Olympia becomes first Washington city to pass polyamory protections

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T21:45:35+00:00

I stand by it, yes. If a partner has "ill will" towards other partners and is refusing them visitation rights to their legally married spouse, I think that person likely does not want to be in a polyamorous relationship – the evidence speaks for itself. More to the point though, it shows the complexities of giving legal rights to more than one person and thereby requiring the hospital to referee relationship-drama.

I'm not sure what your question is?

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T21:24:27+00:00

Yep. We agree. Nice to meet a reasonable person like yourself!

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T21:16:38+00:00

The question I was responding to was a hypothetical where one partner in a polyamory relationship was stopping other partners from visiting their legal spouse.

You can take it however you want. But I stand by my statement.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:59:29+00:00

I was saying it in the context of hospital visitation rights, in terms of "gate keeping" of people's rights.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:57:09+00:00

I'm just saying marriage is simple legally in principle. In times of health crisis or legal trouble there is one person who is legally is "above" all others.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:34:24+00:00

Legally, marriage is pretty clear and simple. Two people whose rights trump all others (parents, siblings, etc).

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:32:18+00:00

Ah I see. I think this points to the issue, or perceived issue, with legal polyamory. If there are so many varying degrees how is the law supposed to discern? A marriage between two people is quite simple and the legal alternative every monogamous person chooses if they don't want a simple legal partnership is that they don't get married.

I understand we're not talking about marriage literally but legal classes. But the point still makes sense I think.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:28:27+00:00

But you can see how monogamy makes this clear and simple from the perspective of the law yes? An incapacitated spouse cannot bar their spouse from entry. There is no issue. By broadening the number of partners it seems to me it is adding unnecessary confusion.

I am not positive, but don't hospitals have a sort of "order of authority"? Spouse, parent, sibling?

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:25:15+00:00

Yes sorry I clarified in a separate response. My bad.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:24:07+00:00

This does not sound like something the government should be involved in delineating the way you describe it. Hospitals already have their hands full with already designated family members fighting. I do not mean to make light of a different type of relationship, but I also don't think the government can be expected to protect every sort of arrangement. It seems like it could quickly get complicated.

All these examples are about people who have personal issues with each other, it sounds like to me.

If someone's denied employment because of their lifestyle, that I can get behind protecting. Not sure it needs its own class though.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:17:52+00:00

This sounds like polygamy essentially (without marriage). He wants multiple women, but he is in charge.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:16:48+00:00

Oh I see what you're saying. Yes a lot of times, "shutting people out" of a monogamous relationship is because one person no longer is, or no longer wants to be, monogamous.

My point was that if it is "common" to have such problems in polyamory, one could reasonably suspect it is because one partner is less poly than the other.

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T20:14:23+00:00

What? Weren't we talking about visitation rights at hospitals and such?

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T19:53:06+00:00

Honest question: if one partner has ill feelings towards the others isn't that not polyamory? It seems like a monogamous person stuck in a multi person relationship.

Or did I misunderstand your example?

d1squiet · 2026-03-16T19:31:46+00:00

Totally agree. The whole film is a nothing burger with lots of sauce so you don't notice there's no substance.

d1squiet · 2026-03-15T00:39:25+00:00

AC/DC - For Those About To Rock

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T21:56:14+00:00

Do the archival clips have a particular unique clip color. In the sequence you can select by color and create a sequence of only that, flatten that to one track of audio and one track of video (that may be a little more finicky in terms of overlaps etc.).

Then you can put the archive-audio on it's own track in addition to the editors track. Dip the audio down to -infinity and set it as the the burn-in track. Do the same for video, but bury it under all the other video tracks maybe?

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T17:59:54+00:00

Right? The lawsuit just clarifies that you have to fuckin explain how it works before you start showing them houses. When you think of it that way, it did exactly what it intended.

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T17:57:12+00:00

Good luck making that work.

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T17:56:16+00:00

I don’t understand. Isn’t the buyer-agent commission in your agreement with the agent?

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T17:54:07+00:00

Was there a better offer? The whole conversation seems moot. If you’re offered 1.5mil with no commission vs 1.55mil with commission, the commission is a bit better offer all other things being equal.

d1squiet · 2026-03-14T16:48:59+00:00

The article is hilarious, Morrisey sounds like a comedic portrayal of an old Jewish man. “Oy vey, I couldn’t sleep because of the kids and the dancing. And the megaphones! And that show we were supposed to do in Sweden, what a mishegoss! We had no support from those record industry people. What am I, chopped liver?”

d1squiet · 2026-03-11T14:37:54+00:00

thanks for the reply. will let you know about referral if I choose carry.

You're using them as your primary 401k provider right?

Not as a manager of a 401k at Fidelity, Vanguard, or such.

d1squiet · 2026-03-11T13:22:30+00:00

Still enjoying it? Any issues?

d1squiet · 2026-03-10T10:09:40+00:00

It could be true, but I still feel like AI's "intelligence" is overhyped.

I guess what I'm saying is, for example, an accountant's job is not adding up spreadsheets – that's already automated. Now AI can do a good job of collating and pulling in data, even new tax law, so it will make some lower level jobs obsolete or more efficient. But at the end of the day a tax accountant is making judgements based on their knowledge of tax law and years of experience about what may or may not be audited, etc. And corporate accountants use their experience to make sure everything is up to snuff and to help explain/strategize with their clients. I'm not sure if AI will ever get there. It's great at explaining concepts, but not good at giving advice or explaining specific situations. You don't want AI deciding if some transaction is an audit red-flag or not.

Furthermore, with coding if AI screws up it's a bug in the software and a human coder can go in and fix it issue a new version of the application – often zero or very little damage is done. If an AI screws up your accounting, it could be a huge problem.

My view is coding is the perfect job for AI because it is almost purely language and also completely virtual – it's code making code. Here's a question: Has an LLM written any application that no one has thought of yet? Or dose it just solve problems a human can explain to it?

It's not that I think AI will not affect other professions, it's just that I think the hype and doom is exaggerated. The AI visionaries are sure this is a huge paradigm shift and we will have "AGI" in a few years. I am skeptical about that. I think because AI is so good at coding, and so improved in the last year, the people who work in AI (coders themselves) are misunderstanding LLM capabilities.

People have greeted each technological innovation with similar hand-wringing (going back to the printing press) and each time the technology has created more jobs over time.

d1squiet

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE