Liz @ Liz @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

1,123

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean, sure but in the context of individual websites I don't see it being a big deal. There will be replacements, and relatively quickly. Accelerationism applied to major societal structures is a terrible idea though.

They have been un-deleting after they ban.

Well okay, that's a perfectly valid opinion but it's not the one you originally stated, even if you didn't mean to. They're both valid opinions actually, it's just that the distinction between the two is important because we're dealing with the law, where details matter.

Speaking of which, I must re-emphasize, "they get a pass" really depends on the state and city, but even in the most permissive jurisdictions there's still limits on who can carry or concealed carry and where.

That link you shared does a much better job of not implying the reader is an idiot.

So in other words, the gun laws teachers are subject to may actually be effective for stopping dangerous and negligent people from owning a firearm

Right there.

The law doesn't say anything about whether teachers can own guns or not, just how they will be permitted to concealed carry them in school.

This law has nothing to do with owning a firearm. It is only about who can concealed carry and where. The law in this area is highly variable, changing even from city to city.

The law is not issuing guns to teachers, it's allowing teachers to concealed carry in a school if they pass some tests and get approval from a few relevant people. The data says it's ineffective at having the intended effect (stopping school shootings) but apparently already 2/3 of states have a similar policy. Anyway, if you want to learn how to stop school shootings I suggest you read Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel.

As it should be! Big boy is round!

Figured out.

My personal definition of planet:

1. big enough to be spherical
2. has never been big enough to cause fusion

Jeroba

One time I found this old home movie my grandma made of their visit to the Grand Canyon back in the 50s. She’s filming the scenery and a couple times you can barely see my dad and uncles run by. We’re watching this in the mid ’00s – 50 years later, near the end of her life. She goes “Why didn’t I point the camera at them? I don’t care about the Grand Canyon."

That's when I quit taking pictures without people in them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1hpb5j/comment/cawuf50/

Yeah I'm down.

Gotta change the voting system if you want to make it safe to vote for your favorite. Anything that satisfies no favorite betrayal would work. My favorite is Approval Voting but any of them would work.

This is the fun part about arguing with Russian agents and people who drank the kool-aid, they shove words into your mouth. Either they're deliberately trying to make you look bad, or they're so stuck in their own world view they can't hear anything other than what they already believe.

Love me some approval voting!

Your options are:

1. Keep the train going as it is while yelling at the conductor to stop the train.
2. Replace the conductor with a guy who is obviously going to speed up the train and kill even more people. In fact, they're going to implement multi-track drifting and start killing people that weren't in any danger from the first guy.

I dunno, seeing as how those really are my only two choices, one of them seems a lot better than the other.

I do with English would switch to phonetic spelling, including the eventi of the speaker, but we're never going to switch. At least the standardized spelling does have a very minor advantage in terms of disambiguation with homophones. But then we had to go and mess up read/read and lead/lead.

Zantac? No shit? Well I'm sure glad all those zantac commercials I used to see didn't work on me!

I have no fucking clue about this particular medicine, and Americans are getting an absolutely raw deal on healthcare

BUT

Non-greedy reasons that can raise the price of a drug:

1. manufacturing costs. Maybe the ingredients are expensive. Maybe the synthesis has a very low yield. Maybe storage is very expensive. Maybe storage is such a bitch the drug needs to be made on-demand. Maybe storage is straight-up impossible so the drug needs to be made on-site.
2. Low demand. If very few people need the drug, you can't spread out the cost of R&D or manufacture. Furthermore, it'll force you to use low-volume manufacturing methods, which will be more expensive. It might be so low volume that you literally just pay a chemist to synthesize the drug on a bench top, which could take weeks of labor, depending on the synthesis.
3. delivery mechanism. Suppose the drug itself is relatively cheap, but it needs to be delivered by a long-term release capsule implanted in your spleen. Suppose it needs to be delivered by IV drip continuously for a week. Suppose it needs to be taken under direct supervision for some reason.

Probably other shit, it's been a while since I studied where healthcare costs come from.

Edit: lol, sounds like the justification the pharma company is going with is "fuck you, is not a child's life worth everything you've got?"