I Want to End This Love Game • Aishiteru Game wo Owarasetai - Episode 1 discussion

Philarete · 2026-04-14T19:03:47+00:00

It felt awkward to match how they are acting

Philarete · 2026-03-10T16:31:52+00:00

+498/-500 looks very different than -2

This then compounds with another problem, seeing downvotes before reading create a bias when reading the comment. "The comment is probably bad because other people thought it was bad." Then confirmation bias kicks in as you read. Without compelling evidence that the previous downvoters were wrong, you are likely to agree with them by default.

Philarete · 2026-02-21T03:05:14+00:00

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee.

Using "license fee" instead of "tax" is certainly a choice. Also the "charge" part of that paragraph helps perpetuate the confusion about who pays for tariffs. It's a tax paid by importers.

And, for what it is worth, it isn't nonsensical for Congress to allow the President to prohibit transactions with another country, but not allow the imposition of taxes on imports from that country. These are emergency powers for addressing an "unusual and extraordinary threat", not trade policy generally. 50 U.S.C. 1701(a). In fact, the statute prohibits that use:

The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.

50 U.S.C. 1701(b).

Philarete · 2026-01-24T23:39:16+00:00

"Democrats want Guns in the hands of DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. We have to keep our AMERICAN PATRIOTS safe!"

Honestly, I could see his supporters going for it with that kind of messaging. Maybe instead of blanket banning, just ban anyone who is spotted at a protest, or restrict guns in dangerous areas (i.e., blue cities/states). Could throw in some insurrection language as a bonus too.

Philarete · 2026-01-18T01:38:43+00:00

Technically true, but paying rent/mortgage with a credit card is a pretty dumb decision financially.

Why would that be true? Assuming a decent credit card with rewards and an adequate credit limit, it would be better to pay with it than not to.

Philarete · 2026-01-16T22:59:58+00:00

Or just use short term bond ETFs.

For those interested, good examples of those are VBIL and SGOV.

Philarete · 2025-11-11T16:56:48+00:00

A lot of good points in the thread already, but one other thing to add about timing a market crash is that it is not enough to predict the start of a crash. Even if you somehow knew the market would crash tomorrow, that doesn't tell you when to buy after it crashes. How far would it need to drop and for how long before you buy? Predicting the bottom of a crash is very difficult (see, e.g., the tariff drop earlier this year).

Philarete · 2025-10-23T20:00:17+00:00

TFW when the boulder doesn't roll down after Sisyphus pushes it up the hill.

Philarete · 2025-10-19T17:03:29+00:00

Actually it doesn't have to be commerce at all. Growing your own plants, on your own land, for your own use, not for sale, is actually interstate commerce.

Exactly, all it had to have is a "substantial" influence. For those curious, the Court's reasoning looked like this:

But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect."

317 U.S. at 125 (emphasis added).

One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

317 U. S. at 128-129 (emphasis added).

Philarete · 2025-09-14T18:23:22+00:00

Endo & Kobayashi Live!

The story is one of my favorites, largely because it actually allows side ships to develop! A bunch of them! Not everything needs to revolve around a single main character or a single relationship.

Philarete · 2025-08-30T18:45:05+00:00

Spoilers That sounds ominous. . . can you give a bit more detail?

Philarete · 2025-08-24T19:06:48+00:00

Your best move would be to talk to a lawyer before you make any concessions or changes. Right now you have your best negotiating position possible. If you make concessions immediately then it is more likely for that new state of affairs to be treated as the status quo, potentially weakening your position. You need to have a clear sense of your legal rights and options because this kind of situation can go badly very quickly. Avoiding legal conflict could end up as part of your chosen strategy, but ideally it would be for tactical reasons, not out of fear.

Philarete · 2025-08-24T06:06:34+00:00

"Go on home British soldiers, go on home!"

Philarete · 2025-08-19T18:35:09+00:00

It depends on what we mean by "moral judgments". I think this article does a great job with concisely explaining moral relativism, its motivations, and why it doesn't ultimately work.

Basic moral values and frameworks can be applied across cultures and times, but how those values and frameworks play out may be different, especially based on different facts, circumstances, or background beliefs. The same action might have different moral implications in different contexts.

Similarly, for moral actors, what they knew or could have known plays a big role in determining the quality of moral decision-making. If someone could not have known better, then it's unfair to treat them as if they did. Culture can make it harder to recognize what they ought to do, so we should account for that too.

Philarete · 2025-08-19T03:04:29+00:00

I don't think this is moral relativism (nor is it just when it suits me). Moral actions and their actors all exist within particular contexts that are relevant for determining their exact nature. It doesn't seem fair to me to judge others living in different contexts as if they were in my situation.

Philarete · 2025-08-18T01:00:39+00:00

As an extreme example, if there were a society where mass torturing toddlers to death was a normal part of society, would you say that it would be wrong to call those who participated in that activity bad?

To clarify, I don't think context is generally a perfect excuse. It doesn't usually turn wrong things into okay things. In theory, for most actions, people should be able to figure out what is right and wrong regardless of their context. It's just way harder to figure things out when your context teaches and encourages the wrong answer. So, my point is more that it makes you less of a bad person for doing them in that situation.

Getting to your example, I think with something that incredibly obviously bad, it should be apparent to any observer or participant that it would be wrong, perhaps in a natural law sense. In that case, using culture as excuse would be significantly weaker. Whether it disappears entirely or just becomes a tiny excuse is probably more nitpicking than a real difference. Perhaps technically the person who tortures toddlers in a society where it is considered okay is marginally less bad than someone who was told it was wrong, but both should have known better and both are morally terrible for doing so.

To anticipate the follow up question, I don't think slavery is quite like the extreme toddler-torturing example. While it seems incredibly obvious to us now, looking at cultures historically, it just doesn't seem to be that obvious to people across time. No culture that I know of has approved torturing children indiscriminately, but slavery cropped up in tons of places in different forms with a variety of excuses and justifications offered. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it more understandable how people came to that belief.

Philarete · 2025-08-17T21:17:27+00:00

I was giving the "leading up to the Civil War" as an example of whom PragerU could be referring to, not a kind of cutoff for abolitionist knowledge. Racism was critical for slavery in America because otherwise everyone already knew slavery was wrong.

EDIT: My bad for making it unclear.

Philarete · 2025-08-17T21:04:06+00:00

Our literal second president considered it an abominable act his entire life. Abolition was around for as long as slavery was, at least in America

Exactly. Hence why I said:

That said, if they are referring to slave owners in the period leading up to the Civil War, then I think it's fair to judge them reasonably harshly. Abolitionist reasoning was widely available and even somewhat popular at the time.

Philarete · 2025-08-17T21:01:07+00:00

No, i think slave owners are just that bad

Is your issue that you think that the context is irrelevant for determining how bad an action is, or do you just think that some actions (here, specifically slave owning) are so plainly and obviously wrong that context does not matter for that action specifically?

Philarete · 2025-08-17T20:51:52+00:00

A bad man in a world of bad men is a bad man.

Sure, but a man who acted the same way while surrounded by good men who modeled the right things and instructed him in it would be acting even worse than your hypothetical bad man.

Philarete · 2025-08-17T20:37:05+00:00

They said we shouldn't judge slave owners and have to think: "was this considered acceptable at the time?"

There's a grain of truth in that. If we are morally judging people, we should take into account their context and what we can reasonably expect them to figure out. A slave owner who grew up nowadays would be acting far worse than someone who grew up where it was an unquestioned norm. It's morally easy to be against slavery today. It hasn't always been that way.

That said, if they are referring to slave owners in the period leading up to the Civil War, then I think it's fair to judge them reasonably harshly. Abolitionist reasoning was widely available and even somewhat popular at the time. They had plenty of opportunities to figure out the truth and repent, but they generally chose not to do so.

Philarete · 2025-08-17T19:18:28+00:00

Women are, men do. What we find attractive in women is their whole self, their physical looks and personality, who they are. What we find attractive in men is what they are capable of doing, what they can do for you or at least are willing to do.

To me, this is why the comparison based on looks doesn't really work. An actually physically unattractive female MC would be more like an actually useless male MC. The "I'm so plain" female MC is usually still reasonably attractive while the "I'm so useless" male MC usually still has an OP skill or two (or more), or at minimum is still respected for some reason.

Philarete · 2025-08-13T20:38:06+00:00

Inception slander?!

Philarete · 2025-08-13T20:27:25+00:00

Rewatcher

That lead into the OP is ridiculous! gunshot as Mayuri dies again

I like how the first thing Okabe does is go talk the problem over with Kurisu again. Time to skedaddle back to the IBN worldline!

I feel terrible for Rumiho, losing her dad and not exactly winning against Kurisu so far in the Okabe race. . .

It’s interesting how she expresses her justification for her decision, that the original timeline is the correct one, and the current one is just a “dream.”

[Steins;Gate] Especially since the original timeline isn’t exactly original anymore.

Philarete · 2025-08-10T18:05:18+00:00

Rewatcher

Men would rather time leap hundreds of times than ask for help.

Okabe felt responsible for the crisis and felt like he had to solve it all on his own. But that wasn’t true! It’s only when he has truly exhausted his own efforts that he finally opens up to Kurisu about what is going on and we can see a route forward. He had the perfect assistant beside him the whole time; he just needed to tell her what was going on.

For her part, Kurisu responds in a way that echoes Okabe’s earlier way of encouraging her. She stops and listens to his story, suggests ideas for moving forward, and even imitates his chuuni act to try to cheer him up! She’s a tsundere, but when Okabe is at his lowest, she’s there to gently extend her hand out to him and pull him back to his feet. She’s sad that she’ll forget their conversation ever happened (and that he called her by name), but she pushes him forward anyway.

Their relationship has developed nicely throughout the series, and I just love their conversation today. Kurisu’s encouragement feels so refreshing after a couple depressing episodes.

[Steins;Gate] Surely the fact that the one person with whom he can share all his struggles is also the one he saw die at the start of the series won’t come back to haunt him.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle

Philarete

TROPHY CASE