It’s an asset charged as a fixed expense, depreciated over time. It is an expense, generally property or equipment, but still is an expense, which is defined as money spent in pursuit of revenue, which is determined before profit.
I agree with this statement but thought I’d have a go at challenging it just for fun. The nature of profits and wages is relative to whether or not a business model requires workers to make profit. For example some companies make money off of owning the result of a worker’s labor (patents, software, creative work etc) rather than their ongoing labor. So while not all profits are necessarily unpaid wages, they are still dependent on the exchange of labor.
My boss likes to show us how much money the company is making at our quarterly meetings. I think he thinks it’s morale-building, but I know, in at least the case of me and a co-worker, that all it does is make us think of how low our pay is.
Dude is having a series of small strokes right in front of the entire world. If this is happening multiple times in front of cameras, imagine how often it's happening off camera.
This is probably the truth. And now he’s probably losing parts of his brain and there’s less and less chances that the ramifications of his actions ever taking place.
McConnell is a partisan hack and an absolute hypocrite, whose actions in the Senate have damaged the country in far-reaching ways.
I aim to be better than him in every way, including not being happy about his physical pain or other complications due to medical issues.
Edit: Really, setting aside the mild editorializing, McConnell did not choose to experience medical problems. We can disagree fervently with the choices he does make, and criticize in the context of those choices as much as we want. It is wrong to criticize or wish ill of people when those criticisms are in the context of something not chosen.
That is rightly offensive when the context is race, gender, LGBTQ+, physical (mental should arguably be here, too) disability. It's equally offensive when the context is illness or some other medical concern.
This is sort of like saying a parent shouldn’t want a punishment on someone who murdered their kid because they need to forgive in order to cleanse their soul or some other religious bullshit.
Perhaps if he weren’t an evil motherfucker, people wouldn’t wish ill of him.
He made tons of choices guaranteeing my absolute contempt for him. I’m not going to carry an ounce of guilt for the schadenfreude I’m experiencing now. There’s no shame in taking personal joy from bad things happening to bad people. A wild, rabid alligator could have appeared out of nowhere during the news conference and bit the man in the dick right there in front of the podium - I’d still have no sympathy to spare. He’s done meaningful and lasting damage to all corners of society during his shameful life and his suffering inevitably brings lots of people great joy.
No not really but reading a thread of comments from parents about “what I’d do if they did this to MY kid” is VERY VERY disturbing and it makes it seem like being a parent is bad for the soul. Now go ahead and explain to me how mentally healthy it is to actual welcome the opportunity to torture another human being.
Welcome the opportunity to torture another human being
Nobody is torturing him (well, except maybe the people who are continuing to prop him up for political gain). It’s the greatest justice there is: nobody is doing anything and he’s still suffering.
I dont need to do a damn thing. I simply need to do nothing and watch as a person who has active contempt for those worse off than him gets a small taste of what his actions have put thousands of people through. Just as I dont feel bad Hitler blew his brains out or Stalin died of a stroke and couldn’t be saved because of his paranoid doctors, I don’t give a damn about someone who has actively caused direct harm to thousands of innocent people.
[R]eading a thread of comments from parents about “what I’d do if they did this to MY kid” is VERY VERY disturbing ...
Saying and reading those kinds of things gives your brain a bit of the experience of those things happening, without them actually happening, and that can be both personally cathartic and generally popular for the same reason. And it's easy to fall into the trap of coming to believe that you actually would want those things if the opportunity were presented to you, when the opportunity has not been presented to you.
There's a bit of selection bias, too. It's far less likely that someone is going to stand up and publicly say that they wouldn't want vengeance against a child murderer, because the general public has a hard time separating the notions of "not wanting to torture people" and "wanting a just and safe society." Human societies, to some degree, embrace violence. That's why prison rape is "funny." I would like to do better than that; I think that a just and safe society can be achieved without also embracing violence as a measure to accomplish it.
I'm also willing to bet that a significant portion of the people who are doing the “what I’d do if they did this to MY kid” thing are not parents. A different significant portion are doing it as a kind of virtue signalling.
Edit: Finally, imagine a scenario where Someone On The Internet says "I'd cut his dick off and shove it in his mouth." Okay, the court determines that the appropriate punishment is for the person to have his dick cut off and shoved in his mouth by that Someone On The Internet. Go ahead now, actually do it. I think the number of Someones On The Internet who would actually follow through with that is vanishingly small.
I appreciate your thoughts out response, but I still think the descriptions I have read and heard aloud come from a place of bloodlust. And no not all of us have that.
Surely some of them do, and I didn't intend to cast aspersions on your position. It is correct to take note and be wary of expressions of bloodlust, with disregard to why that bloodlust is being expressed. I personally think that there are elements of human psychology and cultural momentum also at play, and I tend towards being a very skeptical and "I'm gonna call your bluff" kind of person. That may well backfire on me someday.
This reminds me of conversations I have had with someone specific in my past. When a seemingly crazy person on the street tells me they want to stab me, I don’t care if they probably are just saying stuff. I hustle out of there and maybe call the cops. Someone I once knew did the opposite. Always assume they won’t do anything and pity them. I can still pity them, but I’m not taking any chances there.
I’m not saying you’re like that person, I’m only saying that if someone tries to express ill will, I’m likely to take them at their word, out of caution if nothing else.
It is much more like opposing the death penalty for murder because you believe killing people is wrong. Ever hear “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?”
That’s not apples to apples at all. You’re talking about what consequences should happen for an overall system of punishment in a society where you’re detached as a whole.
