Russia says U.S. relations are on brink of collapse, refuses to confirm Trump call claim
ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works Posts 4Comments 1,554Joined 2 yr. ago
ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works
Posts
4
Comments
1,554
Joined
2 yr. ago
The fun part of the idiocy is that the complaints are all public. A major complaint the financial industry had was that anyone could go and just say anything about an institution and it could be found by anyone.
So the only part they left behind is peoples ability to say bad things about financial institutions, and took away the agency's ability to say "actually, quicken loans hasn't been randomly adding $50 fees to mortgage payments".
Ants use oleic acid to identify other ants as dead, which is also commonly found is plants, although usually not in any notable concentration until we press the plant for oil. Trix use canola oil which contains a lot of oleic acid (compared to other oils, it's not objectively a lot). I wonder if something in the cooking process or combination with one of the other colors or flavors makes it enough to mess them up.
Skimming a research article it looks like oleic acid isn't what they use to mark the burial pile, just what goes in the pile.
There's a thread of truth to what they say. Humans are tribal, but that doesn't mean that what we use as in group and out group signifiers is universal and lines up with western European racial boundaries.
In some cases, existing group divisions were altered to fit with other peoples notions about how it should work: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734.amp
In Africa, certain ethnic groups defined themselves based on language and a rough "wide or narrow" metric. Talk or short, skinny or stocky, wide nose or thin. Etc. it's like a racial categorization from the west, but it uses features that we don't usually use , and only became overt once it was used by colonial powers to classify people and assign social status.
Point being that "I don't know you so I don't trust you" is a human tendency, but race and racism as we would recognize the terms are not, they're just a specific instance.
Sadly, because the tax forms are mostly to get money back. They don't rely on you doing the paperwork right once a year to get what they want. That's why the money is taken out of your paycheck, and most people need to ask for the excess they took to be returned to them.
That's simple. Growing facial hair isn't cool, it's facial hair itself that's cool.
Someone with a big walrusy Wilford Brimly moustache is cooler than someone who's working on growing a moustache.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you pro gun, or anti dog? Do you think that guns aren't designed with a purpose, or that there's some other purpose beyond shooting at people, shooting at animals, or shooting for fun? Companion firearms?
I'm trying to guess but I honestly don't know.
Just a few nits: he did cause the price to drop, but it's not as significant as you make it sound. Their price had just spiked up to all time highs, and it dropped down to where it was before the spike.
The drop wasn't even out of proportion with the fluctuations the price normally has seen over recent history.
Finally, stock price falling doesn't actually get us anything. If anything, it'll make them more aggressive about costs to bolster the earnings sheet to get the price back up.
I'd focus on the "spotlight on the dark situation" side of things, and how making the insurance companies aware that we're mad enough to kill them and laugh at their death means we might actually be getting close to mad enough to institute a program that saves us money and pays for more treatment of higher quality for more people.
I don't think that's an unpopular opinion, although I'd detach the violence from people.
Guns are weapons specifically designed as tools of violence. Some are for designed with animal hunting in mind, some for hurting people, and some for target sports, which are ultimately derived from the other two.
Like any tool, how people intend to use it matters, as well as how they expect to use it and how they prepare to use it.
I will easily judge people based on those factors.
Separating the tool from the use also lets us be a little more objective in our discussions about how we want to regulate the tool. "This type of weapon poses an undue risk to surrounding people in this context, so you can't have it in this context".
I think just about every gun owner I've met agrees with the sentiment if you get rid of the "against people" part.
What type of evidence are you looking for? Every firsthand account of people involved in the decision makes it clear that:
- they believed a land invasion would be brutal
- they believed Japan would not surrender easily
- they believed using nukes would force surrender faster due to unprecedented force
- they chose targets to maximize weapon effect on target measurements
- they chose targets and timing to maximize visibility to the Soviet Union
- they decided upfront that anything short of unconditional surrender was unacceptable
- they believed terror must be maximized because there were only two bombs
They're perfectly capable of wanting to prevent an invasion and wanting data.
If you voted for Harris you're not the person being talked to, are you? They asked why people were mad at those that voted third party.
Why would I be mad at people who voted for Harris?
I don't buy the whole "you're not allowed to be mad at the voters!” thing. They had the same information I did, and decided that instead of saying "gee, the easiest thing I can do to in anyway stop the obvious bad things that could happen is to vote against trump" they did some form of "not that".
If it's a choice between the zoo and the crotch kicking factory, and three vote for the zoo, four for the crotch kicking, and three more couldn't be bothered to vote, *I'm gonna be mad at the people who voted for the crotch kicking as well as the people who didn't vote", and I'm gonna be frustrated when they say it's the zoo's fault for not advertising more and we need to move on and hold hands through the kicking.
The election is over though, Harris lost because she ran a shit campaign on proven losing policy. People need to get over that and focus on actually dealing with the shit sandwich we've collectively been handed instead of continuing to point fingers and argue about whose fault it was.
