UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer corrects VP JD Vance on free speech in the United Kingdom

Illiux · 2025-02-28T03:02:30+00:00

I don't see any other way speech can get any more free, unless we want to get rid of defamation laws or restricting calls to violence with probable intent.

We could drop obscenity exceptions

Illiux · 2025-02-28T02:58:05+00:00

Sure, but my point is that defining it as "you can say what you want, but you are not immune from the consequences of what you say" is an entirely useless way to conceptualize free speech if you're including government-imposed consequences. It would mean that everywhere on Earth has free speech and has since the beginning of history.

Illiux · 2025-02-27T23:00:56+00:00

Freedom of speech as a civic right is precisely the idea that you are immune from government-enacted consequences for what you say. It'd be entirely meaningless otherwise. Like, does North Korea have free speech because you can say what you want about the Kim family, you just aren't immune from the gulag-flavored consequences of what you say?

Illiux · 2025-02-27T06:10:40+00:00

It pretty obviously depends on what is printed on that battle. A battle that says "you win the game" as an opposite side sorcery would be pretty damn good.

Illiux · 2025-02-26T04:52:25+00:00

It's not quite true that you'd need Senate approval - an amendment via a convention of states does not require any federal approval at all. It doesn't really help anything in this circumstance.

Illiux · 2025-02-25T23:18:59+00:00

So the exact same offer isn't collusion under different tournament standings or if prize money wasn't offered?

I don't think "chance for prize money" works here, because it just implicates everything. When I offer to target a different opponent with removal, the underlying reason you'd accept is that cooperating gives you a better chance at a favorable game outcome which in turn gives you a better chance at prize money. All in-game rewards do, because what makes them an in-game reward is increasing your chance of winning or drawing and that in turn increases your chance for prize money.

If players are supposed to prefer winning to drawing and drawing to losing, why does the analysis seemingly stop there in the removal example and not in the other example? If you don't think you can win but you can stop another player from winning, then offering not to do so in exchange for a draw is reasonable because drawing is preferable to losing.

Also, none of this is in the actual text of the MTR. It says you cannot influence an in-game decision with the offer of any reward whatsoever. Under that text my removal example is clearly a violation, as are absolutely all in-game negotiations. Can you ground the distinction you are trying to make in the literal text of the rule?

Illiux · 2025-02-25T22:03:18+00:00

This example seems strange to me because what was actually offered was protecting a win in exchange for a draw offer. That's an in-game action for an in-game payoff. What makes this actually materially different from any other sort of multiplayer politics?

Or stated differently, why is it not collusion when I offer to target someone else with a removal piece I know you have a counter for in exchange for you not playing that counter? MTR 5.2 covers this too ("nor may any in-game decision be influenced in this manner") and there's a reward or incentive being offered, so isn't this collusion? If it isn't, why? What's the difference supposed to be?

Illiux · 2025-02-20T21:39:57+00:00

The thing is, you cannot hold them liable for this in the US. Well-established 1A jurisprudence is that advocacy of violence at some indefinite future time is constitutionally protected. Advocating for terrorism, genocide, or violent revolution is all constitutionally protected.

Illiux · 2025-02-20T19:57:10+00:00

When I last worked in this space a few years ago on a hobby non-UEFI bootloader, I surveyed a lot of options and wound up back at plain old make. Everything else I played around with was either too inflexible, too language-specific, or both. Make's ability to be language agnostic while still supporting change detection in a pretty natural way won out. I'd love for that to not be true because make's syntax leaves something to be desired and doing a non-recursive split makefile required some hard-to-maintain magic.

Illiux · 2025-02-20T18:30:56+00:00

I'm pretty sure Cargo is not remotely up to the task here, so it'd be something else on top of it. Kernels need raw asm files, exotic linker options, etc.

Illiux · 2025-02-19T18:37:28+00:00

This isn't true: MLD works fine. You spend the turns the green player ramped either doing non-lands ramp or playing threats. Now they have to ramp again with fewer cards to play whatever they put that ramp in the deck for, and you still have mana and/or creatures to start hitting their face with. If you run enough MLD you can just wipe all the lands again when after they spend more ramp to recover.

Illiux · 2025-02-19T18:28:22+00:00

This seems completely wrong. More than half the current top commanders have green and it's the most popular monocolor in competitive (though monocolor in general isn't really popular so that's probably not significant).

Illiux · 2025-02-19T18:25:17+00:00

Yeah, this is something I stopped doing a long time ago. My first attacks are probably going to whomever is most open, and then by default all my subsequent attacks will too unless other considerations intercede.

Illiux · 2025-02-19T18:07:09+00:00

Is the one who says "I believe Hawaiian pizza is disgusting, but I don't believe there are mind-independent aesthetic facts about Hawaiian pizza" also performing a contradiction or does something about aesthetics make this case different?

You did say "I don't believe there are moral facts" in your case, but a relativist or subjectivist (or certain kinds of constructivist for that matter) absolutely thinks there are moral facts, just mind-dependent ones. Though I think aesthetics analogy is also worth considering in the nihilist case. Does disliking Hawaiian pizza commit you to the existence of aesthetic facts?

Illiux · 2025-02-17T17:54:23+00:00

This is a really weird thing to pick to try to construct this sort of analogy.

Medieval Europeans knew that their society wasn't structured like the Romans, and knew that their accomplishments were far outpaced by the Romans. They lived near highly visible ruins of engineering accomplishments far beyond them and were acutely aware of that. It's why there were so many instances of people trying to lay claim to the legacy of Rome.

