[Previous] Recording Setup | Home | [Next] Pre-Scripted Discussions

Open Discussion

This is an open discussion topic. Discuss whatever you want.

If you want a separate discussion just on a specific topic, find any post related to that topic and discuss there. Or ask me to create a new post for your discussion.

How do you find replies and new discssion to read? Use the recent comments link in the side bar. (Or use the Open Discussion link in the side bar and scroll down to the bottom.) Or leave this page (or the recent comments page) open in a browser tab and refresh it periodically (or use an auto refresh browser plugin). Or use the Comments RSS Feed. Or use website change notification software.

List of prior open discussions.

Learn about new blog discussion features including posting images.

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the discussion.

View only the latest 50 comments. This will make the page load faster. You can edit the URL to the number you prefer and bookmark it. This link also includes a "#latest" anchor to scroll down to the last comment, which you can remove if you don't like it. FYI, setting a comment number limit will work on any post if you manually add it to the URL.

Elliot Temple on July 23, 2018

Comments (50 of 819) (Show All Comments)

People overrate licking cooking spoons, pots, etc, b/c that's their first taste of the food which is generally better than later tastes.

Anonymous at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2019 | #11801 | reply | quote

> People overrate licking cooking spoons, pots, etc, b/c that's their first taste of the food which is generally better than later tastes.

Why do you call that overrating if that first taste really does taste better?

Anonymous 2 at 3:57 AM on February 7, 2019 | #11802 | reply | quote

> Marital fighting is funny?

its interesting to see how the culture has changed and how it hasn't. Wikipedia entry on the old TV show The Honeymooners:

>Alice (née Alice Gibson), played in the first nine skits, starting in 1951, and ending in January 1952[9] by Pert Kelton, and by Audrey Meadows for all remaining episodes, is Ralph's patient but sharp-tongued wife of roughly 12 years. She often finds herself bearing the brunt of Ralph's insults, which she returns with biting sarcasm. She is levelheaded, in contrast to Ralph's pattern of inventing various schemes to enhance his wealth or his pride. In each case, she sees the current one's un-workability, but he becomes angry and ignores her advice (and by the end of the episode, her misgivings almost always are proven to have been well-founded). She has grown accustomed to his empty threats—such as "One of these days, POW!!! Right in the kisser!", "BANG, ZOOM!" or "You're going to the moon!"—to which she usually replies, "Ahhh, shaddap!" Alice studied to be a secretary before her marriage and works briefly in that capacity when Ralph is laid off. Wilma Flintstone is based on Alice Kramden.[8]

violent threats by a man to a woman -- regardless of being in the context of a loudmouth who never actually does anything violent -- would never fly now (as comedy, at least!). But marital fighting itself still totally okay.

Anonymous at 5:02 AM on February 7, 2019 | #11803 | reply | quote

>> People overrate licking cooking spoons, pots, etc, b/c that's their first taste of the food which is generally better than later tastes.

> Why do you call that overrating if that first taste really does taste better?

Did you try to figure out why? Did you get stuck on some part of that project?

Are you looking to be handed the answer without much thought? What for? You won't learn much that way.

Anonymous at 11:05 AM on February 7, 2019 | #11807 | reply | quote


Great cross examination of a leftie lying about Venezuela sanctions

Anonymous at 7:51 AM on February 8, 2019 | #11810 | reply | quote

Why Amazon banning powerpoint in favor of memos


> “The reason writing a good 4 page memo is harder than 'writing' a 20 page powerpoint is because the narrative structure of a good memo forces better thought and better understanding of what's more important than what, and how things are related,” he writes, “Powerpoint-style presentations somehow give permission to gloss over ideas, flatten out any sense of relative importance, and ignore the interconnectedness of ideas.”

> Each memo is designed to be a full logical argument, complete with a reflexive defense of potential objections:


> - The point or the objective being discussed


> - How teams have attempted to handle this issue in the past


> - How the presenter's attempt differs


> - Why Amazon should care (i.e., what's in it for the company?)

Alisa at 9:51 AM on February 8, 2019 | #11811 | reply | quote


> Supporters say people could use the extra cash to cover unexpected emergencies, increase their savings and improve their *health*.

Emphasis added. Chicago wants to give people $1000/month for free at taxpayer expense. I think it's notable that *health* was used as a justification for this. Another example of the medicalization of everyday life and of moral issues.

Anonymous at 3:49 PM on February 8, 2019 | #11819 | reply | quote


>> Supporters say people could use the extra cash to cover unexpected emergencies, increase their savings and improve their *health*.