I mean this with all sincerity: fuck off.
Arguing that letting this and everything else happen is better than what Harris brought to the table doesn't just get forgotten because the people who said this would be better are upset they were wrong and don't want to be blamed.
The "winning policy" is evidently "ethnic cleansing". That's what came of all this, do you get that? Milquetoast ceasefire and continuing the slow push towards a two state solution lost to ethnic cleansing.
Whether it's Trump or Harris that wasn't going to change. The biggest difference is just one of political posturing.
Trump has already increased the weapons being sent, rolling back a Biden administration block on certain weapons. You can't just say "no, they won't use US troops" when we're on an article about trump wanting to use US troops for ethnic cleansing. Why do you think Israel gets a say in what troops go in? It's not like they can stop US if we want to send ours in. Why do you think American troops wouldn't do these things?
We're not at the hypothetical stage here. There have already been concrete changes in policy that are beyond "posturing".
The real problem ultimately though is that none of this existed in a vacuum. If this was literally a referendum on how the US should respond to Israel that would be one thing, but that was such a tiny slice of a much bigger discussion.
Yes, and that's exactly the point. Even if their policies on Gaza were exactly the same, which they very much were not, it would still be better to have voted for Harris because of so many reasons, none of which mattered to the people who swore to not vote for her over Gaza.
This is being civil about things. We're not saying that the people who refused Harris because of Gaza are transphobic, antivax, anti-education, anti abortion, racist misogynists, even though supporting Harris evidently makes one a genocidal racist in their eyes.
Maybe if people said "you know what? Maybe I made a mistake" there wouldn't be such animosity, but here we are. Better a mask off fascist than an imperfect compromise.
And don't worry, I am doing what I can to deal with the shit sandwich they wanted us to have. That doesn't keep me from having the ability, nor seeing the need for, needling people who thought that this would be better for Gaza than what Harris wanted.
On what? It's all crazy. "We're going to invade Gaza" is just as insane as "we're going to put 18 year olds in charge of the Treasury", "eliminate the department of education" or "win the war on diversity".
There's a lot of frustration at the segment of the population who 1) vocally said that Harris would be just as bad as trump in regards to Gaza 2) loudly argued that failure to listen to them in regards to Gaza would cost the Democrats the election, and 3) said that anyone who was willing to vote for Harris despite not perfectly walking the line in regards to Gaza was a supporter of genocide. "The lesser of two evils is still a vote for genocide", and "it's not like it can be more genocide" are both things that have been said to me.
So, according to the people in question: yes, they are that numerous. I'm incredibly sad that I seem to have been right, but also fuck you to all the absolute assholes who accused me of supporting genocide because I'd rather the president get a middling cease fire and shamefully keep sending munitions to Israel than have us actively send troops to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Congrats! You got what you wanted! No more war in Gaza, because we're going to finish it now.
Even if they're in they're not large enough to matter, electorally, they were consistently aggressively smug and superior to anyone who said that maybe trump wasn't going to be the savior of the Palestinians, as evidence by his explicit words.
It's cathartic to be mad at people who were condescending towards you when they were wrong, even if you'd rather not be right, purely because they called you a bad person for wanting the same thing but thinking their way to get it wouldn't work.
I'm aware the historical treatment of indigenous Canadians has been "not great", to say the least, so take that awareness into context with what I say.
From what you describe, you have so much more to lose than so many Americans, who would be entirely ruined if something went "off" at a protest. You have a house, a car, a family and no debt. You're in Canada so you get healthcare.
Going to a protest, a cop can hit you in the arm with a stick, break it, charge you with resisting arrest, incitement to violence, and terroristic threats. If you fight the charges you will almost certainly lose, spend a decade in prison and lose everything. You will instead plead guilty to resisting arrest and assault, do a few months in jail and a few years on probation, and only loose your job, and possibly your house and car.
Hopefully your injury set correctly, because you will not be able to afford to have it corrected or physical therapy. A disability claim can be rejected because there are jobs that you can do one handed.
Even just something as simple as your employer finding out you went can lead to termination.
All this is routine and tolerable to fight injustice if you know people have your back. If it's bitterly cold, far away, and you don't know that you're not alone, it can be really hard to justify. Particularly if you have legitimate reason to believe that you might be met with particularly brutal suppression, both legal and physical, because they've made a point about how they should have been more brutal last time, removed the people who might say no, and encouraged their followers who have a history of violence against protestors.
My point, for all that, is that it's a time of uncertainty and confusion. Would you be getting shot with rubber bullets for freedom and the continuation of the country, or for the continued timely disbursement of treasury funds as congressionally dictated? Is it nationwide and halting the country, or is it you and six other people in the median of a muddy road holding up poster board and being threatened by passerby? (That's how it was when I went to the Mueller firing protests)
At least in my case, it's not "it can't be that bad", but "how bad is it", "can it be recovered", and "can it be resisted". I'll be entirely honest: I'm quite the fan of this country, but I like my life and family more, and I'm honest enough to know the limits of my bravery and patriotism.
