AliSaket @ AliSaket @mander.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

46

Joined

1 yr. ago

I've waited 239 races and this is what I get?

Several senators commented on the incident, questioning Alderan's intentions, since they still don't seem to want to return to the negotiating table.

Let's reverse roles for a second. You're the employer. What reasons would there be, for you to advertise an opening? Could your primary motivation possibly be paying people money? (Rhetorical question) Considering you already have a team, what kind of person do you want to fill the position? What profile should they have? And how would their motivation reflect on their expected performance?

P.S. I'm not saying, not to talk about money, but there's a time for talking about that vs. finding out, whether you're a fit. And answering a question about your main motivation on why you want to be part of their team with money, doesn't reflect well on you or any expectations of you.

It's funny to read back the thread. It makes it seem as if we disagree, when we clearly agree.

The overtaking rules were recently changed because of the way one driver exploited that set of rules

Yeah. But we don't know how, because they only changed the unpublished guidelines... probably. We can't really know. And you are probably correct that they want to maintain their leeway for nuance or/and manipulation, as can be witnessed nearly every season.

The kicker of this one driver's behavior last season: it's a clear breach of Appendix L Ch.4 2. b), c) and d). But all that has to happen because of that is a reporting to the Stewards. Everything beyond that is - by the rules we have access to - fully up to them. That's all I'm trying to say. The actual rules don't just offer grey areas, they lack any enforcement. It's like if the lotg say, that if the ref sees a foul, he can do as he pleases. And these problems and discussions won't cease until there are clear limits within the rules and guidelines and the public can finally see them. It doesn't mean they shouldn't allow for nuance, but this is just ridiculously arbitrary.

I agree with the overall point, yet we have to be careful not to conflate the rules with the stewarding/refereeing. You mentioned the expression grey area and I would like to point out that the football rules have been revised in the last 10 years or so, to finally shrink the scope of interpretation. There is still a lot of 'freedom' for the referees and their interpretation, but I agree, that more clear boundaries have been established. I would point to some glaring examples to the contrary, but prefer to come back to F1, which has the exact opposite situation.

The rules for football (laws of the game) are widely accessible and available including how transgressions are to be punished. In F1 on the other hand the whole thing is absolutely opaque. We can't really say, how much room for interpretation there is, because the FIA won't publish their Driving Standard Guidelines (may I present a version back from the Imola GP 2022!). So we have no real reference to measure the Stewarding against. What this year's exact wording is concerning the mirror of the overtaking car being alongside the axle of the other or whatever it is, we simply don't know. The only thing we have is the International Sporting Code (ISC), and from that Appendix L is usually the one cited in the decisions, because it handles overtaking. But: There's only a mention of a penalty points system in there, not how it is handled, nor what exactly gives someone a "right to the line" or anything in that direction.

For unsafe releases, we have ISC App. L Chapter IV 5. d) which states that "Cars must not be released from a garage or pit stop position in a way that could endanger or unnecessarily impede pit lane personnel or another driver". The penalties for breaching this rule (or anything else in the ISC) is handled somewhere else (The same goes for the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations, where the unsafe release is defined again with a few specialties to F1). In Appendix B (Stewards Penalty Guidelines) they very vaguely describe, that Stewards have the authority to enforce these rules and that they "retain the discretion (...) to tailor the penalty to the specific situation." (i.e. to judge mitigating/aggravating circumstances, etc.). Again, no clear reference to measure against. As an example for the seeming arbitrariness: In the decision document around Max' 10 second time penalty and 3 penalty points, they mention the infringement of App. L Chapter IV Article 2 d) of the ISC, but as we've seen, there isn't anything concrete in there relating to the severity of the penalty.

If we go back to Miami, Max got a 10s penalty in the Sprint for an unsafe release with a collision as a result. In their decision document the stewards write: "The Stewards acknowledge that the driver did everything he could to avoid the incident and therefore no penalty points are issued in this case." So it seems that the Stewards could theoretically issue penalty points depending on the incident at question. But again, we have no possibility to actually know. In Oliver Bearman's case in the same race, the time penalty was only 5s and there wasn't anything mentioned about any penalty points.

So regardless whether we think the rules should be penalty points for unsafe releases or not, we can't even tell how good of a job the stewards are doing, because there's a lot of uncertainty within the rules, and we don't even have access to all the relevant publications of the rules and their clarification.

consistently making mistakes no matter how minor should be getting a ban

We can find equivalents of this in other sports too. E.g. in football, when you're cautioned twice, you're sent off. And if you keep committing normal/non-cautionable foul play, you'll be cautioned. But: Just like you can't get cautioned for being off-side all the time, there's a certain level of breaching the rules in F1 as well, that leads to penalty points in the first place.