> Emphasis added. Chicago wants to give people $1000/month for free at taxpayer expense. I think it's notable that *health* was used as a justification for this. Another example of the medicalization of everyday life and of moral issues.

good call.

i think it's interesting that they want to give money to increase people's savings. they're really rejecting the old frame of means-testing to try to help only the "truly needy" or whatever. it's just a pure cash grab from the victim-taxpayers now. maybe some of the taxpayers would like to have more savings too? fuck them, i guess! :\

Anonymous at 4:28 PM on February 8, 2019 | #11820 | reply | quote

an overwatch caster just said “the ray of hope is gone” which is cliche. the co-caster said “it’s gone”. he played the role of an echo. taking what the other guy said and agreeing/amplifying is really really common and doesn’t add anything rationally, it’s just social stuff. and everyone does it with everyone. they all play the echo role a lot.

it reminds me of improv. i don't know much about improv but i know you're generally not supposed to contradict the other ppl doing the scene. whatever they make up, you go along with it and find a way to work with it, continue it, help it along. that's how people do conversations. that's standard social dynamics. it's fucking everywhere.

Anonymous at 3:27 PM on February 10, 2019 | #11823 | reply | quote

Seagull was an early, popular Overwatch streamer. he played pro, and was good, but chose to quit to stream more. he is streaming Apex Legends today, the new pubg/fortnite copy from EA that spent a lot of marketing dollars getting streamers/youtubers/internet-people to promote the game.

seagull is a smart person. at least he was. he talks like an idiot now. i watched him a little in the past and it was different. he changed to be more social as a streamer. (I remember Trump, the hearthstone streamer, actually trying to learn to be more socially normal while streaming, and getting tips from his viewers, and trying to please them and stuff. He was really nerdy in terms of his manner, and he's asian, so ppl thought he was smart and good at the game and overestimated his skill.)

seagull was playing smarter than his teammates but still pretty dumb. the game is slow paced, lots of waiting and not doing much, just like prior games in the genre. and it's a big FFA, aimed at being casual. it encourages ppl to play dumb.

seagull and his teammates kept complaining about luck, like whenever they died early game they blamed other ppl getting better weapons/armor drops. late game deaths were generally blamed on it being an FFA and there being multiple enemies from different directions. but they didn't try to recognize when they were outgunned and retreat to find more guns, they would just fight, die, and whine.

the stream provided tons of social interaction examples. they were chatting more than playing (i mean they were playing the whole time, but not actual combat, most of it was ez/slow/boring, just walking around and picking up gear and waiting for the play area to shrink.)

one interaction in particular went something like this. these are not exact words, just the ballpark:

guy: where do you live, seagull?

seagull: with my girlfriend.

some brief back and forth chat where the guy got more details. i think he asked if seagull had a house. seagull is moving soon but it's still just an apartment.

then referring to the first part of the conversation:

guy: it felt like you said "i live with my girlfriend, idiot"

["it felt like you said" wasn't said directly but i forget how he put it. "idiot" at the end of the sentence, after a comma, is an exact quote]

seagull: i'm sorry, i was just unsure what was going on, the question caught me off guard, so i just tried to answer it. i wasn't trying to be a jerk, you're awesome.

guy: i was trying to be a good friend and learn more about my buddy and get to know him more.


all this over a question and then a direct answer. why? what's the subtext?

it's like "i was super brave to ask you a question. i put myself on the line. what if it was a bad question? what if i looked dumb? i took a risk so we could get to know each other and you didn't support me. you just answered the question like it was a short, simple, easy question and you didn't reassure and encourage me. so now i don't really want to ask you a question ever again. i felt like an idiot that my question had a simple answer that i didn't know, and that you didn't give me a good excuse for not having already known the answer and needing to ask. asking questions shows weakness – that i didn't know the answer already – and you didn't do your part in making it ok, in softening that and praising me for the question and making things really friendly."

and seagull was apologetic about this, didn't disagree. and then the guy kept at it even after seagull already acknowledged the justice of the cause *and* did some reassuring and friendly fluff. the guy kept pushing and aggressively explained how he had been doing something friendly which is praiseworthy.

they're so immoral, anti-intellectual, and focussed on conformity to social norms.

btw a social rule i've observed is "never defend yourself". these ppl flame each other all the time and aggression is fine but contradicting ppl is not ok, and being hurt is not ok, so you can almost never defend yourself. all of the flames are half-serious and ambiguous – maybe it's a joke, maybe it's sarcastic, etc. that also prevents defending – if you get all serious mode about a joke ppl will just say you can't take a joke, will abandon that particular flame as something they didn't actually mean, and will think you're revealing that you can be hurt, and how, and that you wouldn't defend yourself unless you were actually hurt (and even then probably not, better to make a show of fake strength, so defending implies either being really bad at social interaction or being really hurt).

Anonymous at 3:46 PM on February 10, 2019 | #11824 | reply | quote

When you defend against a flame, you are acting like the person meant the flame. Better to just pretend they didn't mean. View reality a particular way (a framing) that's good for you and stick to it no matter what and lots of weaker ppl will see things your way. Hell, most of the time ppl flame you in social semi-jokey ways they don't even know if they mean it, they don't think about that, and they're partly testing you, so if you assume they don't mean it then they will often decide they didn't find a weak point and the flame was wrong.

Anonymous at 4:48 PM on February 10, 2019 | #11825 | reply | quote


>In February 1942, as Japanese forces tightened their grip on the Philippines, MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to relocate to Australia.[148] On the night of 12 March 1942, MacArthur and a select group that included his wife Jean, son Arthur, and Arthur's Cantonese amah, Ah Cheu, fled Corregidor. MacArthur and his party reached Del Monte Airfield on Mindanao, where B-17s picked them up, and flew them to Australia.[149][150] His famous speech, in which he said, "I came through and I shall return", was first made on Terowie railway station in South Australia, on 20 March.[151] Washington asked MacArthur to amend his promise to "We shall return". He ignored the request.[152]

Anonymous at 5:26 PM on February 10, 2019 | #11826 | reply | quote

Lefties talk about "emotional labor" a lot. Seems like a bad concept to me

Labor involves performing work -- doing something in the world. Having an emotional experience isn't performing work

Anonymous at 8:47 AM on February 11, 2019 | #11828 | reply | quote

Why is Ted Cruz praising lies and lip service? He's made himself a dupe of such obvious, superficial faking.

Anonymous at 11:31 AM on February 11, 2019 | #11829 | reply | quote

Libertarian Survey Results


>But one always-fascinating source is Liberty’s decennial readers’ survey (No, not that Liberty, and not that one either. This one). First in 1988, then again in 1999, and finally in 2008 (before the magazine’s demise as a print periodical in 2010), Liberty published the results of an extensive survey of their readers and other libertarians. In each of these surveys, respondents were asked to provide demographic information, name their intellectual influences, say whether they agreed or disagreed with various moral, political, and religious beliefs, and analyze a handful of applied moral problems.

> For instance, in 1988, the survey asked a pair of questions about a scenario labeled, “How much is that baby in the window?”

>> Suppose that a parent of a new-born baby places it in front of a picture window and sells tickets to anyone wishing to observe the child starve to death. He makes it clear that the child is free to leave at any time, but that anyone crossing his lawn will be viewed as trespassing.

> The questions asked were, 1) Would you cross the lawn and help the child? And 2) Would helping the child violate the parents’ rights?

> In 1988, 89% of respondents said they would cross the lawn. 26% said that doing so would violate the parents’ rights. In 1999 those numbers were 87% and 31%, respectively. And in 2008 they were 90.9% and 24.1%.

>> Suppose that you are on a friend’s balcony on the 50th floor of a condominium complex. You trip, stumble and fall over the edge. You catch a flagpole on the next floor down. The owner opens his window and demands you stop trespassing.

> In 1988, 84% of respondents said they believed that in such circumstances they should enter the owner’s residence against the owner’s wishes. 2% (one respondent) said that they should let go and fall to their death, and 15% said they should hang on and wait for somebody to throw them a rope. In 1999, the numbers were 86%, 1%, and 13%. In 2008, they were 89.2%, 0.9%, and 9.9%.

Anonymous at 4:41 PM on February 11, 2019 | #11831 | reply | quote

last post should have had some [...] to indicate omitted text, my bad

Anonymous at 4:42 PM on February 11, 2019 | #11832 | reply | quote

> The questions asked were, 1) Would you cross the lawn and help the child? And 2) Would helping the child violate the parents’ rights?

Terrible survey design. I would not cross the lawn and help the child. Because, duh, *I'm not a cop*. I'd call the fucking cops to do that. I absolutely shouldn't take law enforcement into my own hands. The people writing this have no fucking concept of law and order, and putting the use of force under objective controls. The moment they see a child in a window who will die in a e.g. 2 weeks, they think its time for vigilante action?

(Normally I might call child protective services or something like that instead of the cops, but, given the threat to treat people as trespassers, I think some cops better come.)

Also what kind of idiot thinks it violates the parents' rights and would do it anyway?

Also you omitted any statement of what you think, presumably to evade the possibility of criticism (ineffectively since I just criticized the method itself).

> extensive survey

> 2% (one respondent)

Wait, around 50 people is extensive? Ugh.

Anonymous at 4:54 PM on February 11, 2019 | #11833 | reply | quote

>> The questions asked were, 1) Would you cross the lawn and help the child? And 2) Would helping the child violate the parents’ rights?

> Terrible survey design. I would not cross the lawn and help the child. Because, duh, *I'm not a cop*. I'd call the fucking cops to do that. I absolutely shouldn't take law enforcement into my own hands. The people writing this have no fucking concept of law and order, and putting the use of force under objective controls. The moment they see a child in a window who will die in a e.g. 2 weeks, they think its time for vigilante action?


> (Normally I might call child protective services or something like that instead of the cops, but, given the threat to treat people as trespassers, I think some cops better come.)

> Also what kind of idiot thinks it violates the parents' rights and would do it anyway?

Lots of people think rights contradict. I can see someone thinking they're violating the parents' property rights but that the parents don't have a right to kill their kid, and so helping the kid is overall doing the right thing cuz life > property, something like that.