Americans loosing control in real life: it's more than a thousand miles away and would take at least 15 hours of continuous driving to get there. I can't afford to skip work, and they've gotten worse since the time they beat and shot rubber bullets at peaceful protestors in a park for a photoshoot, so they might actually just shoot us and I don't want to die. If I'm arrested it will ruin my life: I may never be able to get a job that pays enough, or provides healthcare. Given how many voted for and presumably want this, I've lost faith in my fellow citizens and neighbors ability to even see the problem, to say nothing of doing anything. Nothing like this has ever happened in our countries history, so we don't have any framework for a nationwide protest, when it should happen, how we know it's happening or even what we do. Do I middle school dance this thing and go awkwardly throw a Molotov cocktail at a Denny's to break the ice and get everyone out there?
I want to say we're scared, and we don't know what we should do, or even what we can do. But the reality is, I don't know how big that "we" actually is, because so very many of us are also worried that we're deeply in the minority, and have no faith that our neighbors would stand with us if we tried to do anything.
To add: we legitimately need a French guide to what to do in times like this. They seem to light it up every few years over stuff like "cost of college rose to $50 a semester" or "retirement age rose to still younger than the US age, and still with actual benefits".
I think the most alive you could be would then be some manner of homeless drug addict. You have no power over your life, so no notion of what any day will look like.
This quote kinda rubs me the wrong way because it treats predictability the same as banality.
If you want a job where you never know what the day is going to look like, work for a poorly managed company. You never know what you're going to be doing, sometimes the project you're working on one day is cancelled without warning and now people are mad at you for not having been working on the new priority for the past month. Sometimes you go in and you work 36 hours straight without warning because someone else messed up and your boss doesn't give a shit who's responsible and you're the one who knows how to fix it, so fix it or fuck off. Better hope you don't have a family or you're going to have to make choices.
Knowing what you're going to do tomorrow is just having work of any consequence. Food service knows what they're doing tomorrow. So does a CEO, a software developer at a competent business, or a project manager. I can think of very few jobs whose scope of work is limited to a day, and is so variable that you just don't know what you'll be doing. Temp? Personal assistant to an eccentric actor? (Not the manager type assistant, they need to know the schedule. The one that buys coffee, six turtles and a pair of roller skates and doesn't actually exist).
I could just be dead inside because I know that tomorrow is going to go a particular way that I like.
Governmentally? Not a lot. All the people who would be responsible for doing anything work for the people doing it. All the people who are supposed to have oversight either agree with it, or we're just put into the minority by voters.
The only real options available are for someone to sue in a federal court and hope they get a judge who isn't a trump appointee.
Outside the government? Legally, this is what the election decided the nation wanted, and there isn't much that can be done.
Anything outside the scope of legal action isn't going to be discussed online openly. You see small snippets of data being backed up to archive services, so you know that there are people doing things, but if you're doing something outside the scope of what the administration wants, you keep quiet.
I literally linked you to a large collection of their statements on the matter, backed by data. "Appeal to authority" isn't a magic phrase that lets you dismiss expertise entirely. "Appeal to authority" is a fallacy, but "deferring to expertise" is not. I'm not saying these tariffs are wrong because economists say they are, but that it's reasonable to accept consensus opinion of regarded experts without walking through every step of their argument.
In general, the use of argument from expert opinion is a reasonable, if inherently defeasible, type of argument. Appeals to expert opinion can be a legitimate form of obtaining advice or guidance for drawing tentative conclusions on an issue or problem where objective knowledge is unavailable or inconclusive. It is well recognized in law, for example, where expert testimony is treated as an important kind of evidence in a trial, even though it often leads to conflicting testimony, in a “battle of the experts.”
I specifically mentioned that they can be wrong, and that it's maybe worth reconsidering when you're disagreeing with the experts. Of course engineers can make mistakes. But if a group of them say "that bridge is unsafe, we can show you our calculations", and a non-engineer says that they have an "intuitive feeling" that it is, I know who I'm listening to.
Are you going to keep shifting to different topics? As far as economic arguments go "there's a theoretical economist who thinks this is a good idea that I haven't cited and that agrees with my intuition" is... Not very interesting.
I do ultimately think tariffs will be good for the US.
Can you see how maybe it would be easy for a person to think that you thought tariffs would be good for the US? If that wasn't your point, then I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why don't you care what economists say? They're people who have actually spent time looking at and thinking about these things. They have numbers to back up their claims and, while fallible, they're likely the most qualified people to make assessments about the economic impact of policy changes.
It's like saying you don't care what engineers say when what you're doing is building a bridge. At the very least it should raise a red flag when nearly all of them say something is a bad idea.
More trivia rambling than anything: we do actually regularly send donkeys and mules into conflict. They're better at handling rough terrain than the vast majority of vehicles, so if you can't send a truck you send people with pack animals.
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm3-05-213.pdf
The US army manual for the use and maintenance of pack animals.