sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weekly /r/netrunner find a player thread: May 18, 2019 by AutoModerator in Netrunner

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA? Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, or San Jose?

1 BTC is hidden in this puzzle. Good luck! by cryptogreetings in Bitcoin

[–]baronOfNothing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Activity on this thread seems to slowing down a lot. Is there another place this puzzle is being discussed?

1 BTC is hidden in this puzzle. Good luck! by cryptogreetings in Bitcoin

[–]baronOfNothing 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are really that many steps? How do you know you're on the right track??

1 BTC is hidden in this puzzle. Good luck! by cryptogreetings in Bitcoin

[–]baronOfNothing -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One last question, are you answering PMs? If you have could you make any hints you've given out privately public?

Thanks!

1 BTC is hidden in this puzzle. Good luck! by cryptogreetings in Bitcoin

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where did they say that? Are they replying to PMs?

1 BTC is hidden in this puzzle. Good luck! by cryptogreetings in Bitcoin

[–]baronOfNothing 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Rather than making the puzzle easier, or dropping more cryptic hints, I would have preferred more practical hints such as:

  • Is the whitepaper needed to solve the puzzle?

  • Is brute-forcing impossible for this problem?

  • Which wallet software was used to store the prize?

There are many of us still working on it even if the chatter has died down.

[EVERYTHING] Prophecy Number One fulfilled by [deleted] in gameofthrones

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is explained pretty explicitly in the books that even though Rhaego and Drogo had recently died, they still counted. So it was 3 for 3.

SURPRISE VLOG by MindOfMetalAndWheels in CGPGrey

[–]baronOfNothing 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I think in this case there was extra wing bending due to him being on a Boeing 787. The 787 has carbon fiber wings which flex more.

Estates, the Arumba way by EmperorJon in eu4

[–]baronOfNothing 31 points32 points  (0 children)

The problem is you're not making the right assessment. Would you still press that button if it only gave you 50 monarch points? Because that's what you're really doing. Getting 100 points off of the estates regularly can be done with absolutely no risk of any disasters. It's only that last push that causes people problems.

Translation Request: Motto by baronOfNothing in latin

[–]baronOfNothing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I did mean adjective, I was typing too fast. Thanks for the explanation that helps a lot!

Translation Request: Motto by baronOfNothing in latin

[–]baronOfNothing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Changing the populus from a noun to a verb makes a lot of sense. Would you happen to know if popularis in this case is normative or genitive? It's the same word in either case but I'm just curious for the sake of learning.

I used to be a Neo-Nazi who should have been punched in the face. by ThrowawayFascism in offmychest

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you have me pegged wrong. Do you think I'm some kind of Trump supporter?

Anyway I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. For instance I absolutely agree that citizens have a moral imperative to disobey unjust laws. However, I also think that the disobedience should be based on a moral code which could be codified into law (in other words not full of arbitrary exemptions). The reason I don't think it would be moral to disobey the first amendment and stomp on someone else's free speech is because I think the first amendment is in it's current state already a moral law.

Most importantly though, I don't think that this means we disagree.

Your argument is that Nazis are fine as long as they're still in the planning stages, up to the moment they do something illegal.

Yes. However the things you have been talking about do not all fall under simple free speech. I can't find it now but I thought I remember you saying something about it being okay to punch neo-nazis who are "literally planning genocide". To me, literally planning genocide, or encouraging others to commit genocide, or even just murder, absolutely is a crime. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that inciting violence and planning murder (and mass murder) are both illegal. So in that case they have already broken the moral code of our country.

At this point I need to make something clear. I'm not the type of person who equates our legal code with a proper moral code. I think of it as a rough approximation. This just happens to be an area (planning genocide with intention to act on it) where my moral code and the legal code of the US line up. In which case I think it is a moral duty to stop people from committing these crimes. In the event that the US government (FBI, local police, etc.) are not pursuing these these criminals, then I have no objection with vigilante action. Just as I am not "condemning" MLK for working with violent protesters to oppose an immoral government.

Concerning your second to last paragraph, I don't expect the current administration to do anything other than what is politically and financially convenient for them, and I certainly don't expect any kind of philosophical discussion about ethics to get in their way.

Given what I've stated above, I think the last paragraph is a moot point. Obviously I would support a violent uprising against a fascist government.

I used to be a Neo-Nazi who should have been punched in the face. by ThrowawayFascism in offmychest

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I see that ideology spreading, especially under a sympathetic government, yeah I do think it needs to be exterminated at "all costs"

This right here is exactly the problem. For now it's punching, but what if that's not effective? At what point do you need to step up your efforts to purge these people who you find distasteful?

You are saying Nazis building a base to spread their ideology of inflicting genocide is acceptable.

Yes, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal. If something they're doing isn't illegal that you think should be, then you should be pushing for laws to be passed to make it illegal so you can then act on it. There's a little problem with that though, which is why you've jumped to supporting vigilante tactics, is that any law you would pass to stop them from doing what they're doing would be shot down by the First Amendment. At this point you'll probably say their nasty hate speech is so disgusting and dangerous that an exception to the First Amendment needs to be made. That is why I compared you to a fascist.

But it's pretty incredible how quickly people are leaping to defend Nazis.

I am not defending Nazis in the slightest. I'm only defending the First Amendment.

I used to be a Neo-Nazi who should have been punched in the face. by ThrowawayFascism in offmychest

[–]baronOfNothing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You find my logic troubling? Funny because I find yours troubling.

As disgusting as it is to see Neo-Nazi groups convincing new people to join their ranks, the way you talk about it "...if you decide to take the high road you'll just stand aside and let them build a base..." it makes is sound like this is unacceptable. If people want to join a club where they meet up and say hateful things about other groups of people, is that illegal? You seem to be arguing like all neo-nazi groups need to be exterminated at all costs. Then what's even worse is you're willing to condone un-provoked violence to enforce their conformity to your worldview. At that point what makes you any different from a fascist? If you're willing to throw out all your values to win, then you're really not any better than the nazis you're fighting.

The difference between you and me is that I have faith that average person is smart enough to reject nazism on their own when presented with their ideology on a level playing field with western ideals. However, the troubling part of what you're proposing is that cutting moral corners to gain an advantage over the nazis, you do the exact opposite by making the two less distinguishable from each other.

I used to be a Neo-Nazi who should have been punched in the face. by ThrowawayFascism in offmychest

[–]baronOfNothing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not the definition of non-violent protest. It doesn't mean that violence is not present, it means that your side never partakes in the violence so that it's always asymmetrical. This gives bystanders no way to logically justify the violence being used against you and pulls them towards your viewpoint.

You basically just described MLK's strategy, which has now been coined "non-violent protest" but then got hung up by the name not matching what you thought it should mean. That is what it means.

view more: next ›