> Also you omitted any statement of what you think, presumably to evade the possibility of criticism (ineffectively since I just criticized the method itself).

i was looking for examples of libertarians engaging in rationalism and specifically applying the NAP in silly ways. i thought the survey results indicated some people doing that.

your comment regarding survey design is helpful cuz it points out a meta level disengagement from reality. the very framing of the choices of the survey was unrealistic.

Anonymous at 5:16 PM on February 11, 2019 | #11835 | reply | quote

> Also you omitted any statement of what you think, presumably to evade the possibility of criticism (ineffectively since I just criticized the method itself).

this is what i had written as commentary before posting the quotes from survey:

There’s some ambiguity in the question (do the respondents think they’re violating the parent’s property rights or parental rights or some other rights?) but the focus seems to be on property rights. Property rights are about ensuring that I get to dispose of the fruits of my labor according to my own judgment. This is necessary for me to have any liberty or indeed to have a life at all. If the fruits of my labor are disposed of according to someone else’s judgment, I have no control over my life, and might even starve at their whim.

Property rights don’t extend to using your property to murder people. For example, I can’t assert my property right in a gun and bullets as a defense if I shoot an innocent person. The gun and bullets were purchased with the fruit of my labor and can be used in certain situations (self defense, shooting targets at a range) and not others.

But a significant number of libertarians took a conception of rights unmoored from the purposes of those rights and unmoored from reality, and used that conception of rights to say that they’d be violating the parents’ rights if they stopped parents from cruelly starving a baby to death. By the way, I think it’s interesting that there were a decent number of people who thought helping the child would violate the parents’ rights but did it anyways. It’s good that they didn’t let their rationalism permit them to condone murder, but OTOH, lacking resolution to those sorts of moral quandaries is part of what causes people to give up on serious intellectual thinking. So it’s a very serious issue.

Anonymous at 5:30 PM on February 11, 2019 | #11836 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 12:58 PM on February 12, 2019 | #11839 | reply | quote

> i was looking for examples of libertarians engaging in rationalism and specifically applying the NAP in silly ways. i thought the survey results indicated some people doing that.

that is what you should say along with the link. that's a huge amount of context compared to none. it could say your opinion more clearly (i can figure out you'd save the child but better to say that directly).

Anonymous at 1:01 PM on February 12, 2019 | #11840 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 1:05 PM on February 12, 2019 | #11841 | reply | quote

a xoxo post about how news that the Senate found no collusion between Trump and Russia will play out


Date: February 12th, 2019 2:44 PM

Author: Muscadine wine

Here's the way this works. It will come out "no collusion," MSM will begrudgingly talk about it for a day or so, then nobody says shit about it.

College students still carry signs saying Trump sucks Putin's dick. Every now and then NYT points out that Trump was proved to be compromised by a foreign power, no one says anything about it.

Nobody cares. In a week or so, there will be some other outage that they're talking about.

Anonymous at 3:32 PM on February 12, 2019 | #11842 | reply | quote

It continues to look grim.

Anonymous at 3:40 PM on February 14, 2019 | #11846 | reply | quote


Immigration Landmines in the Funding Bill

Mark Krikorian

The text of the funding bill was released last night/this morning, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the 1,169-page measure as early as this evening. The bill is disappointing in many respects, but if it had been as advertised earlier, it might have been tolerable.

But my fears that senators Durbin and Leahy would trick the Republican conferees (none of whom knows the first thing about immigration policy) were realized. Standing out among the many distasteful provisions are two poison pills that I hope the Republican committee members either didn’t know about or didn’t understand.

The first regards the fence. I’m not fence-first guy, but physical barriers really are needed on some parts of the border, and the president has been flexible on this in the face of implacable Democratic opposition. Thus the news that the Dems agreed to $1.375 billion for the construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” (i.e., high barriers, not the low ones intended simply to stop vehicles, in places where there’s none now) seemed like a win.

It’s not. That’s because the bill allows the fencing to be built only in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in South Texas. It’s surely needed there, but real barriers are also needed elsewhere, such as the parts of the Arizona or New Mexico borders where there’s only vehicle fencing.

But the Democrats had a reason for this limitation. The bill states:

Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place…Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place.

In other words, local governments would have an effective veto over whether barriers would be constructed. And which party controls all local government in South Texas? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait. Rio Grande City is the least Democratic community in the area, and even there voters supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than three to one.

Add to that the bill’s prohibition on border barriers in a range of public parks and spaces — such as the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, La Lomita Historical Park, or the National Butterfly Center — and the 55 miles of new fencing supposedly provided for in the bill might never get built at all.

The second poison pill is even worse. Section 224 states:

None of the funds provided by this act…may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child.

In other words, this would mean that ICE cannot detain or remove anyone who has effectively any relationship with an “unaccompanied” minor — either because they’re sponsors, in the same household as sponsors, or even just “potential sponsors” (or in the household of potential sponsors!) of such a child.

There’s already a huge incentive to bring a child with you if you’re planning to infiltrate the border, because kids can’t be held more than 20 days, according to the Flores agreement, and we don’t separate parents from kids, so if you sneak across with a kid in tow, you’re released into the U.S.

The new provision would create an incentive for illegal aliens already here to order up kids from Central America as human shields against deportation. After all, 80 percent of the sponsors of unaccompanied children are in the country illegally in the first place — usually parents or other relatives paying criminal gangs to bring the kids to the U.S., knowing that the likelihood that they’ll be repatriated is virtually nil.

One of the members of the conference committee supposedly writing the funding bill, Tom Graves (R-Ga.), refused to sign the report because he wasn’t permitted even to see the text until shortly after midnight this morning, and was given an hour to read the whole thing and decide.

This is no way to run a government. The president should make clear his earlier willingness to sign the package was based on the summaries that had circulated, not this specific language. The responsible thing to do now would be to pass a continuing resolution (extend spending at current levels) for a week or so, to avoid another partial government shutdown but give lawmakers time to actually go over the thing carefully and pull out the poison pills.

Anonymous at 5:02 PM on February 14, 2019 | #11847 | reply | quote

Leonard Peikoff in his course on logic, lecture 2:

> No one could classify all possible kinds of errors and fallacies that human beings engage in and there would be no point in any such exhaustive classification. So, some errors have no particular name, either in English or in latin. If someone says to you, all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo, there is no particular fallacy that you can accuse him of the best thing in such a case is just to say, he's crazy.

He's so incompetent! It's a non sequitur. (BTW non sequitur is on Peikoff's list of fallacies presented in the course, along with plenty of less well known ones.)

Anonymous at 1:33 PM on February 15, 2019 | #11848 | reply | quote

Lefties up until not that long ago considered NYC's transit system a model that other cities in the country should follow. how is it nowadays?


> Date: February 16th, 2019 7:09 PM

> Author: Upset Jew

> Was visiting friend in Brooklyn and traffic was bad so I opted to take the "subway".

> Firstly, there are homeless encamped all through my local station. Secondly, I get down to the train platform. It is mobbed because the trains are delayed.

> Finally, a train pulls into the 8th Avenue L station, and I mean creaks in at like 0.3 mph. The outside of the train looks dirty and some of it appears to be splashed with some brown, slime like substance.

> I enter the train and it quickly gets packed to beyond standing room only. The train remains this way until I reach my stop, Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn. I exit the train and the station literally smells like diesel fuel. It clicks in my head I read an article about this the other day. The city states that the smell "poses no threat to human life." I laugh to myself, because it smells like a fucking coal mine.

> I walk with a throng of humans to exit the station. The exit is being repaired because the passageway is crumbling and everyone is forced into two narrow exit lines because the passageway is split in half due to construction. I choose one, and it ends up leading me round a corridor to a huge puddle right before the stairs to exit the station, because the ceiling is leaking water from...somewhere.

> What a magical experience.

Anonymous at 10:05 AM on February 17, 2019 | #11849 | reply | quote


>As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and National Socialism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA".[15] Goebbels expressed that sentiment in a 1925 public speech, declaring that "the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight".[16]

Anonymous at 2:04 PM on February 17, 2019 | #11850 | reply | quote

I'm more inclined to agree with Cernovich. Anyone agree with Horowitz?

Anonymous at 4:07 PM on February 17, 2019 | #11853 | reply | quote

I replied to Horowitz:

If I were president, I would have hired you. Trump didn't. He surrounded himself with people who dislike the MAGA movement, and he naively thought the swamp (both dem and GOP) would be reasonable. And he didn't prioritize the wall on day 1.

curi at 4:13 PM on February 17, 2019 | #11854 | reply | quote

#11853 Trump has control over who he hires. he's allowed MAGA type people to be pushed out or fired them himself (Bannon, Gorka, Sessions) and let the establishment people take over. he's also failed to achieve major campaign promises (WALL, repealing obamacare). Trump sucks, though the Dems are much worse...sigh

Anonymous at 4:13 PM on February 17, 2019 | #11855 | reply | quote

Nice example of how people put superficial symbols / rituals of affection over actual achievements like being a real parent


> I was recently consulted in the prison in which I work by an inmate who was the proud father of two children. I asked him whether he still saw them: continued contact with their biological offspring being something of a rarity among the imprisoned paternal community. Instead of answering me directly, he rolled up his sleeves and pointed to two tattoos on his forearm, red hearts with scrolls across them bearing the names of his children—two tattoos among many others, needless to say. He hadn’t seen either of his children for years, and had never contributed anything to their upkeep. Indeed, the idea that he should have done so was so completely alien to him and to the mores of the world in which he moved that the thought had never crossed his mind, even fleetingly. By contrast, he obviously believed that his tattoos were a sign of genuine devotion to his children. Their names were engraved, if not on his heart exactly, at least on hearts painfully engraved on his skin, and one could easily imagine a touching deathbed scene in which he would be reunited at last with his children and would there show them the tattoos as proof that he had never really forgotten or abandoned them. They would probably accept this as having been true, and therefore forgive him his dereliction of duty

Anonymous at 7:50 AM on February 18, 2019 | #11856 | reply | quote

Exposing Shallowness


via Instapaper

> “What makes individuals choose to undergo the painful, expensive, and virtually irrevocable process of tattooing? Having listened to an unspecified number of tattooed members of the middle classes, the author identifies several motives, all of which struck me as unflatteringly revealing of the soul of modern man.