I know unsafe releases are the teams faults but its not like fines have actually reduced their occurrence

During races unsafe releases are penalized with time penalties. So there's a clear deterrent there, even if there aren't any penalty points. I'm not sure about qualifying. The fines are certainly levied during free practice sessions.

lol yeah. They didn't edit out all the flirting though or all the embarassed or indignant reactions by the characters around them, which presents those "cousins" in a really interesting light ;)

The US version of Sailor Moon was also censored and edited in different other ways. IIRC:

• All Tokyo references were changed to New York. So they've changed where the whole thing took place.
• They changed all Japanese writings (Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji)
• Multiple characters had their gender or sex changed as to avoid homosexual relations.
• The music was completely changed for some reason
• They took out many scenes or even whole episodes if they thought, they might vaguely get into conflict with the FCC.
• They scrapped a whole season, because the Sailor Starlights (I think that was their name?) changed gender in their magical transformation.

The most infamous would be South Park episodes S14E05 and S14E06 named "200" and "201". The central theme of the episodes: Censorship. Something South Park had been subjected to ever since its inception. And this time, they centered around the limits of what is allowed around depictions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. For context: These episodes aired after controversies around such depictions in media around the world had people killed.

So in an attempt to protect themselves, the network engaged in censorship of the episodes and it is sometimes unclear, what was intentionally in there as a plot point from the creators and what was added by the network. Although some egregious examples are clear, such as the complete bleeping of Kyle's "I've learned something today" monologue at the end. While Stone and Parker inserted clear plot points like characters like Moses of all people asking, whether something was OK to show or say. I'm still uncertain whether the huge censorship bar over the Prophet is a plot point, or censorship or both.

The kicker: Prophet Muhammad had been shown in earlier episodes already, without sparking controversy and in "200" and "201" they even reference those episodes. As expected, they received death threats after the airing of the episodes and later pulled all five episodes with Muhammad depictions from their streaming sites (Super-Best Friends, Cartoon Wars 1+2, 200, 201).

How would anything have been able to form, i.e. make more order, without decreasing entropy?

Of course there are multiple errors in that thought.

1. Entropy does not mean an actual grade of (dis-)order or organization. It's one model to grasp certain processes through that concept. Outside of these the model doesn't hold.
2. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy cannot decrease in a CLOSED system (i.e. mass, energy, information flow at the boundary = 0). It doesn't mean that within that system there can't be local imbalances. For example: For a plant to be able to "order" - to use this term - its molecules to cells, Hydrogen atoms had to have been fused to Helium in our fusion reactor 150 million km away that we call sun which increases local entropy.

Of course there's more wrong with it, but those would be the blatant ones for me.

Yeah I made a similar discovery after installing a Shelly Switch with Power Metering. The monitors and their brightness make a huge difference as well when in or near idle (for photography, so not a surprise). I've also implemented an "anti-standby" function, so the switch opens whenever the current falls under a specific threshold.

For the WoL, since I have a switch, I configured my BIOS so it would turn on after power loss. Now I can start to boot up from afar :)

There are many parallels . The most alarming in my eyes is what is reminding me of what happened before and after the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. What it effectually did was to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, circumventing the legislature to enact laws even if they are explicitly unconstitutional. The far right's Unitary Executive Theory has basically the same stated goal. And the judiciary has already basically embodied this theory with the SC decision around presidential immunity. I fear it is only a matter of time, until the Executive Orders override laws and can't be challenged until it's too late. Which is why an actually resisting opposition and organizing on the ground is so important.

To your point: Before the vote the Nazis intimidated anyone opposing the law and arrested basically the whole of the Communist Party and some of the Social Democartic Party (SPD) while striking deals with the center and religious right, who wanted some assurances for their own if they vote for it. This is the Gleichschaltung you're talking about. And the Trump administration has been known for nothing but intimidation (the complete media landscape has heeled except for a few small actually independent outlets) and so-called deals, so absolutely.

Also the 'flooding of the zone' as Steve Bannon announced it, as well as the use of catastrophies (fires, plane crashes) to assign further blame to the opponents and legitimize the own actions are straight out of Autocracy 101.

AOC is not calling for incrementalism.

That's what I'm saying. Because neither did the user you replied to. They didn't call for politicians to take small steps over time, but for everyone to take action so it adds up. Big difference.

The difference being that the incrementalism was outsourced to elected officials. What I understand that sentence to mean to say is that it needs every one of you who is able to do anything of any magnitude. It adds up. And like kattfisk says, you get active and organized. You have more power than you think and democracy is more than just drawing a few crosses in a box every few years.

I mean, who is going to do it if not you? What have the heroes from the Democratic party been up to since the peaceful transition of power? Some of the Dem senators voted for many of Trumps catastrophic picks. In a time where the White House is flooding the zone (as Steve Bannon put it some time ago), Shumer is giving speeches on the senate floor, that no one is listening to and Dem leadership is scheduling emergency meetings for after the reason for the meeting goes into effect. Finally AOC shows some kind of leadership and calls upon all of you to mobilize and resist fascism and you react with "it's a stalling tactic"? Please realize that you want the same thing. But if you want a mass movement, you will need to be organized on a smaller scale first or else it will fizzle out quickly.

I'm not surprised the EFAS got approved. It is a complex topic where you would need to read almost the whole KVG to truly understand what's going on and the messaging of the opponents was sub-optimal to put it mildly.

The opposing opinion in the official booklet, at least for the German version, was incomprehensible and without concrete links to the substance of the issue or their claims. E.g. HOW are the insurers getting more power? What will they be able to do, that they can't already? What are the absolute numbers, that show that premiums will rise, when the official report mentions sinking costs? Why will the quality of care deteriorate? They mention privatization, but don't tell you what would facilitate that...

The Pro side mainly stressed the positive of correcting the disincentives towards cheaper ambulatory treatments through changing to the uniform financing formula, which in and of itself and without further context is a valid and good point. Both substantively and politically.

And my biggest problem lies with the official 'examining review' from the Federal Chancellery. I know it is normal to try and project what the changes in law could affect in reality. Imho they did it in a biased way. Why am I saying that? Because every argument and scenario they brought up was positive and basically the pro-opinion reads like a summary of the official review. Also: When making simplifications from the actual legal text, they used a more positive description (E.g. "coordination" vs. "restriction" talking about the states limiting offered services). There aren't many absolute numbers to understand just how much money will shift between insurers, states and patients and what that would mean. In such a situation it is even more incumbent on the opponents to make the downsides clear and fill those gaps.

To add to that:

We have a militia system, which on first glance is a good thing. But then you realize that a plurality of parliamentarians are lawyers, business-people, advisors and other higher economic class individuals. Too many of them are on boards of directors or other high management positions in corporations. Compared to other western countries, it is more mixed, but clear conflicts of interests are present and it is still skewed towards the economic elite. The reasons for this are many, but among others voters getting such individuals in high positions can be paired with people in lower economic classes having less opportunities or motivation to run for office. Which is why local organizing is of utmost importance. You can see the effect in parliaments on a local level: They far more closely represent the population than on a state or federal level. Then there's party politics, but that'll get too long, soooo: Next point:

The media landscape: Your point about a billionaire having great impact on the electoral landscape extends to the media. You can count the owners of the local papers on one hand. Said billionaire owns some of them as well as an own TV channel if you can call it that. And there's a general animosity towards the SRG SSR with political and legislative attacks to weaken it.

The interesting thing is that they are only one in a long line of businesses/industries openly admitting to employing undocumented immigrants, i.e. illegal hiring practices. It is clear, why these businesses are doing this: They can pay less (and the on-cost) and if at any point there is a dispute, they can threaten with the authorities, even if it is illegal in places to do so. If we can believe the numbers, they make up more than 4% of the workforce. Something that has been so seldomly prosecuted, it has become so prevalent, that they're talking about it in the open.

You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it "rig" elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I've written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn't making a cross every four years. And she's calling on all of us.

Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.

Decrying the persecution of crimes against humanity as antisemitic is quite something. It begs the question then, what these people see inherently Semitic about perpetrating these crimes.

The blatant misuse of this term is actually very harmful to Jews around the world, since calls of those actually suffering from anti-Jewish sentiment are not taken seriously anymore.

The OP did a quality reply already where he cites the article you've linked to debunk your own claims. But you could also have done with reading the OP's article until the second paragraph.

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

At this point unquestionably spouting the official lies of the U.S. or Israeli governments is spouting genocidal propaganda and can only be seen as either hopelessly ignorant or bad faith.

The second paragraph in the article:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire" in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.