What an individual feels about someone who has directly harmed them is completely different. Arguing that you should forgive the people who hurt you because it’s the moral thing to do is what abusers do.
You’re talking about what consequences should happen for an overall system of punishment in a society where you’re detached as a whole.
There is fundamentally no difference between believing the death penalty should not be used by society in general because killing is an immoral act, and believing that the death penalty should not be used in a specific case that impacted you directly because you believe that killing is an immoral act.
Arguing that you should forgive the people who hurt you because it’s the moral thing to do is what abusers do.
You’re the only person that is talking about forgiveness. I did not mention forgiveness. @Nougat did not mention forgiveness. No one said they forgave McConnell. No one said that he should be forgiven.
Nougat said that they believe it is wrong to take pleasure in the suffering of others when that suffering is not a result of their own choices. I’m inclined to agree with them. I don’t believe in karma and I do not believe random misfortune is a substitute for justice. I’m not forgiving McConnell or letting him off the hook for what he has done because his health is failing.
He will probably one of the first politicians who croaks on a life press conference. If only the voters would see this as an actual “Act of God” and get the message.
I think you're right about the seizures part. I've read some about how it might be Parkinson's. He had a fall and a concussion at some point (and concussions are no joke).
Sure, it could be post TBI seizures, or maybe even a brain tumour or he’s had a stroke… I imagine he’s has CT and/or MRI since his first event though, but he really needs an EEG.
I don’t want him to be president again and I don’t think he will be, but this just isn’t the case, and you’re not going to get a favorable SCOTUS decision on it. It’s an interesting idea to write a law school paper about, not a real legal theory.
At the end of the day, most Supreme Courts would be extremely reluctant to disqualify someone and would prefer to leave it to the voters. I think even an extremely liberal court would rule the same unless they were just being nakedly political the way the conservative Justices seem to.
Trump needs to be defeated soundly at the voting booth. There won’t be any easy resolutions where he and his fanatics just quietly disappear.
This is just an acknowledgement that voting is maybe our most sacred right and even a very liberal court is going to be extremely reluctant to rule that the majority of the country can’t vote for who they want. My (layman’s) understanding is that there is enough room to argue that any court would just leave it to the voters.
Frankly, I don’t care because the whole republican party is an existential threat to the nation so it’s not like I’ll breathe a sigh of relief if it’s DeSantis instead.
That article won’t load for me, but I assume they’ve been convinced. While I believe it’s obvious he’s guilty, this would set a very dangerous precedent. We can’t start treating people like they’re guilty before a verdict. Although the wealthy seem to get the benefit of the doubt fat more effectively after charges are filed, but that’s a whole nother debate.
It isnt a theory. Steve Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, whom we’d think should be against this interpretation, wrote an article for Reason in support of the original paper.
The core of the argument is that current context is an extremely good match for the context that created the law in the first place. They seem to believe it enough to think it should be regarded as true. For some reason…
So let’s consider incentives. Why would they want to avoid a court case? Is it possible they’d lose and somehow make a radical event take place in US law?
Maybe they believe it is self-preservation in some way, to avoid a historically significant court decision going against them. Or another way, maybe theyre low key trying to somehow move on.
This may be the closest thing the Republican Party ever does to waving the white flag. They never admit defeat.
What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.
Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.
Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.
Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.
If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.
Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.
In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.
If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.
Ignoring the inexplicable diversion into the Constitution’s applicability to states.
You keep arguing against a straw man (no ownership) rather than the actual point (no absolute right to free carry/use). You can have an individual right to own weapons for the purpose of being a part of a militia without having an inherent right to use those weapons for other purposes.
As to the “bear arms” it’s still in the context of a militia. You can’t be arrested for being in a militia. You and your buddies can march around, showing that you’re ready to rebel against an oppressive government, but that doesn’t mean YOU can individually walk down Main Street firing into the air. There’s a prosocial and political benefit from the citizenship being able to rebel, there isn’t one for having random people be constantly armed for resolving personal disputes.
I thought it was pretty clear my response on supreme court interpretation changing when rather wrong, either obviously or on new technicality, was directly addressing your statement that the individual right to both own and carry arms changed in 2008. I also think you may want to brush up on what a straw man is, as I am directly engaging with your statements to get a handle on your viewpoint and opinion. I apologize if you were saying that we have a right to own military hardware and NFA regulated weapons, as long as we never use them alone or for personal reasons (this would be taking your statement to a probably absurd degree).
My mention of ownership was because prior to 2008, states could prevent you from buying guns as well as preventing bearing them. I would also like to point out that it is certainly legally shakey to form a private militia or paramilitary organization, with multiple laws and even state constitutions outlawing it. I mention this because outlining an individual right to bear arms to prevent the government from arresting their own soldiers for carrying a gun under military orders just doesn’t make sense. I am also curious if you also believe that hunters for the past 200+ years have been breaking the law, using their guns for purposes other than military service. I’m also pretty sure walking down Main Street firing guns randomly is a crime, reckless endangerment at the least, even under the most lax interpretation of the 2nd, and completely different than acting against a credible threat to your life.
Also rebellion is especially illegal, even if/when benefitial or even necessary. It is definitely an opinion that having an armed populace has no prosocial benefits that can be debated. Minority and oppressed populations are harder to victimize when armed. Anyone who has saved their life thought defensive use of a weapon would also disagree with you. The police have no legal obligation to save or help you or anyone else, so making self defense illegal outside of pure hand to hand combat leaves people vulnerable. If melee arms are allowed under the 2nd and the inferred right to self defense, why wasn’t there a distinction made on what kind of arms. Or are they not covered under the 2nd? Genuinely curious on your view of using an available knife or bat or crowbar if someone tries to gravely injure or kill you.
