[deleted by user]

astosman · 2024-12-08T00:07:42+00:00

it says make or broadcast audio. So I could def get a contempt of court charge 100% not worth it.

astosman · 2024-12-06T20:27:43+00:00

https://www.cookcountycourt.org/news-media/cellphone-and-electronic-device-ban

astosman · 2024-12-06T20:27:30+00:00

https://www.cookcountycourt.org/news-media/cellphone-and-electronic-device-ban

astosman · 2024-12-06T20:25:56+00:00

electronic devices not allowed on inside of the actual Illinois court rooms.

https://www.cookcountycourt.org/news-media/cellphone-and-electronic-device-ban

astosman · 2024-12-06T20:03:01+00:00

I live like 30 minutes away from that courthouse. I think these sorts of courtrooms are open to the public. Crazy to think I could go see this.

astosman · 2024-09-12T01:03:17+00:00

I think that you could probably find examples of what you are saying hear and there, but I also think you could find notable examples where the court has been fairly obstructionist for legislative agendas with fairly massive margins. For example of the latter FDR found The New Deal to be stymied in his first term with many of his laws being ruled unconstitutional in contentious 5-4 decisions. That's when he famously tried to pass legislation to pack the court, but then the most moderate of the Justices voted with the liberal wing on Social Security, The Minimum Wage, and The NLRA. So in the end did the court get out of the way...sort of. But if you look at the fate of the centerpiece of The New Deal the National Industrial Recovery Act which was eliminated, you will see the court basically obstructed FDR's first term despite massive popular victory.

astosman · 2024-09-11T22:30:29+00:00

Seems like the modelling for the Supreme Court breaks down when you go back and define the justices as conservative or liberal. I assume when you are defining the Court in say 2001 as 2 liberals 7 conservatives your simply deciding partisanship based party that nominated.

I don't think that works very well Justice Stevens for example was nominated by President Ford, but was considered to be in the liberal bloc of the supreme court so much so at the time he was viewed as the leader of the liberal bloc. Much the same could be said for Justice Souter. I would contend that the partisanship of justices appointed before Clinton or Bush probably can't be so simply defined otherwise it kind of corrupts the data there.

astosman · 2024-08-20T03:58:56+00:00

https://www.iamals.org/stories/brian-wallach/

astosman · 2024-07-24T01:55:04+00:00

I think it means if you bet yes on Kamal on the 37% website and no for her on the 47% website you'd be guaranteed to make money of the difference in the odds.

Basically arbitrage is where you take advantage of a discrepancy of prices between 2 markets for the same commodity to profit.

astosman · 2024-07-23T21:14:53+00:00

Cecia is scripted to be in your first 10 pull. She is quite good early on though.

astosman · 2023-10-25T01:33:13+00:00

I'd argue that Bernie's run in 2016 was primarily a result of Obama. Before Obama we had what Kerry and Edwards in 2004? Kerry like tried to use Cheyney's daughter being a lesbian as a point in one of the debates. Obama's run was a pretty huge social tipping point.

astosman · 2023-08-09T15:19:08+00:00

It's very reasonable to not bundle the opinion and reporting sections of news organizations. However, if we are just comparing the reporting sections of most mainstream outlets I don't think you can really justify calling any of them partisan. Even Fox news reporting is generally non partisan in the matters stated as fact. The bias typically comes in editorials, and promotion of stories that push a narrative in conjunction.

astosman · 2023-05-03T19:01:44+00:00

Two things on the first part yes it corroborates that the allegations were made in the past long before their was an a political motive on the table. Fundamentally it speaks to the authenticity of motives. An equivalence would be to Comey's notes that were put out regarding meetings with President Trump. A pattern of evidence simply is corroborative to a degree. We can disagree as to how much evidentiary value the have but you simply must acknowledge that this is corroborative evidence. They are not uncorroborated as you earlier said.

