweet summer child. It's as "grassroots" as the Cultural Revolution (party elites encouraging and directing mobilized workers and farmers to play out their power plays) was grassroot.
The FBI and others telling Twitter what to censor, the goverment agencies threating companies to comply, academics and prestigious news media on lockstep, nebulous NGOs and "think tanks" suggesting what's fake news and what's not, tech behemoths collaborating, even banks having a go at it.
In other words, it's as top down as the current Republican shit is.
I'm glad you finally agree free speech under attack. Now that the president/party in power has changed, it seems the comments have shifted from being that "I must be left wing" to "I must be right wing".
Is there anything that will make you interested in free speech itself, or is it just an attack towards those you disagree with? People don't want to waste time in an internet debate with someone who starts off with an assumption of the latter, and you've already concluded you were being sarcastic in asking. The lack of interest in responding to you about it will only help drive your belief "the other people" are the only ones who claim to care about free speech.
That is because the complaints about left wing threats to free speech are always incredibly dubious like the government asking social media sites to take down what was widely considered dangerous Covid misinformation or some random college professor saying people should use "Latinx". In comparison, the right wing attacks on free speech are like the FCC threatening people for mild jokes. Can you name anything the left wing has done that approaches what we just saw with Kimmel?
The Biden administration started this whole TikTok thing in the first place, you just liked the platform at the time and are now getting bit in the ass when the group in power has changed. I'm not interested in which side is supposed to be worse than the other so someone can feel better about the speech they are okay with suppressing, I'm interested in free speech all the time.
The Kimmel thing is indeed a stupid and dangerous attack on free speech, but you can't just wait until the speech under attack is about something you care for to declare that. It's already too late at that point, which is what many of the people you eagerly dismiss as just caring about right wing politics were trying to say.
Others have addressed "this whole TikTok thing" being attributed to Biden. I asked you for a left wing equivalent for Kimmel and you couldn't name one. Somehow this lack of an equivalent left wing attack is evidence of them sharing responsibility for this right wing attack on free speech. That is a perfect illustration of my point. I'm not going to "waste time in an internet debate with someone" who can't see the silliness of the argument you just made.
Fair on "starting", I should have said "was perfectly in support of and did not attempt to stop" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-administration-leave-t... and I'm willing to see it was silly to forget the specifics by claiming a different sequence to the topic - hopefully you are also willing to make the same kinds of considerations instead of only using such questions as assumptions of other people.
There is no lack of "equivalent left wing attack", just shifts on when it's okay to do based on how much the individual agrees with it. I've had this exact conversation with right wing folks but the other way around (where nothing conservative was unreasonable suppression but plenty left wing was unreasonable suppression). Because you agree with the views of whatever the Biden admin supported e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... then you don't consider it a problem (and yes, the Biden administration likes to claim it was just building on something the Trump administration had started... which gets us nowhere in actually doing something positive for free speech instead of using it as a blame game). Because someone else agrees with Trump/Kirk they don't consider it a problem. As a result, there is nothing I can say that will make anyone agree when things are equivalent. The difference is not that I agree with a different agenda, nor do I need to find equivalence, it's that I'm not interested in weighing the speech itself.
I, obviously, don't like Russian misinformation (or human smugglers or whatever thing is obviously malintended), but I don't think trying to have a government body decide what is misinformation is a good way to solve the concerns. That's what a free speech absolutist is after all, not just a way to say only a certain party did something bad. I could go on and on about specific instances, but all that does is rile people up about "why would you put that in a list of bad things" or "that's obviously not as big a deal to worry about" whenever they see something they tend to agree with. Those not in support of free speech have no problem saying other transgressions on free speech are a bigger deal, just in agreeing what "other" is.
Supporting free speech is not about agreeing with the speech, it's about tackling any perceived bad speech with open means instead of power. I don't agree with either the Biden or Trump administrations on the ways either seek to suppress social media, regardless if you think some are justified and others aren't. You think it's okay to suppress things as long as they seem harmless or small to you, I don't. That's the only fair assumption of what a free speech absolutist is.
I will give credit that at least my original comment isn't already flagged dead for saying I'm really about free speech instead of the opposition, which has been the typical result the previous 4 years.