I would also like to argue that no other right in the Bill of Rights requires you to be in or part of a group, either actively or passively, to have them apply or be exercised. Even though a free press is essential for a free society, we don’t have to get a degree in journalism or join a newspaper to have freedom of speech and association.
Militias aren’t government controlled. That’s the whole damn point. You regulate them if they’re doing dangerous stuff like practicing next to a school, but you can’t do things that are effectively preventing them from existing.
For your questions on hunters and ownership and whatever, there’s a difference between constitutionally protected and legal. States can say hunting with guns of various types (you’ll note there are restrictions). You don’t need the constitution to make something legal and it not being constitutionally protected doesn’t make it illegal. States can legalize or restrict firearms for anything that does not prevent the citizenry from forming a well-regulated militia. Having your guns locked up and disassembled when not in use in training doesn’t prevent you from forming an effective(-ish) militia so DC vs. Heller was badly decided (5-4! it was a contentious decision split along political lines).
All the other weapons are arms too and if owned for the purpose of militia service, should be legal. If not, states can decide which weapons are appropriate for which purposes. Texas can decide cowboys were super cool and everyone should have a mandatory six shooter while peaceful Hawaii can decide guns are good for hunting pigs and bad for going to the beach. And if we decide we want to change one or the other, that’s our business, because the government can regulate things that don’t involve preventing the citizenry from rising up against it.
Now that is a very interesting idea, I’ve never heard anyone claim that militias are independent private armies not subject to government control. The militia exists purely for the government to mobilize in times of disaster or war, be it state or federal, as outlined in Title 10 Chapter 12 of the US Code. The National Guard and Naval militia are the standing, organized militia. All able bodied men age 17 to 45 are considered part of the unorganized militia, and subject to being called upon by the government through selective service. All or nearly all 50 states have explicit laws banning private citizen militias and/or paramilitary organizations, which as been affirmed at least twice by the supreme court and as recently as 2008. Any overthrow of the government that no longer is of and by the people would be carried out by the people in general, not a militia or any defined organization.
I think I see your point one constitutionality vs legality, though I would say that all law stems from the powers granted by the constitution and thus are intrinsically linked. If something is enumerated in the constitution, it does not fall to the states to manage in my opinion, as the states only get the “everything not outlined” to legislate in my opinion.
I appreciate your viewpoint on this, thank you for engaging with me on this topic. I may fundamentally disagree with your conclusions, but I can see where you’re coming from now I think and this has been very enlightening.
Hawaii is a colonial project and isn’t respected by the federal court circuits in the same manner that continental states are. It’s closer to Guam and Puerto Rico than other states in that it carries disproportionate financial and military burdens, including the effects from the Jones act for example.
I gotta say, my understanding of MLism is pretty spotty, but a Lemmygrad user opposing the Jones Act seems really weird.
Anti-Jones arguments are generally just raw-freetradeism – advocating to remove protectionist regulations so businesses can off-shore (literally off shore) their shipping to cheaper foreign crews, with the (supposed) benefit being that they will save money and then pass the savings on to the consumer. Were you a big NAFTA fan as well?
Prices in US territories such as Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are sky-high due to the Jones Act to protect American industries at the expense of colonized people. It’s more about the where the ship was built and who operates them than the workers themselves.
Yes, I am a big fan of NAFTA as well. The only parts I dislike are the parts that allow free movement of capital, disallow free movement of people, and protection of IP.
Wild. And the unions who argue against free-tradeism are the bad guys?
Labor is almost always the largest contributor to any business’s costs and offshoring it is very popular with capital, so waving away the 75% American crew requirement as “not about the workers” is wrong. From a DOT study, in 2010 an American crew costs 5x what a foreign crew does.
I live in Hawaii and while I don’t like paying more to subsidize US domestic shipbuilding (if the government wants to subsidize our shipyards, they should do it themselves), but when the major voices advocating for this (in Hawaii) are Republicans, libertarians, and business-oriented Democrats like Ed Case (one can argue those aren’t really three separate categories), I get wary. Because this sure looks like every other time capital wanted to stop having to pay so many expensive Americans with their benefits and labor protections when they could instead offload to foreign workers without any of that. And they pinky swear promise they’ll give us cheaper stuff in return rather than just pocketing the difference.
Your bad guy, good guy view of the world is myopic.
American labor vs International labor is a false dialectic that is used to pit working class against each other by the capital. You do realize that right? How is the Jones Act about the workers as you state when it doesn’t stipulate better working conditions, better pay, or ownership in the business itself? I don’t think you’re seriously arguing that the main reason for the price gouging that is happening in Hawaii is due to higher pay for American crew members, so I’ll ignore that.
In general, Marxists are internationalists and we don’t care about protecting American workers over other workers. I would be a syndicalist if I argued for the supremacy of the union.
You can talk all you want about an international brotherhood, but these are people’s livelihoods you’re dismissing as unimportant.
And requiring American labor IS stipulating working conditions, because there is a very real difference between the working conditions of Americans and foreign sailors. This sounds like all you ever engage in is theory, while capital favors foreign workers because they don’t have the same power (and expense) that American workers have.
Much of the American owned fishing fleet is entirely staffed by much cheaper foreign labor unable to leave their ships because their American company can get away with not applying for work visas. They didn’t just happen to end up with foreign crews effectively held captive during port calls, they do it because they’re cheaper and unable to easily challenge their bosses on conditions.
This isn’t a case of an open labor market where everyone is on an equal footing and Americans simply choose not to do this work. Americans simply can’t work for 70 cents an hour and bosses prize workers that don’t have worker protections and can’t demand more.
