Hobo @ Hobo @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

229

Joined

2 yr. ago

That was such a weird game. I don't know if I ever figured out the point but boy was it fun to throw people around with your giant god hand.

Even if you inherited your parents property if you already have one you should have to pay extra taxes on it from the day they die until the day you sell it, period.

This seems needlessly callous to me. At least give them a 6-12 month period to clean up, do repairs, and sell the house. Not everyone that inherits a house is making enough to pay increased taxes right out the gate like you're proposing. Also, from personal experience, cleaning houses of deceased relatives tend to require a bit of work to get ready for selling and is incredibly emotionally draining. What you're proposing is going to be extremely painful for the people at the bottom, and emotionally wracking, since as soon as a loved one dies you're now under the gun to sell.

I agree though, second homes should be extremely heavily taxed. I just think we need to approach it with an even hand and make sure that we are targeting big corporate rental agencies and the very wealthy, and not some family that just lost their parents/grandparents. Something about targeting those people seems needlessly aggressive and not really the intention being discussed...

I don't have those problems with my bluetooth devices nearly as much anymore. The exception being in my car where it's absolute crap. I blame that mostly on car companies because they are notoriously slow at adopting new technology and/or updating their existing tech.

I'm not an expert with bluetooth or anything, but my understanding was that if the source/destination both supported the codec then there wasn't any compression from bluetooth. Could be wrong about that, but that does seem to be the case in my very limited testing. Not sure why your car/phone pairing is crap but most likely it's that your car bluetooth is a bit shitty.

I think you might be omitting a few important features of bluetooth over wifi. The really big advantage to bluetooth is that it is that it is low power. You wouldn't be able to run your earbuds for several hours on a tiny battery if it was running wifi compared to bluetooth. The low power feature is great for portable speakers too. It's also more user friendly then setting/connecting wifi, but I'm not sure if that matters as much anymore.

You did better than me. Every way I slice it, the set of circumstances required to get there are a lot fucked up.

Right so change it. People are going to meet hostility with hostility. If you approach every conversation from an advsarial position you'll get a lot of "I'm right and you're wrong" and "lecturing" from the other side. If you had simply clarified that your vague statement was about the original article, and not the one linked in the comment you replied to, then we could've walked away with a positive interaction...

That's very unclear from your reply above. Do you always act so condescending when people seek clarification? Because even this short conversation with you has been challenging. Perhaps try to be a little less of an asshole. It would be easier to clear simple communication issues especially when you use pronouns and the antecedent isn't really clear.

This is the article from the above comment you replied to. Like literally a few comments up from here.

https://lemmy.world/comment/5428995

So this is the link in question:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

And you don't see a research paper with citations?

Here's a screenshot of the end of the paper that displays the links to the citations and references:

Here's the full abstract as well just for further clarification:

Unlabelled: Studies on nonelite distance runners suggest that men are more likely than women to slow their pace in a marathon. Purpose: This study determined the reliability of the sex difference in pacing across many marathons and after adjusting women's performances by 12% to address men's greater maximal oxygen uptake and also incorporating information on racing experience. Methods: Data were acquired from 14 US marathons in 2011 and encompassed 91,929 performances. For 2929 runners, we obtained experience data from a race-aggregating Web site. We operationalized pace maintenance as the percentage change in pace observed in the second half of the marathon relative to the first half. Pace maintenance was analyzed as a continuous variable and as two categorical variables, as follows: "maintain the pace," defined as slowing <10%, and "marked slowing," defined as slowing ≥30%. Results: The mean change in pace was 15.6% and 11.7% for men and women, respectively (P < 0.0001). This sex difference was significant for all 14 marathons. The odds for women were 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.50; P < 0.0001) times higher than men to maintain the pace and 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.38; P < 0.0001) times that of men to exhibit marked slowing. Slower finishing times were associated with greater slowing, especially in men (interaction, P < 0.0001). However, the sex difference in pacing occurred across age and finishing time groups. Making the 12% adjustment to women's performances lessened the magnitude of the sex difference in pacing but not its occurrence. Although greater experience was associated with less slowing, controlling for the experience variables did not eliminate the sex difference in pacing. Conclusions: The sex difference in pacing is robust. It may reflect sex differences in physiology, decision making, or both.

What're you talking about? The study linked has 43 references and has been cited 140 times. It even has their method and approach pretty clearly stated right at the start of the paper where they outline where they gathered their data from. Did you click the wrong link or something?

I think the word you're looking for is physicist. A physician is a medical doctor (as in a person that treats sick people). A physicist is a person that studies physics (as in a person that knows how to solve word problems involving pool tables).

This excludes all the ipv4 ips that have a 0 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th octets. Sorry but we're going to have to revoke your Network Engineering credentials.

"The cradle of our democracy" refers to Washington DC in particular which is directly governed by the House/Senate. It also consistently ranks as one of the top cities in crime in the US by almost any metric (although ranking crime by city gets murky). Additionally it is notoriously poorly governed and has some really strange local laws that are almost entirely nationally political in origin. It also doesn't really help that the people living in D.C. get a diminished political voice by default.

I don't know if there's really grander conclusions to make other than having people govern a city that have no vested interest in the locals, with their actual constituents possibly 1000s of miles away, is a terrible idea. As for what it says about our government as a whole, I really think it's a better case for MORE democracy for the locals in D.C. rather than an indictment of the idea...

To read about D.C. and how it is governed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

Basic crime stats for D.C.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Goes further back than that. In the late 90s early 2000s basically all 3 of the MMOs on the market were subscription models (Ultima, Everquest, and Warcraft are the ones that spring to my mind). Essentially a pay per time scheme where if you were playing the game you paid for it monthly.

This guy is just so far down the modern game industry rabbit hole he forgot that it wasn't as profitable as the soul sucking microtransaction/whaling hellscape that's become the norm.

It's literally not that simple, and at this point you're not even reading what I'm saying. What you are claiming is not black and white even by your own sources. It speaks volumes about how much thought you've actually put into the subject. You're far worse than the far left anti-2nd amendment folks in a lot of ways, and have roughly the same understanding of the subject as they do about it.

I hope one day you'll learn nuance. Good day to you.

Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can't enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn't whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable "microstamping" technology.

There's nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You're arguing something that simply isn't a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.

I think there's subtleties that you're ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it's important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn't what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.

Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person's 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It's already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you're arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you're missing the point.

You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you're willing to change when it doesn't fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.

Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term "regulars" comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?

Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims "well regulated" means "well armed" in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn't find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.