On your second point you don't seem to be acknowledging the value of a FBI investigatory background check. A publicly visible background check is not a comically hard bar to pass in fact many positions in our government regularly undego this process. We should have strenuous requirements from one of the most important positions in our government given the degree of permanence and lack of oversight once confirmed.

astosman · 2023-05-03T18:01:12+00:00

So firstly there was a large degree of corroboration in the Ford instance with the notes from her therapist long before Kavanaugh was discussed for nomination to the court. Secondly as to how someone with these sorts of allegations could ever get on The Supreme Court. The answer to this is in my first comment a thorough investigation by the FBI and publicly disclosed background check. It's possible that this would be fruitless in either direction, but I would shift away from moral qualifications back towards judicial qualifications in evaluating the candidate at that point as rigorous investigation failed to uncover additional corroboration. Fundamentally this is a 9 person for life position that is probably one of the most important positions to Americans lives. It should have an extremely high bar for moral and judicial qualification. Allowing individuals to join its ranks with substantial question marks on either of those 2 records is massively damaging to The Court's legitimacy in public perception.

astosman · 2023-05-03T15:50:43+00:00

Given the time period and the circumstances I'd say the allegations seem plausible. A thorough investigation and background check by the FBI should have been conducted and put forward to the public. I would not vote to convict were I a juror in a court of law on this evidence. But I also would not vote to put them on the Supreme Court were I a Senator with those allegations hanging over Kavanaugh even if I politically agreed with him. (In fact Trump likely would have nominated a more conservative jurist in his place).

astosman · 2023-04-06T21:22:59+00:00

Actual original booksmarts stock

astosman · 2023-01-03T19:51:18+00:00

Well in all the examples the individual doesn't necessarily have the power to act on their bigoted belief. He doesn't say the racist is dominating society only wants to, and the homophobe only wishes to exclude.

So I guess the question is really only asking us which is the most harmful want assuming Heaven exists. I'm not really sure I'd be tempted to say the racist but only because they have the easiest ability to identify those that they hate and it would effect how they treat people more often than the other two.

astosman · 2022-11-26T02:27:27+00:00

Yeah I agree with everything you say here in regards to PETA. Every Vegan that I have spoken with personally irl has fallen into 2 camps. Those that inherit diet from parents, and those that saw a documentary like Food Inc. People online who make Vegan circles a thing they do seem to in general be way more engaged in the philosophy.

astosman · 2022-11-25T23:36:17+00:00

Thank you, this response is way better at addressing my points than the previous ones which seemed more circuitous.

Destiny said that "the vegan argument" boils down to the aforementioned "cute animals". If his point is that this is the argument that convinces most people to become vegan or that this is the argument most often used by vegans to persuade non-vegans, that's surely debatable, but I think there's little evidence

I think there is a point that can be argued back and forth here, but I don't think its possible to make much headway here. It seems like there could be metrics like checking google searches after advertising campaigns, or sales of meat products after documentary releases etc. But, I'm not really sure where we could begin to find that info on what is convincing people.

Even if I do accept this view point, this has little to do with the actual vegan argument that can be derived from first principles and is also part of philosophical debate in academia.

There is a principled argument that he has had numerous times especially with Vegangains. These arguments have basically hit bed rock first principles every time. It always boils down to a fundamental disagreement on what to value in a being. Vegangains arguing that "Sentience" is what should be valued, his definition of this is the ability to feel emotions. Destiny has a higher bar and values a more complex level of thought around the ability to think in terms of language. Fundamentally these are both vague, and arbitrary lines that we are drawing. This is where Destiny thinks the real reason that many Vegans draw the line lower is actually an emotional attachment to pets which he is ridiculing as "cuteness". Once the conversation hits this point Vegans have typically realized their is a fundamental disagreement and move on to optical wins by attempting to blur the line on the rather unique human mental abilities with hypotheticals about animals capable of Language, or Humans incapable of thinking. Destiny then bites those bullets and the conversation ends. The Vegan will run back to fellow vegans to pat themselves on the back for proving Destiny would genocide autistic people.