> First there is the assertion of individuality. One of the author’s informants says,

>> [Being tattooed] separates me from anybody else. No one else has anything like what I have. I feel a little bit different from Joe Shmoe in the street, and I guess it makes me feel special.

> This is infinitely sad. That a person’s individuality should be made to depend upon so crude an outward sign as a tattoo is in fact an indication of the fragility of that person’s identity”

Anonymous at 8:00 AM on February 18, 2019 | #11857 | reply | quote

Apple's management doesn't want Nvidia support in macOS, and that's a bad sign for the Mac Pro


via Instapaper

> “What we found was support inside the Spaceship for the idea, but a lack of will to allow Nvidia GPUs. We've spoken with several dozen developers inside Apple, obviously not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, who feel that support for Nvidia's higher-end cards would be welcome, but disallowed quietly at higher levels of the company.

> "It's not like we have any real work to do on it, Nvidia has great engineers," said one developer in a sentiment echoed by nearly all of the Apple staff we spoke with. "It's not like Metal 2 can't be moved to Nvidia with great performance. Somebody just doesn't want it there."

> One developer went so far as to call it "quiet hostility" between long-time Apple managers and Nvidia.

> For sure, somebody at Apple in the upper echelons doesn't want Nvidia support going forward right now. But, even off the record, nobody seemed to have any idea who it is. The impression we got is that it was some kind of passed-down knowledge with the origin of the policy lost to the mists of time, or an unwritten rule like so many in baseball.

> Two years ago, pre-eGPU support, this block may have made at least a modicum of sense. Any Macs with PCI-E slots were aging, and the user base was dwindling through attrition alone. But, the drivers are available for High Sierra and are getting updated to this day —and we can testify that they still work great in a 5,1 Mac Pro, including the 1000-series cards.

> The Nvidia driver can be shoe-horned onto High Sierra machines who want a Nvidia card in an eGPU. We're not going to delve into it here, but there is a wealth of information over at eGPU.io, if you're so inclined. And, don't upgrade to Mojave if you do so.

> This decision makes absolutely no sense with eGPUs now being explicitly supported in macOS. They work fine in Windows, so it's not a technical limitation. Some tasks perform better on AMD, and some on Nvidia, it is a fact of silicon. There is no reason beyond marketing and user-funneling to prohibit use of the cards on a software level.

> No, there aren't a ton of eGPU installs. Yes, a good portion of those users are fine with AMD cards. But, it is absolutely overly user-hostile to not allow Nvidia to release the drivers not just for future eGPU use, but for the non-zero percent of those users who are keeping the old Mac Pro alive. And if this is some kind of ancient Apple secret or preserved grudges that are preventing it, that's even worse.

> And, it makes us worry what "modular" means for the forthcoming Mac Pro.”

Anonymous at 8:14 AM on February 18, 2019 | #11858 | reply | quote

Armada is against banning wobbling

Armada is against banning wobbling. He says:

> “If we’re going to ban everything that might hurt the game… that might hurt the game even more in the long run.”

Anonymous at 7:43 PM on February 18, 2019 | #11860 | reply | quote

Wobbles' smashboards post against banning wobbling (2013)

https://smashboards.com/threads/so-there-seems-to-be-a-recent-freakout-about-the-ics-because-of-wobbles-performance-at-evo.338636/post-15713055 (emphasis in original)

> 2) I didn't get second because of Wobbling. I got second because of wobbling *combined with everything else I did right*. If you want to point out the big powerful thing that gave me awesome punishes, you should also point out the times where I had to win on the strength of a single ice-climber. My 3rd game against Mango consisted of 3 stocks that I took *without landing a grab*. There's no dispute I wouldn't have gotten second without the infinite! Does that mean we should look for *every strategy that has ever made a difference in somebody's placing* and force people to replay the matches without them, to see who is TRULY BETTER?


> No. Because that's dumb.


> 3) You are trying to pigeon-hole Melee into your own definition of "what Melee is truly all about, deep down." You're using fuzzy, emotional arguments that don't bear on actual competitiveness. When you start saying "that's not what the game is really about" your argument becomes about as valid and intellectually fulfilling as "edge-guarding is too cheap," and "stop using glitches and exploits" and "projectiles are for pansies, fight up close like a man."


> Do you know what Melee *really is*? Melee is the closed set containing all things programmed into the game. Anything else is your construction. We did not make the gamespace, we just explored it. [...]