For many boat owners, the fishermen are a bargain: Bait and ice can cost more than crew salaries. Some of the foreign workers in Hawaii earn less than $5,000 for a full year. By contrast, the average pay for an American deckhand nationwide last year was $28,000, sometimes for jobs that last just a few months, according to government statistics. Experienced American crew members working in Alaska can make up to $80,000 a year.
An American crew has recourse and the force of law when an employer just refuses to pay their workers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard routinely inspect the Hawaiian boats. At times, fishermen complain they’re not getting paid and officers say they tell owners to honor the contracts. But neither agency has any authority over actual wages.
When your labor solidarity philosophy leads you to support and defend the position of capital, a position known to depower workers and empower abuse, it feels like that’s the point where you should be thinking about what the whole point is.
So you are deliberately ignoring your previous point about how the main business cost and therefore the reason for the high prices in Hawaii is due to higher wages for American sailors. It’s curious how you weren’t actually arguing in good faith then.
You do realize that America as a country can simply change its regulation to stipulate equal pay and treatment for foreign crew members who dock in American ports or are employed by American companies, right? You are arguing that Americans and American companies are allowed to treat foreign workers under horrible conditions, so it is labor solidarity to employ only American workers. Do you see how deranged that sounds when we get down to the meat of it?
What? This response is incoherent. American crews cost more, significantly more than foreign crews, and that has a significant impact on costs. Labor is 2/3 of the operating cost for domestic shipping and 1/3 for foreign shipping. Domestic workers costing more and offshoring being cheaper aren’t some new theory, they’re the bedrock motivation for global free trade. Are you a real person?
And why do you ignore that your philosophy just happens to align with capital? This just read like a neoliberal screed about supporting the global south through deregulation.
Ahhh here comes the bot accusation for you liberals as always. You still haven’t shown how the Jones Act actually help workers, and are arguing for the sake of arguing if you’re committed to your bit of saying that the higher prices in Hawaii are due to labor costs.
I see you’ve again ignored that your anti-protectionist political philosophy lines up exactly with the desires of capital and against that of organized labor.
I’ve read this philosophy before, from proud neoliberals. That’s why I question your authenticity.
You are arguing that protectionism is pro-labor? I don’t think you exactly understand what marxist ideology entails. Again, you are dodging the question on whether you truly believe that labor cost is the reason for high prices in Hawaii or if you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Organized labor sure thinks it is. And it’s not like these free-trade jobs are going to organized labor elsewhere, it’s going to people being exploited with no recourse.
And yes, I think it’s very likely labor is a major component of shipping cost increase from the Jones Act, and would love to see you provide literally any proof otherwise, because I’ve shown you a study of costs that directly compares them. I am notably not saying it’s only cost, but it is almost certainly a major driver, for the simple fact that labor is almost always the major cost in a business and why capital is so desperate to offshore or replace it.
I’ve answered your question. Why is your position aligned with capital?
Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.
No one hates Jesus and his teachings as fiercely as a Christian. Christians would be the firsts in line to crucify Christ for his hippie, soft ideas again if he were to resurrect, this has been known for centuries.
I have a 20 year old t-shirt that says “If Jesus comes back we’ll kill him again” on it in tiny white script. People always thought it was a statement of my intentions but it was always just a comment on society.
Reminds me of the South Park ep Hare Club for Men, when Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League (read: assholes with persecution complex), says to kill the Jews (Jesus was Jewish). Jesus wasn’t hardline enough.
That’s simply not true. A truthful statement is that these people were never Christians. They flew the Christian flag because it lent them credibility and control. But it has been a long time since we’ve seen any Christian values from the loudmouths we see in the news claiming to be Christians. Actual Christians aren’t the people you see on the news. I know a few and they’re great people who do a lot for their communities and the people around them.
A truthful statement is that these people were never Christians.
This is like the most very basic “No True Scotsman” that you can do.
These people are Christian, whether you like it or not. You don’t get to decide that they aren’t. All Abrahamic religions and their holy books are full of awful awful stuff. And no, not just the Old Testament.
If you’re not at least attempting to follow the teachings of Christ, then you’re not a Christian. Just calling yourself something doesn’t make you that thing. I can say I’m a Rock Star until I’m blue in the face, that doesn’t change the fact that I’m not even musical.
Not a true Scotman. Read a history book. Christians have been beheading, slaving and murdering people ever since Constantine converted in his death bed. It was never about being a good Christian in the eyes of God. Religion has always been about power.
Nope. Death is a possible sentence for treason (while no less than 10 years in jail at a minimum). Insurrection sentencing is not more than 10 years and a fine.
There’s some other minor tech that’s fairly nice that I haven’t seen in cheaper cars. Lights under the door to light up the ground on dark nights for when you’re getting out. Just solid utilitarian tech right there.
My single piece of favorite car tech is the cruise control that follows the cars ahead of you and brakes when necessary. I barely use my feet for driving anymore.
I am entirely the opposite. I think cruise just makes driving less engaging and more boring.
Ideally I want everything to be manual, I even control every individual wiper swipe a lot of times if I am just driving along on a highway. Less boring, more engaging. Means I am more attentative on the road.
After having used both Android Auto and Apple Car Play.
I really prefer having a good phone mount, that puts my phone in a glance-able place near the wheel.
That, and quality Bluetooth Audio.
I’d say that that kind of imposes a size restriction, but honestly, the crossovers that everyone seems to buy are about the same size as those these days anyway.
Can’t say that I would buy a minivan, because I hate them.