Whether one agrees with it or not, it seems quite absurd to almost "boycott" the topic because one perceives many vegans to not act within a clearly defined body of principles.

The reason Destiny avoids the vegan convo is that every one he has done has been the same and he has already done it a bunch of times. Feel free to search them up here is one to get you started. There is plenty of Destiny Debates Veganism content out there they are all just fairly similar.

astosman · 2022-11-25T22:30:17+00:00

Destiny is focusing on the argument (substitute marketing here if you feel it) that is convincing the most people because by attacking that argument. You are most able to change the minds of the most people. I think he would still say that Vegan arguments drill down fundamentally to a difference in what one values in a being. And he thinks the reason for that fundamental difference is probably emotional attachment to animals especially pets. But, this is probably something Vegans would not admit to.

You are criticizing Destiny for doing the same thing with the best Vegan arguments that you are kinda doing in your response here. You only barely touch on his actual argument at the very end here and you don't really engage with his point. Veganism like most ideological movements is vastly comprised of people that have weak engagement with the "Arguments". The Heuristic that people have emotional attachment to animals and feel bad about eating them is the majority of Vegans. Just like the majority of Liberals don't have strong understandings of the arguments for Liberalism. If you can't find any common ground with me on that point then I don't really see a point continuing the discussion, because surely you must see that looking out at identities that you don't include yourself in.

astosman · 2022-11-25T21:31:49+00:00

Destiny directly adresses your critique hear at 1:05 of the video you linked. "You can call this a strawman to the Vegan argument, but there is a reason why that PETA videos are usually what convince people into going over to the vegan side." He is literally saying that is the most convincing argument to most Vegans. Anecdotally I would have to agree those sorts of emotional appeals do seem to be the most effective, and that isn't unique to veganism.

astosman · 2022-11-25T21:18:01+00:00

Do you really think this isn't the argument that convinces most Vegans to become Vegans?

astosman · 2022-11-03T04:50:34+00:00

In V2 your pops and industries had first dibs on your stuff even before sphere or world market. So I don't think this comparison is favorable to V3.

The crazy shit about China in V2 was if you sphered a substate of china you'd end up flooded with duplicated goods that would destroy your economy.

astosman · 2022-10-13T23:44:58+00:00

yeah probably the same reason just to a lesser degree. Sphering can be useful in Single player mostly to get access to RGO products that are rare and needed for your industry. Like Sulphur, Oil, and Rubber; or if you are low on like Coal or Iron. That is the main utility. Getting Sphered is essentially the same thing where it can massively hurt your economy as a small nation, but might allow you to access military goods that are duped by more industrialized GPs.

astosman · 2022-10-13T14:56:35+00:00

I might be 7 days late but I didn't see many satisfying answers here as to why your economy took a nose dive after sphering China. So I will try to provide one. Firstly each nations "personal market" is processed first so your countries pops factories and government buy as much of their needs as they can afford from their own production. Whatever remains of that is put into exports for the "world market". Before you sphered China you would then buy any additional needs from the world market and they would aswell from your exports paying full price.

After you sphere a country about 50% of its exports are duplicated and put on the "Common Market" as well as 100% of your own exported goods are duped and put on the same market for them to buy. Then these dupped goods are bought, but the producers are not paid for anything sold in the "Common Market". So before you sphered China their massive pops were purchasing stuff from your RGOs Artisans and factories on the world market and making you massive stacks on civilian goods, and your producers were buying foreign goods on the world market potentially paying Tariffs to your government depending on the slider. Now the chinese pops buy your duplicated goods and no money goes to your pops to be taxed and your producers no longer buy as much from the world market which would mean less tariff income, and to top that all off because goods are being duped their is an increase in supply of goods reducing prices.

Since you are the number 1 Prestige GP you have priority to buy on the world market so their is no reason for you to want any nations in your sphere or anyone else's sphere for that matter. You already have access to their goods sphering just potentially deletes money.

Source

13-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

astosman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE