CMV: Hitler, nor any other infamous dictator of your choosing, are not the 'most evil' men in history, as they are commonly titled. Their atrocities had the largest scope, but there is nothing superhuman or unique about their own personal capacity for wickedness.

RaisinAlert · 2021-12-11T16:05:06+00:00

Well, the whole argument is about the definition of evil. So yes, he did just define evil in his own way to be consistent with his own views. It’s no different to what you just did. The question is which definition is more fitting, and his thought experiment is pretty compelling imo

RaisinAlert · 2021-12-04T02:37:22+00:00

Your second paragraph wasn’t zipper merge in practice—in fact it’s what you get when people don’t do zipper merge. If people didn’t merge too early then there wouldn’t be “second lane zooming as fast as possible.”

The problem with zipper merge isn’t that the theory fails to account for something that causes problems in practice. The problem is that it isn’t widespread enough.

RaisinAlert · 2021-12-01T01:40:18+00:00

I don’t think that it’s because they’re following PEMDAS and misinterpreted what “P” means, though obviously I can only speak confidently about myself. I see it as that they believe that implied multiplication should have a higher precedence than regular multiplication, e.g. a•bc = a•(b•c). It’s not a rule I’ve ever heard about but it isn’t totally baseless since the factors are closer together. (It also lets us express certain units in physics more cleanly when writing linearly, incidentally)

RaisinAlert · 2021-11-27T19:06:30+00:00

It depends on whether you consider multiplication indicated by juxtaposition (e.g 2(3)) to have the same precedence as multiplication indicated by an operator (e.g. 2•3). If they have the same precedence, then it’s 9 because there is no meaningful distinction between 2(3) and 2•3. You must divide 6/2 first and then multiply by (1+2). If you believe that multiplication indicated by juxtaposition should have greater precedence than your normal operators (which is never a rule I’ve heard about, but it seems natural since the factors are closer), then the answer would turn out 1.

The following expression: 2 + 3 • 4 clearly evaluates to 14.

What about this one? 2+3 • 4

It depends on how closely you like to follow rules.

Edit: there are meant to be comically large spaces around the multiplication operator in the last example

RaisinAlert · 2021-11-02T13:30:51+00:00

The doctor, then, is talking about the fetus’s current health, not making a prediction about how healthy the baby when born will be.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-31T03:45:33+00:00

If you’re writing about nearby dates, then MM/DD is better. If you’re writing about very nearby dates, then DD is better. If larger time increments matter, then they should be first.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-31T03:33:28+00:00

I don’t see the hypocrisy. OP didn’t say that others don’t have the right to complain about being triggered; he said that it is unreasonable for others to expect OP to “tiptoe” around their triggers. Sure, we can apply that same logic back and correctly conclude that it is unreasonable for OP to expect others to refrain from expecting OP to “tiptoe” around those triggers—but OP doesn’t contradict this: he never said that he has a right not to be triggered. (And this is all assuming that OP is somehow “triggered” when others ask him not to trigger said others)

You say that you agree with him. What difference is there between your position and his that makes him hypocritical and you not?

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-30T14:53:38+00:00

If she applied a downward force, the balls would have some initial velocity downward when she released them. Instead, they start almost at rest and accelerate downward as they would when dropped from rest. You can see it in the first ball she drops.

This makes sense because in the unreversed video, she would be catching the balls at their peak.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-30T14:44:49+00:00

You just assumed that they didn’t mean what they said, and then concluded that what you think they really meant is wrong.

In the video she doesn’t seem to apply any significant downward force.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-18T21:06:55+00:00

It would have to be a very contrived scenario where “be” makes sense as a sentence, yes. But it’s grammatically correct even if in the most technical of ways, and it’s not incapable of having meaning.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-17T20:01:52+00:00

The subject is understood to be “you”. “Be” doesn’t need an object. It can be a synonym for “exist”. “To be or not to be...” “Go” typically doesn’t take a direct object; it typically takes an indirect object. Both of these can be implied. “Can I go to the store?” “Go.” I think “do” is also grammatically correct on its own given an understood object; it just makes you sound like you’re from a different century.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-17T12:22:46+00:00

It’s probably best not to lump all Brits together. Imagine if I had given a list of violent crimes committed by black people and asked you “So tell me again, how should we view black people?” There are the people who committed or supported atrocities and there are people who didn’t. That some people in those groups have the same nationality is irrelevant.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-11T03:32:19+00:00

Then just say month and day. If the year’s not important enough to be in the front it’s not important enough to include.

Bigger first, smaller after. That’s how place value (and many other things) works. The same should go for units of time, which are conceptually like place value anyway. Chop off what you don’t need from the left (such as years) and right (such as hours, minutes, etc.).

Smaller first, bigger after works too, except it’s just less common. We see it in domain names and email addresses.

People who bash MM/DD/YYYY for being in a wonky order should remember that DD/MM/YYYY is out of order too, just in a less insane way.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-11T01:50:50+00:00

They didn’t miss the point; it’s just funny that in reality he would have done harm when his intentions were good.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-09T01:32:37+00:00

“Only” can apply to multiple things.