But my car (Hyundai Azera) has all physical AC buttons and it’s great. But it shows the temp on the touchscreen which is unfortunately kinda fundamental to this car from what I’ve found.
One of the reasons I mentioned android auto, I just have a AAwireless adapter right now, had a Motorola M1 which died. But that is basically all I need other than a charger which I have a 100w type c for that.
I’d rather just have a standard size bank up front, like, 3DIN, and choose my own “car computer”. Have security locking support, guarantee certain power supply, impact, and temperature conditions. And then open up the “car console” market.
And let me be able to upgrade it five or ten years down the road.
If they want to provide a standard first-party center panel offering, fine. But computers and phones have a shorter life than do cars, and I don’t want to be locked into ancient or badly-chosen controls and computers. This “car is a big cell phone” thing is just godawful from a consumer standpoint.
I’ve been driving spoiled with Lane Keep Assist. I’d like to continue to keep that as a thing in all cars.
Also, I used a Ford Escape as a rental this weekend, and holy shit I hate having to wait for the startup animation to complete so I can finally mess with the A/C and have it going on full blast after sitting in the hot sun all day. My Santa Cruz has actual buttons for all the climate control stuff and I had no idea I’d miss it so much until now.
I replied to another comment on this as well. I wasn’t very clear with what I meant, my apologies. I was referring to turning the adaptive part off, and going back to just regular old cruise control.
Can you explain a scenario where that would be necessary? Given that adaptive cruise slows you down below your target speed to follow traffic all I can see that doing is either nothing on an open road, or accelerating you into the vehicle in front of you.
Sure. When I set the cruise, it is because I would like to go a certain speed. I’ll pass if I need to. Setting the cruise to 70 and then realizing you’re traveling 65 behind someone on the highway is annoying. Furthermore, it reduces fuel economy gaining back the speed that got scrubbed off. Additionally, I prefer to be a consistent driver. Varying speeds while the cruise is set seems counterintuitive at times when the traffic is light.
Surely you notice that you’re coming up on someone and can switch to the left lane before you’re close enough that the adaptive cruise starts slowing you down though? It kind of sounds like you just don’t want adaptive cruise at all, since you want to turn it off any time it “adapts”.
You made it! That’s the point. They are 2 different tools for 2 different situations. One sets a constant speed. The other follows the flow of traffic. Glad I could clear that up for you. I’ll continue to use both.
Okay. But why are you turning on adaptive cruise in the first place if you don’t want it at all on the highway? You say you want to switch it “quickly and easily”, but it’s not like you just wind up on multilane highways without warning.
I don’t have adaptive cruise so the way I’m reading what he is saying basically :
Use adaptive cruise in heavier traffic situations where lane changes arent as easy.
Use standard cruise control when the passing lane(s) are clear(er) so they can pass at their cruise speed at leisure without either having to speed up or hold up traffic behind them to perform the pass.
Use standard cruise control when the passing lane(s) are clear(er) so they can pass at their cruise speed at leisure without either having to speed up or hold up traffic behind them to perform the pass.
This works fine with adaptive cruise, just change lanes before you reach the adaptive follow distance.
Lane keep assist is annoying AF when you live in a place where you’re required by law to cross the double yellow when going around bicycles. You get in a steering wheel fight with the car until you find the menu to temporarily disable it. After next stop-start cycle mid-errand, it’s on again by default thanks to US law.
I have to say I prefer launching climate control from my phone before I ever get in the car. And also I’d rather have the cabin try to keep a temperature automatically instead of forcing me to dick with the temp of the blowing air.
How about the unnecessary tech that just shouldn’t be allowed.
Doors that are not primarily manual to open or unlock.
Touchscreen of any type. I’m okay with capacitive touch buttons but they should be in a fixed location and physically distinguishable from other surfaces.
Electronic e-brake
Replacement of any of the main driving functions with anything that is not physical and tactile (turn signals, windshield wipers, headlights)
At least in the US I feel like technology has leapfrogged regulation.
I think a touchscreen is fine as long as real buttons exist for things a driver might want to manipulate while driving. My Outlander has a fairly large touchscreen that offers media and navigation control, but everything else (climate, drive modes, cruise control/drive assists, windows, locks, etc) is real buttons and dials, and there are also an extra set of basic media controls on physical buttons as well (volume, next/prev track, tuning).
I’m quite happy with that. And the passenger still gets all the touchscreen bells and whistles if they want to explore the map or set up playlists or whatever.
Electronic doors can just fuck right off… Just another thing to break… I’d even go so far to say motorized windows these are great until the motor dies and you can’t shut the window.
“It’s becoming increasingly common because we’re still in a competitive labor market,” he explains. “Executives aren’t accepting job offers if flexibility isn’t on the table.”
CEOs of major corporations aren’t a “labor market”. They’re a bunch of narcissists looking for their next hit. They won’t accept working conditions that don’t favor them because they a) don’t need to work and b) their motivation is being a business king and the more ridiculous the package is, the better it feels. It’s just a MBA delusion that he has a special brain worth tens of millions of dollars more than promoting some underling. That the market thought 10% of Chipotle’s entire value was this guy’s special brain is just insanity.
My mother was abused by her father. No one helped. Her own siblings, also abused, blamed her when she spoke out about it. She was then abused by my father. When the police came round after physical violence, they laughed at her.
I find myself not really expecting moral behaviour from humans as a group. That women must endure worse punishment for killing their abusers than their abusers would have received is unpleasant.
Every time I hear about something like this, I find myself thinking that climate change is a good thing. And then I fantasize about a head on gamma ray burst or a lovely coronal mass ejection stripping away the atmosphere.