> You don't see Fox players stop using u-throw u-air because it's so good, even though we've known about it *SINCE THE PREVIOUS INSTALLMENT OF THE GAME*. Don't you find it abhorrently ridiculous that Fox players would stoop to using such a brutally efficient combo when they have so many more tools, and it would truly demonstrate their skill as a Fox main if they didn't rely on such an old and already explored combo?

Anonymous at 7:47 PM on February 18, 2019 | #11861 | reply | quote

ph00tbag smashboards post against banning wobbling

Another good post on the subject.


> Stage bans are much easier to countenance. The primary reason they're so defensible is because they are, first and foremost, discreet. Furthermore, there's an in-game mechanic for making stages unplayable in random select, indicating that preventing play on certain stages because their impact on gameplay is undesirable is an intended part of the game. Turning off items is a similar situation.

> Wobbling ... suffer[s] from the fact that [it isn't] discreet. There is no clear line where you begin to do [it]. Furthermore, there's no in-game mechanic for removing [it]... Banning Wobbling would be simply because you find it to be aesthetically undesirable, and it would affect a character that isn't even a problem to the metagame in and of themselves.

> And yeah, aesthetics is really the only reason to ban Wobbling. That's what you're saying when you spout platitudes on "what Melee is all about." I don't even know what you mean when you say that. I doubt you do, either.

Anonymous at 10:06 PM on February 18, 2019 | #11862 | reply | quote

> aesthetically undesirable

straw man. it's strategically undesirable too. bad game design (though of course it wasn't game design, it's a bug).

> There is no clear line where you begin to do [it].

that would be solvable by adding an option to remove wobbling to the game patches (UCF) that are already used by most tournaments. it could define a clear line, e.g. all characters automatically break out of any grab after 10 seconds.

> and it would affect a character that isn't even a problem to the metagame in and of themselves.

that's false. ICs are the best character in the game up until around top 100 skill level. (starting at a somewhat decent skill level player that can e.g. wobble and recover when hit off stage. below that who knows or cares). this affects the vast majority of smash players. it affects tons of people's tournament experiences. ICs punish you extremely hard for not having perfect tech skill (the kind of stuff even top 10 players screw up sometimes, though on average they are good enough to beat ICs). if you aren't a professional player, playing vs ICs is unfun and unfair. the reason it's unfair is wobbling doesn't take much skill and it's punishing you in a huge way for not having 10 times the skill the ICs player has. you can outplay them over and over and grab them 10 times for each time they grab you and still lose. you can hit them way more than they hit you and still lose. you might say "well then everyone who isn't top 100 should pick ICs" but most ppl don't want to be ICs players and do wobbling themselves, and would have less fun that way and not play the game.

(btw at the top skill levels, call it top 100, the character that passes ICs and takes first place is puff, which is also a character that gives a ton of value relative to difficulty of using them and which can 1shot kill you to punish your mistakes. and puff is hard to punish in general since you mostly can't edge guard her and she can get out of a ton of combos b/c she gets hit too far away and doesn't fall very fast.)

(btw ppl talk about "there's only one puff that does really well" as if that means puff isn't OP. but most of them don't see to notice there's only one fox main who does really well, leffen. the other top players you see playing fox are mostly doing it as a second or third character, and most often for the purpose of fighting puff because puff counters their main character – falco, marth, sheik or peach – so hard that they think the matchup isn't playable.)

Anonymous at 10:25 PM on February 18, 2019 | #11863 | reply | quote

Good points that I agree with:

- aesthetics aren't the only issue with wobbling

- wobbling could be banned in an objective way with a patch

- wobbling affects game balance for players at low and medium skill levels (who comprise the majority of players)

One point I have a comment on:

> [wobbling is] a bug

I thought that Melee physics explained why wobbling works: roughly, the target is repeatedly re-stunned by an attack while he is unable to act due to already being stunned. In doubles, two players can execute a team wobble which works by the same principles as the Ice Climbers' wobble.

Anonymous at 9:31 AM on February 19, 2019 | #11864 | reply | quote

Wobbling is a bug because it is *not intended by the game designers*. The code doesn't do what they want. If they knew that would or could happen, they would have forced a grab release after 10 seconds or something else to prevent the infinite. Whether team wobbles in doubles are a bug is more debatable but there's no way the designers would have left 1v1 ICs wobbling in on purpose.

Anonymous at 12:18 PM on February 19, 2019 | #11866 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 2:31 PM on February 19, 2019 | #11867 | reply | quote

Teachers also frequently do try to be fair. But it's weird. They are like "I don't want to give away too much, I don't want to be too helpful, that'd make the test too easy." They sort of try to strike an arbitrary compromise between making their teaching too helpful regarding passing the test, or not helpful enough.

The teacher knows what's on the test. He could just tell the students and let them take notes on it, or even hand out notes containing all the answers to all the test questions. And he can tailor his teaching of concepts to the test to a greater or lesser degree.