I'd tend to agree (I voted Jill Stein) but in context of U.S. politics he's usually considered as such (at least as center left, not center right or even center), albeit less so than some other figures.
I'd also agree Trump is more conservative than Biden is liberal, but I think we're getting a bit into the weeds here...
The point with Biden and Trump is whenever free speech is mentioned, people conclude the part of a political spectrum they identify with is being attacked by someone they perceive as being on a different part, with no belief there could ever be a person actually worried about free speech itself. It's not at all about whether I agree or disagree with where they perceive that threat to be from on the spectrum, it's just what such people like to claim. I've yet to see a normal political spectrum where 100% of folks agree with free speech absolutism, even when inconvenient.
To folks who actually care about free speech instead of partisan politics, the idea of debating where on a scale of 1 to 10 the source of the threat might be from is in itself absurdly irrelevant. To folks that don't care about free speech, it's convenient to perceive free speech claims as only ever having a hidden partisan agenda instead of allowing the possibility of a free speech absolutist. The only exception I can think to any of this is a political spectrum where one side is "free speech absolutism" itself.
The thing is, self-professed "free speech absolutists" generally believe that only right with and nazi speech are the ones worthy of defense. Anybody else who is criticizing those, disagreeing with those or promoting other ideas is seen as threat to free speech.
Self-professed "free speech absolutists" get really angry when left or anti right people speak or make the right uncomfortable.
No, this is just in your head. You might still have 40-year-old instincts from when the authoritarian right was in charge, both in institutions and in social norms, but it's been the authoritarian left for 20 years. Any discussion that engages in spreading stereotypes, rather than debating ideas, is just part of the problem.
You're not making sense. People on the right actively spread stereotypes, racist cliches, and other antisocial, pro-violent opinions that they call the truth and won't budge on their opinion, but as soon as a leftist calls someone with actual authoritarian viewpoints a nazi they are the problem for spreading stereotypes and not debating ideas? lmfao
> People say all sorts of stuff, but if your consistently being told by a large cohort of individuals your shit stinks for a decade, it probably stinks.
I agree that the authoritarian left has very much tried to recreate the "no smoke without fire" pre-liberal "justice" system, but all it takes is organisational capture of media coupled with a lot of people without any critical thinking skills.
Your mental gymnastics is wild, dude. So many excuses and still won't address my original point that the right actively preaches and spreads stereotypes, racism, and violent rhetoric.
No, steels have 4-6x higher tensile strength (and better performance in other related properties) than raw iron. [0] They're not just preferred over iron for their corrosion resistance.
And note that even what we call "cast iron" - a material that reasonably could be preferred to steel for some industrial purposes - is an iron-carbon alloy that in fact has more carbon than steel[1].
oxidation is a chemical process, [LEO says GER] that which Loses Electrons is Oxidized, that which Gains Electrons is Reduced.
it isnt always oxygen that does this, a difference of RedOx potential allowing redistribution of electrons is all you need.
mars has a perchlorate problem thus carbon compounds are converted to carbonate via Oxidation when encountering ubiquitous perchloate mineral deposits.
its toxic to carbon based biochemical forms, and destructive to carbon materials, such as carbon fibre; carbon nanotubes; carbon steel; even a lot of keypads.
By "iron", I assume that you mean "cast iron", as pure iron is hardly used for anything.
Cast iron is lighter than steel, not heavier, because of its higher carbon content.
However, objects made of cast iron are indeed heavier than similar objects made of steel, and this is what you must have in mind, because the objects made of cast iron are always made thicker, both because cast iron is weaker, which requires greater thickness for the same strength, and because it is harder to make thinner objects by casting than by forging.
I’m building a moderately complex system with FastAPI + PG + Prefect executing stuff on Cloud Run, and so long as I invest in getting the architecture and specs right, it’s really a dream how much of the heavy lifting and grunt work I can leave to Claude Code. And thank god I don’t have to manage Alembic by myself.
Yes, if it's an exact copy, but I don't know if their system is actually presenting entire articles, or just fragments (copyrightable, perhaps) and perhaps mixing them with other text.