Humans aren’t so great. But they also seem to be self-limiting, so it all evens out.
As you imply, humans have an overall negative impact on the human world that they create for themselves and each other. I don’t emotionally identify as a human because of that. I just exist, and watch it all happen without blaming myself.
“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Letter from Birmingham Jail, by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
Yes, the status quo can easily put pressure on people to not counter forces which harm humans. Meaning you end up with a human society that harms humans.
My fantasy is that mutually-assured destruction scenario plays out. Give us some good fireworks before our eyeballs are roasted into particles. Humans suck, and it ain’t gonna get better.
I’m just a flyby idiot on Lemmy, but I am blown away that she was charged. The one article I read didn’t go into a ton of details on th actual shooting, but she was raped and trafficked and shot her abuser. Did the DA pursue it because she is black?
She traveled from Milwaukee to Kenosha of her own volition with intent to kill, shot him twice, burned his house down, and stole a car.
Going to someone’s place uninvited with intent to kill that person is premeditated murder. Burning down a house is extremely reckless, others could’ve been easily caught up or injured in this rampage. Not to mention that the house fire likely destroyed a lot of potential evidence. Other victims might have more difficulty finding their own justice as a result, or worse if he had any accomplices their collaboration could be harder to prove.
Cool motive. Very understandable motive even. Still murder. Vigilante justice is no justice.
That’s what I was afraid of. Shooting him when she was about to be raped is different to a prosecutor than planning to kill her rapist and then making it happen.
Im just some random dude on the internet, but if i was raped and sex trafficked I personally wouldn’t feel safe until the rapist was dead. Our legal system is fucking garbage.
…I personally wouldn’t feel safe until the rapist was dead.
If humans had a justice system which prioritised protecting people from sex traffickers and rapists, that would be great. Put them in prison for a long time.
Hahahahaha this fucking guy. Also not what I said, also im pretty sure rape is not equivalent to pissing someone off. Holy shit my guy what an absolutely dumb comment. Cheers 🥂
Men do murder their female partners at a much higher rate already.
Research shows around 10% of college aged males self-report as having sexually assaulted women. This has been replicated in multiple countries: jimhopper.com/…/repeat-rape-by-college-men/
So, yes, men get to murder women. They get to rape women. They self-report having done so as if it’s not that big a deal. They get to enjoy shorter sentences than 11 years, on average. I hope this answers your question.
I’ve just read a comment from a woman who was held captive and tortured by an ex:
"Male friends who know what happened tell me I didn’t fight back hard enough. “Just say no.” I did. “You should have left.” I tried. “You need to put up more of a fight. Don’t let these men walk all over you.” He beat me to the point I was bleeding internally and gave me permanent brain damage.
They will never get it. Nothing we can ever say will make them understand how it feels.
Compassion is not something that many humans are good at, I guess.
Did she break any record? Also AFAIK the same didn’t happen to previous medalists or generally the strongest female boxers. It also didn’t happen with other monsters who broke tons of records (e.g. Katie Ledecky) just during this Olympics.
This makes me think that it’s not what you are saying but there are probably other reasons in play. Probably the IBA and the media making a case after the first boxer withdrew are responsible.
In combat sports there’s a lot of derision for women who look too strong. Instead of complementing their training regiment and dedicated they get called ugly and a man all the damn time.
On the other end usually those same trolls will call women who train and still look feminine to be gold diggers training with so many men, that’s for posting pictures of themselves training, making weight etc. And send them dm’s offering money to be choked out.
I am sure that’s the case, but I think this has not to do with “breaking records” I.e. having success in sport. It might have to do with general gender stereotypes related to body types, for example, or with other stuff.
So either way the comment I was answering to seems counterfactual and sensationalistic.
It has to do with the fact that testosterone is a performance enhancement drug and men are categorically stronger than females, and a man punching a female is strictly unsafe.
A: “Testosterone enhances performance” B: “Men are in most cases stronger than women” C: “A man punching a woman is unsafe”
This vaudeville of ideas have no apparent link between them, the real product of a scattered mind. Scientists are still out about A.
B is a statistical truism at this point irrelevant to the topic, since Khelif is a cisgender woman, and there is no evidence (for the time being) that she is intersex.
C is also immaterial to the discussion. Perhaps you are trying to say that high-testosterone women are “comparable” to men in combat sports, because they pose a greater threat to cisgender women but this is quite the leap, since she is no man.
Testosterone levels vary between individuals. Taking part in combat sports entails a risk of serious injury. The weight categories are in place to make things comparable between opponents, testosterone levels are not. Scientists have questioned whether testosterone level correlate that much to performance outcomes as people think.
The biomedical perspective views the physiology of trans women’s bodies as the source of perceived unfairness, with medicalized interventions (such as estrogen supplementation and testosterone suppression) as the resolution. More specifically, this perspective holds that sexual dimorphism between those assigned male at birth (AMAB) and those assigned female at birth (AFAB) is the reason for athletic differences. **Testosterone measures and boundaries are typically chosen as defining characteristics of manhood and womanhood in the context of sport and are used as the predominant marker to predict and level sex-related athletic advantage and the means for inclusion criteria. The research findings in the biomedical area are inconclusive.**Studies which make conclusions on pre- and post-hormone replacement therapy (HRT) advantage held by trans women athletes have used either cis men or sedentary trans women as proxies for elite trans women athletes. These group references are not only inappropriate for the context but produce conclusions that cannot be applied to elite trans women athletes. Further, there is little scientific understanding about the attributes or properties of HRT, namely testosterone suppression and estrogen supplementation, on the physiology and athletic ability of trans women athletes. This ignores the potential for estrogen supplementation to reduce Lean Body Mass (LBM), and for testosterone suppression to produce holistic health disadvantages.
Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.
The notion of transgender girls having an unfair advantage comes from the idea that testosterone causes physical changes such as an increase in muscle mass. But transgender girls are not the only girls with high testosterone levels. An estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels. They are not banned from female sports. Transgender girls on puberty blockers, on the other hand, have negligible testosterone levels. Yet these state bills would force them to play with the boys. Plus, the athletic advantage conferred by testosterone is equivocal. As Katrina Karkazis, a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University explains, “Studies of testosterone levels in athletes do not show any clear, consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links. And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.” The bills’ premises lack scientific validity.
Results: In this cohort of athletes, TW had similar testosterone concentration (TW 0.7±0.5 nmol/L, CW 0.9±0.4 nmol/), higher oestrogen (TW 742.4±801.9 pmol/L, CW 336.0±266.3 pmol/L, p=0.045), higher absolute handgrip strength (TW 40.7±6.8 kg, CW 34.2±3.7 kg, p=0.01), lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s:forced vital capacity ratio (TW 0.83±0.07, CW 0.88±0.04, p=0.04), lower relative jump height (TW 0.7±0.2 cm/kg; CW 1.0±0.2 cm/kg, p<0.001) and lower relative V̇O2max (TW 45.1±13.3 mL/kg/min/, CW 54.1±6.0 mL/kg/min, p<0.001) compared with CW athletes. TM had similar testosterone concentration (TM 20.5±5.8 nmol/L, CM 24.8±12.3 nmol/L), lower absolute hand grip strength (TM 38.8±7.5 kg, CM 45.7±6.9 kg, p=0.03) and lower absolute V̇O2max (TM 3635±644 mL/min, CM 4467±641 mL/min p=0.002) than CM.
Conclusion: While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research.
So even those highly motivated to prove trans women are disproportionately advantaged have difficulty tapping it. As for combat sports, don’t forget Joe Rogan as well female MMA athletes ended up apologizing to Fallon Fox for all the transphobic BS they had spewed at the time.
Anecdotal evidence? Marketing scheme? Performance enhancing drug manufacturer snake oil? How does this respond to a score of peer review evidence. People everywhere in the world believe in astrology and crystals as well. So what?
Plenty of studies and practical experience. Why do you think administration of testosterone and testosterone inducing drugs is forbidden for professional athletes?
Sure, I don’t care about individual studies, due to publication bias and statistical error. I care only about reviews and meta analysis where study hacking and design bias are controlled. Some of the studies will show a positive effect of testosterone. This is included in the studies I posted. A consistent result should show invariably in numerous controlled studies. Some nazis also publish studies in shithole journals, reiterating their 4chan self-complementing arguments. The review I cited show that the effects of testosterone are flaky at best. Also, testosterone in trans women is less than cisgender women, so this is also useless as a premise for either trans women or high-testosterone cis women in sports. So it is a flaky premise, that means nothing for the policies under discussion.
Why do you think administration of testosterone and testosterone inducing drugs is forbidden for professional athletes?
Lol this has just as merit as “why do you think they don’t take homosexuals in the military”. Um… because it only takes a bunch of prejudiced guys to believe so in order to regulate so, ever since the Old Testament.
Is the effect comparable across sports? Are the effects meaningful for high-testosterone women and/or trans women in sports? I doubt it, so do most organizations I cited.
obviously stereotypes make people’s story more believable and easier to go viral and that is why people choose the stories they choose. doesn’t change the fact that there are people who would rather explain an unexpected level of success shown by a woman by saying she is probably not a woman. the story they choose is irrelevant really. They could have claimed she has cybernetic extensions in her muscles and it would be the same thing. And all you are saying is “but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way”. Sure, did not say every single very successful woman is deterministically being treated unfairly. I am saying it is a tendency.
There are people who are transphobic to the degree of investigating born women, time and again. (Are you aware of the lesbians “bathroom problem”? It predates the current antitrans moral panic by a decade.) It seems their hatred is so rotten that eventually they are the ones unable to define what a woman is. Now even a vagina at birth is not cutting it. Just not beat around the bush, this is about transphobia, and Khelif naming Rowling, Musk, and Trump in her suit (all of them billionaire transphobes with a platform) is no coincidence.
Ah and don’t forget that trans women are not men either. Too many let that slip in this debate because Khelif is cisgender, but let’s not forget that when nazis say “men are stronger than women” they mean trans women as men. They aren’t. Nazi punks fuck off.
but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way
What I am actually saying is that the vast majority of successful women athletes didn’t suffer from this at this time at all. If this argument works only for Imane Khelif (not even the Taiwanese boxer, who has been mostly ignored), out of the hundreds of women who just won medals, maybe it is not an argument that can be generalized to “women of success”, and other causes have to be searched.
This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples and there are hundreds of counter examples, maybe the thesis is wrong. A tendency would require also more examples.
So are you claiming that there is no historical bias towards downplaying women’s successes in general or that in history there was but now as a whole Earth has progressed so far that we have left all those behind? Or is it just that it doesn’t happen in sports but happens in other areas? Or women have been downplayed but never because of success but always for other reasons?
This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples
What you call a handful of examples is taking a magnifying glass and only looking at this particular event. If %10 of successful women have ever been downplayed because of their gender (due to unconscious biases for example) vs %1 of successful men, then this is still a handful of examples which nevertheless points to a significant bias.
None of those, really. Just that downplaying successful women doesn’t happen as much in sport, and when it does it’s not by stating they are men.