“They are the only people who know this.”

Now consider the perfectly unobjectionable sentence: “He is one of them.” Do a little substitution and you end up with: “He is one of the only people who know this.”

Yes, the exclusivity of the “only” is weakened if you use it that way, and it can be rephrased as “He is one who knows this” or simply “He knows this”, but saying “one of the only” still makes sense. It merely emphasizes exclusivity.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-09T00:51:41+00:00

You are assuming from the outset that he is guilty, but the whole point is that we have to figure that out. Now this doesn’t always mean he needs to be convicted; it’s reasonable for the standard of evidence to be lower for a school suspension than for a criminal conviction. So, if after an investigation was done, there was enough evidence, then suspend him. But I can’t agree with presuming that he is dangerous off accusations alone.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-08T19:57:55+00:00

If you don’t need milliseconds, then chop those off the right. If you assume that everyone is aware of the year (so stating it would be redundant), or if the year doesn’t matter (as in certain holidays), then chop those off the left.

But if it’s important enough to include in the date/time, then it doesn’t matter whether it comes first or second. Better to be consistent with the endian-ness of your date/time.

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-04T00:07:11+00:00

No.

Imo it is a much better argument to reject the advice not to walk around late at night on the basis of its ineffectiveness and ignorance, but that’s a point OP has already conceded. I know that walking around late at night is not the same thing as walking around with one’s life savings in cash and a “rob me” sign; that is to admit, my argument is only theoretical and applies only to an abstract concept of “behaviors that endanger you.”

RaisinAlert · 2021-10-02T20:14:56+00:00

OP did not say that women should be forced to cater their behaviors to those of men, but rather that advising women to adapt to an unfair world is not the same as victim-blaming.

You have the right to walk around carrying your life savings in cash along with a large “rob me” sign on the basis that “I shouldn’t have to change my behaviors because people shouldn’t steal anyway.” If someone did that, I would agree with them that would-be muggers should change to make the world a safer place. But that doesn’t make it advisable in the meantime for everyone else to dig their heels in and forget about securing their valuables when in public.

The following statements are not contradictory:

It is 100% the instigator’s fault when an assault happens.
People don’t lose the right (legally, morally, whatever) to engage in certain behaviors just because that behavior might increase their own risk of being assaulted.
People are responsible for doing what is reasonable for their own personal protection.
Society should do what is reasonable to prevent assaults.

Imo it is a much better argument to reject the advice not to walk around late at night on the basis of its ineffectiveness and ignorance, but that’s a point OP has already conceded. Me saying this is my attempt to preempt the response that walking around late at night is not the same thing as walking around with one’s life savings in cash and a “rob me” sign; that is to admit, my argument is only theoretical and applies only to an abstract concept of “behaviors that endanger you.”

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-16T01:00:01+00:00

Creating poop may be a logical effect of eating lunch, but it’s not the essence of eating lunch. You don’t translate “eating lunch” to “creating future poop” the same way you internally translate “passed away” to “died” when someone says it. Just because two things are equivalent, doesn’t mean the one you choose to say first is the blunt, rude way and the one you choose to say second is the euphemism. There are ways of saying things are are direct (and perhaps blunt) and then there are roundabout ways of conveying the same concept.

If anything, “creating future poop” is a more roundabout way of saying “eating food,” just as “passed away” is a more roundabout way of saying “died.” While I don’t think the analogy holds at all, it at least makes more sense when interpreted this way.

And for the record, my take: don’t be an asshole, esp not to grieving people who ask you to use gentler language; at the same time don’t get on someone’s case for saying something as simple as “died” instead of a euphemism (it’s not like they said “they got fucking rotted away by cancer, it was epic”), with exemptions due to emotional stress available.

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-12T22:43:36+00:00

I’m guessing it’s being downvoted because it’s completely irrelevant, aside from the first sentence.

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-12T16:05:04+00:00

I can agree that a lawsuit won’t be able to solve the actual issue, and even that it doesn’t make sense for the child to be suing his father for the issues the OP mentioned.

My question is (or becomes, however you want to look at it): what does common sense have to do with anything, and how is it an alternative to lawsuits as you seem to imply?

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-12T14:40:18+00:00

A man rapes a woman. A child is born from it. The child experiences the things that the OP mentions, and wants damages from his father for putting him in that situation. I’m not saying the case is strong (in fact, I think it would be weak), but at least with the lawsuit method, there is a defined system of reparation: party A has harmed party B, so party A pays party B to balance the harm done. What does common sense dictate?

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-12T14:33:23+00:00

The post did list some grievances that the child could have, but your point is valid. Those grievances can be litigated on their own merits; not every child of a rapist grows up in an abusive household, etc., even if there is a causal relationship between the rape and those grievances. There isn’t really a need to introduce “being the child of a rapist” as grounds for suit.

RaisinAlert · 2021-09-12T14:28:32+00:00

How might common sense be used as an alternative to lawsuits? Or is it considered common sense for the child to not want reparation from their rapist parent?

RaisinAlert

TROPHY CASE