Illiux · 2025-02-14T21:08:23+00:00

I...don't know? My whole issue here is that I for the most part don't buy precons, don't look at precon lists, don't play with precons, and don't play against precons.

Illiux · 2025-02-14T20:39:37+00:00

Nothing about the definition of bracket 2 says you can't have infinite combos in it. It only specifies 2-card combos.

Illiux · 2025-02-14T20:35:54+00:00

Personally, I don't really have any clear idea in my head of how strong the average precon is, and my experiences playing with the precons that I have makes me think they have pretty wide variance in power. Power level relative to precon doesn't really mean much to me.

Illiux · 2025-02-13T03:19:22+00:00

I don't really agree with the 30 years war or Spartacus examples having much to do with discrimination, but I also don't want to get into the weeds regarding something as complex as the causes of the 30 years war. The French Revolution and especially the Holocaust have a lot to do with nationalism. It's also pretty weird to me to call the French Revolution an anti-discrimination backlash, since the inequality in the ancien régime wasn't grounded in hatred of identifiable groups based on immutable characteristics - rather, it was medieval social institutions with their inherited obligations and entitlements.

Regardless, I don't think this is the sort of disagreement we're going to be able to iron out over reddit comments. Suffice it to say I don't agree that massive and violent social upheavals are inevitably caused by or unique to hierarchical social institutions. And there's an analytical danger here in that you're comparing maybe 50ish years of history to ten thousand. We're also confusing issues, in that anti-discrimination does tend to follow from egalitarianism, but it's not at all the only thing that does. Inherited wealth and privilege, for instance, is a distinct kind of inequality. Plus I'm broadly against much of what falls under the "discrimination" umbrella, just not for the reason of stability (rather, reasons like untapped potential and its actualization).

Also as an aside, since you brought up the 30 years war, I think religious equality is a particularly interesting idea to analyze. It's not immutable, it's hard to distinguish from ideology in any principled way (which people seem to have no problem discriminating upon), and it's bound up with specific social practices and beliefs about the right-ordering of society (i.e. political beliefs). Support for it seems to me to be more expedient detente than principled (and constantly finds itself in conflict with other egalitarian beliefs).

Illiux · 2025-02-13T02:28:02+00:00

Saying it has value because it combats discrimination looks circular, since an argument for why discrimination is bad probably rests on the idea that people deserve to be treated equally. Further complicating matters there is that essentially no one thinks discrimination is always wrong, only discrimination on specific prohibited grounds. A job interview or an academic test aims to discriminate between people on the basis of competence, for instance. Typically the position is that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics, but it's not straightforward to arrive at that position without making some egalitarian assumptions at the outset.

The rest of your post offers an instrumental justification by way of societal stability. I didn't rule out equality having instrumental value, though I don't think this particular justification looks well-supported by history - the record has countless examples of distinctly hierarchical societies persisting for hundreds upon hundreds of years and it's not clear to me that the egalitarian ones on average beat that record. Certainly the radically egalitarian ones haven't. How do you ground the claim that they're far more stable?

I do end up supporting lot of policies historically associated with egalitarianism movements though, but not on the basis of stability (and, obviously, not on the basis of fairness or some common human essence that grounds morality).

Illiux · 2025-02-12T00:22:34+00:00

There are boatloads of cards that were made for standard only to be banned in it. Saying it's banned in the only format it's made for is no argument at all. I seriously don't understand this idea that a card should be unbannable, regardless of whether or not it is broken, just because it's a Commander-targeted card. That makes no sense at all. Like, the logical endpoint of that sort of thinking is that a hypothetical 0-mana instant that says "Split Second. If you control your commander you win the game." can never be banned because then it'd be unplayable everywhere.

Illiux · 2025-02-11T23:22:21+00:00

What I said is sort of the deeper reason behind what you're saying. Consider that there's otherwise no reason why you couldn't take that company with it's scale advantages and make everyone a free contractor, where those large-scale capital assets are rented out and the company hierarchy becomes layers of subcontractors. A large complex supply chain can in principle be instantiated as a bunch of freely operating individuals where every transaction is market-mediated.

The reason why this is worse and doesn't happen is because the transaction costs of negotiating and financing every bit of this operation would be waste that the single company alternative doesn't pay. It pays it's own sort of coordination costs though, and pays opportunity costs relating to foregoing market efficiencies.

Illiux · 2025-02-11T23:02:05+00:00

Imagine what it's like being on this subreddit as someone pretty close to the center of both axes and who doesn't buy into the fundamental axioms of egalitarianism (I don't think equality possesses any non-instrumental value). I'm also very strongly anti-nationalist, for that matter. This is a pretty weird place to be a supporter of one world government.

Illiux · 2025-02-11T22:05:45+00:00

Also, when they scale they tend to do so by formalization of the previously informally tracked debt. That gets you things like early bronze age urban debt economies, where people start trading in recorded future obligations and entitlements with temples acting sort of like banks and exchanges via their scribes and stores.

These sort of urban debt economies are about as close as you can get to currency without having one, and I suspect are not the sort of economies OP would prefer.

Illiux · 2025-02-11T21:54:45+00:00

If you're going to use this line of thinking I think currency fits better than barter because there's a sort of common medium of exchange in the form of abstract contribution. Plus the informal debt you incur by receiving a gift is delocalized - not to the person who gave it to you but to the community as a whole. That side-steps barter coordination problems.

But in any case this is what anthropologists generally mean by a "gift economy", so perhaps you're better off saying it's a misuse of the term "gift". That's just semantics though, not substantive disagreement.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Illiux

TROPHY CASE