By contrast, if someone else does the testing, the teacher can just be 100% on the student's side and help him in any way the teacher can, no compromises. It makes way more sense. The teacher shouldn't know what's on the test, he should just prepare the students to take an unknown test on that material.

Anonymous at 2:45 PM on February 19, 2019 | #11868 | reply | quote


> Nest Secure had a secret microphone, can now be a Google Assistant

> The Nest Secure system had secret microphone that can now make the Nest Guard security hub double as Google Assistant device. Happy Safer Internet Day!?!

> If your IoT device secretly contained a microphone, which was previously undocumented, would you be happy when the device maker announced an over-the-air update that can enable the microphone for virtual assistant voice functionality? That’s what happened with the security alarm system Nest Secure.


Anonymous at 6:21 PM on February 19, 2019 | #11869 | reply | quote


> The bill President Trump signed last Friday is worse than anything Hillary could ever have gotten through Congress.

Anonymous at 2:08 PM on February 20, 2019 | #11870 | reply | quote

a corrupt socialist?!

read whole article if you need more context, i'm just pasting the super interesting part at the end https://medium.com/@ltthompso/the-congresswoman-loves-the-swamp-d33296ec251e

>A quick tour through AOC’s campaign expenditures reveals the extent to which Brand New Congress midwifed her campaign into existence, precisely as the FAQ described above would have it. But AOC’s campaign was different from the others backed by Brand New Congress PAC, and not simply because she won. Like other candidates, AOC paid Brand New Congress LLC for strategic consulting, in her case totaling $18,880.14. Unlike in the other cases, Brand New Congress PAC turned around and paid her boyfriend as a “marketing consultant”.

>Indeed, while Brand New Congress PAC’s ten largest expenditures were paid to Brand New Congress LLC for “strategic consulting,” a sum that totaled $261,165.20 over the course of the campaign, its eleventh and twelfth largest expenditures were paid to Riley Roberts.

>Brand New Congress PAC paid Roberts $3,000 on August 9th:

>Eighteen days later, AOC’s campaign paid Brand New Congress LLC $6,191.32:

>A month later Brand New Congress PAC then turned around and paid Riley Roberts another $3,000.

> Why would Chakrabarti, a founding engineer at Stripe and a wealthy veteran of Silicon Valley, be hiring a no-name “UX Experience” guy with little discernible marketing experience to serve as Brand New Congress PAC’s sole marketing consultant?

> The answer seems to be that Chakrabarti was funneling money paid to him by AOC’s campaign back to Roberts and by extension to AOC.

> At the beginning of October, more than four months into her campaign, AOC’s fundraising had been anemic. Excluding an in-kind contribution from Chakrabarti, she’d raised only $3,032.75 but had already spent $27,591.27 — more than half of which she’d paid to Chakrabarti’s Brand New Congress LLC. By the end of 2017 she’d spent $37,249.94 but raised only $8,361.03. That’s a lot of money to stick on a credit card. Since no loans are recorded on her campaign books, presumably either AOC or Roberts was fronting the necessary cash.

> It looks to me like Chakrabarti was effectively reimbursing AOC for a third of her expenses with Brand New Congress LLC, perhaps so that she would stay in the race despite her mounting debt.

> The shadiness of the whole business may also explain why Roberts lists his residence as Arizona for the expenditure, rather than New York. Roberts is from Arizona, but was living in New York with AOC. His other contributions to her campaign, both cash and in-kind, list New York as his residence.

> Regardless of whether or not Roberts was officially AOC’s spouse at that time, it seems probable Chakrabarti was reimbursing her for her campaign expenses off-books. Brand New Congress PAC simply served as a pass-through to do so.

> When AOC won, she then hired Chakrabarti, her strategist/patron, as her Chief of Staff. Taking money from a rich guy, trying to hide it by passing it through a PAC, and then giving her benefactor a government job.

> That’s definitely unethical and potentially illegal. Chakrabarti may have made an illegal campaign contribution in excess of federal limits. Regardless, it raises questions about Chakrabarti’s hiring as AOC’s Chief of Staff after her election. Maybe add that to your next lightning round, Congresswoman.

> Finally, all of the above is based on public information. It took me a couple of hours to pull it all together and write it up. I suppose this could be called muckraking, but it’s really just minimal reporting that nobody in the press decided to do. I can’t emphasize enough how easy it was to find all of this information. It’s literally just sitting there. But no reporter bothered to read it. Democracy dies in darkness? Nah. Reporters are just lazy.

Anonymous at 2:29 PM on February 20, 2019 | #11871 | reply | quote

> Reporters are just lazy.

Some laziness, but also a lot of partisan bias.

Anonymous at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2019 | #11872 | reply | quote

They like universities so much they want to pretend to be one. jfc

Anonymous at 9:22 PM on February 20, 2019 | #11873 | reply | quote

People put all their forgetting in all the wrong places. They should forget what other people think instead of what they think.

curi at 12:55 PM on February 21, 2019 | #11874 | reply | quote

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)