If %10 of successful women have ever been downplayed because of their gender (due to unconscious biases for example) vs %1 of successful men, then this is still a handful of examples which nevertheless points to a significant bias.
Ok, but where is the data?
Sure, it point to the fact that women’s success are downplayed. Not that when women are successful they are called men.
I doubt that fight can be counted as “exceptionally good performance”, but anyway why the same didn’t happen for those that both performed exceptionally well and actually set records?
There are so many examples of that not happening that makes me seriously doubt it identifies the right cause(s).
What you think are the right causes are not the causes, they are the tools (stereotypical biases etc) that these people use to make their stories believable.
And counting is not the correct methodological approach to this question it is the incident rate (historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same).
I will make it simpler: In this very thread a person talked about “high testosterone”. Why they didn’t say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions? Probably because of a combination of factors:
The masculine aspect of this particular boxer, that doesn’t fit the image that many people have of women
The media reporting the immediately pushed to a polarization of opinions -> you had to take a side
The previous IBA debacle that planted the seed of the doubt
To me the combination of the above is a much better explanation of the causes for which people attacked this particular boxer, and not the many other women of success, including black and including masculine (e.g., Simone Biles, or Grace Bullen).
historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same
I really don’t see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion. How can you not measure the amount of women who don’t fit the stereotypical woman aspect and yet whose success has not been downplayed due to their aspect (i.e., people called them men)?
Why they didn’t say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions?
It makes up for a more believable story in this context (boxing which is accepted as a masculine sport) and therefore becomes a more efficient tool. It fits in more easily with people’s biases making it much easier to spread. Simon Biles is a gymnast so that does not fit into the context here. Grace Bullen does. But you can not simply say “it did not happen to other women in plausible scenerios, therefore it is not real”. It is like saying belts are useless in %90 of the cases, it is a useless statistic that does not take into account the expected effect.
I really don’t see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion.
What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.
You can take any other boxer, I specifically chose black and “masculine” athletes as examples to show that even race/body type alone was not the determining factor. In these Olympic games you have just Imane’s example: how can you call this a trend or make general statements with one case (not even the Taiwanese boxer got attention)?
What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.
Men don’t have a category to which they are wrongfully assigned when they win sports. This is also because men are the higher category in most sports (i.e., higher performers), so it is a parallel that simply doesn’t make sense. So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are victim of gender stereotypes are generally not the ones who excel at sports (men who are called women in general break the masculine stereotype of the muscular and competitive guy - and these unsurprisingly are not characteristics common in elite athletes).
If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed
But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that downplaying is done by specifically saying those women are men. The whole point here is on the cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in general.
So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are >victim of gender stereotypes
You are thinking it is a worse statistics because you are still too fixated on the particular example that I gave which that she was called a man. We are currently discussing the ridiculous ways in which women’s success are generally downplayed more than men and men are embraced more than women. That is because you think the cause ia gender sterotypes where as I think gender stereotypes is a particular tool/excuae used in this particular case whose cause is unwillingness of particular types of people to accept women’s success. And then you will again say they have embraced a lot of women’s success in this particular event and we will circle back to me talking about incident rates and other historical examples and how compared to men incident rate of downplaying the success will be much higher so perhaps we can stop here, I dont know.
But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that >downplaying is done by specifically saying those >women are men. The whole point here is on the >cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in >general.
If you think the point of my original statement is really about “successful women being called men all the time” then you have really missed the point. It just points out to a particular way in which a woman’s success was downplayed in this particular event vs all the other men’s were embraced. Many other women’s were embraced as well, however the impact of downplaying this woman’s success was profound.
when a man breaks a record he is a super human, when a woman breaks a record she is a man.
How did I miss the point? To me it seems clear that what you were saying that women can’t be successful, if they are, they are considered men (because men have success).
I am not fixating on the example, sorry, it’s the whole thesis you condensed into this sentence that I am fixated on. Women’s success can be downplayed in many ways. Either way, in sports in 2024 I don’t think this is as much of a problem as it is - say - in business. Most importantly, I think this case had not much to do with downplaying Imane’s success (the whole case started waaaay earlier she won the medal), but simply with other factors.
The IBA is notoriously corrupt and in the pockets of Russia. The whole stuff against Khelif was likely made up, because she did not adhere to planned match fixing by the IBA.
Add to that the fact that she is from an African Muslim country and on top of that the country that kicked the French colonisers out. She was made the perfect targeted for all levels of racism and white supremacism, from the very blatant, to the more or less concealed “Liberals”.
To be honest I don’t consider something being Russian as automatically 100% false. This case from the IBA seems likely made up, or at least it is until they provide further proof, which they didn’t so far.
That said, this is irrelevant in this particular conversation. Real or not, that precedent is in my opinion partly responsible for why people decided to attack this particular athletes. I agree with you on the next country also playing a role.
Basically my whole argument is that there are multiple factors that made this a case. The fact that she “broke records” or “had success” is generally very low in the list, imho.
I had to search, and I did find a few articles talking about a rumor.
I don’t think the two events are of same scope and magnitude. The Khelif’s case has been a worldwide media case, what I found for was very US-specific and limited to some niche deranged corner of the internet (www.snopes.com/…/katie-ledecky-trans-rumors/ listed Facebook and Twitter posts from individuals and 2 articles).
Possibly I shouldn’t have used US athletes as example. Given how the topic is so controversial there, I am quite sure you can find a few idiots who would make this claim about any athlete.
A bigot nepo kid hosts a wierd sexist fascist convicted felon with tiny hands. Caveat is, that both are big fans of each other so there won’t be any hardball questions, maybe they suck each others dick?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.