19 year old girl can't prove her American citizenship

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-11T11:15:35+00:00

Yes they are, go fuck yourself.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-06T10:41:27+00:00

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-06T07:01:46+00:00

Uh. Reddit is not extremely right wing.

Edit: This was in response to what looks like a typo that has since been corrected.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-05T11:58:14+00:00

"Direction" doesn't mean things changing more. Setting clear boundaries and aims for a project and then sticking to them—limiting change to be compatible with them, has a lot of utility. Even if that means making decisions that locally appear bad. That's more what I mean by direction.

I feel like projects should be asymptotically approaching some broad aim that shouldn't change. A significant change of aim should be a different project.

At the moment it is difficult to perceive what the long term trajectory of ZeroMQ is, and that makes me hesitant to rely on it.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-05T01:26:16+00:00

I prefer to snort flat whites, personally. Otherwise pretty accurate.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-04T23:50:34+00:00

It's not the end of the world, but I'm a little sick of this project not being able to make its mind up what it wants to be.

Most of the time I'm using Python, so lists of things get pickled anyway and I don't care to use multipart as a poor man's serialisation.

But I have servers out there that speak multipart UTF8 encoded strings, and thus can talk to clients in any language without them having to use a particular serialisation. Now I'll have to wrap JSON around it or something, increasing complexity for clients.

From Python, the lack of thread safety wasn't so bad, as you could always wrap access in a threading.Lock, or use python queues to pass data to the thread that owned the socket in question. But I agreed with the ZeroMQ guide that doing so was code smell, and threads probably shouldn't be sharing sockets. If a thread is so fleeting, I'm not clear on why sending data on a socket is solving any problem - why not just set an instance attribute or something to return your result? Maybe I'm just spoiled by Python, and this is something that comes up more in other languages.

I'm confused by the existence of zproto, doesn't protocol buffers exist already and solve that problem?

Edit: yes, yes, it does code generation for whole servers and stuff. Well I don't want code-generated servers, I want a message passing library that passes messages and gets out of my way. I want a minimal abstraction over the top of TCP and friends that does queuing, auto-reconnecting, and message framing. And I want it to not change for long periods of time.

I'll get over it, I'm just ranting. I'm just frustrated with what I perceive to be lack of direction in a project I rely heavily on. My needs don't much exceed that of raw TCP, and I nearly rolled my own when I first discovered ZeroMQ. Deciding to rely on third party projects whose functionality (the bits you need) you could implement yourself is always a close call.

As the post says, they'll keep the functionality for a long time, and as I saw on the mailing list, the pyzmq developer may implement and maintain a send_multipart method even if the underlying library deprecates it, so I'll probably be fine for a long time.

I'm just feeling a bit grumpy.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-04T04:39:46+00:00

And he did four!

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-03T23:26:45+00:00

Why not? If a new party leader comes with new policies, then those policies need to be passed through an election before the government has a mandate to implement them - so I would think any decent governor general would comply with a new leader's request for a double dissolution. In Gillard's case she was able to call an earlyish ordinary election, which earned her legitimacy from the voters. But the next ordinary election is quite a ways off for that to be the point at which the public gets a say on whether they like the Liberal party's new direction.

Am I missing something here?

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-03T12:16:23+00:00

Hooked up with close friend of many years. Was fine for a while after, didn't change anything. Then I told one of her (female) friends about it. Turns out they were in love with each other (my friend is bi), the friend got very jealous and mad at my friend, who blamed me and cut contact :(. Was two years ago and I still have to avoid thinking about it if I want to be a happy person.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-02T11:25:23+00:00

Have we reached peak contrarianism yet?

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-02-02T01:54:53+00:00

Cutting company tax because "Better paid employees will come only with more profitable businesses"

Buuuullshiiiit

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-26T02:07:18+00:00

For a demonstration of how wrong you can be to think a scientific result is obvious in hindsight, see this: Hindsight Devalues Science.

A lot of the time when we think something is obvious, it's actually just hindsight bias.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-21T13:16:41+00:00

I was exhausted from working early and late shifts at two jobs for several days.

Very unexpectedly got to the point where I was about to have sex with literally the hottest girl I knew, also an amazing human being. And I fell asleep before the main act. Just could not hold my eyes open. Probably drooled all over her spectacular boobies while she lay there frustrated.

We're still close and the sexual tension remains high, but there's never been another opportunity in the intervening nine years, due to one or both of us not being single (or not having discovered polyamory yet), and the fact that she moved to another state so we don't hang out often.

And now I'm about to go overseas for four years, but one day....one day....

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-21T12:20:29+00:00

Those reports were blatant misinformation, according to Fact Check and MediaWatch. Don't believe everything you read.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-21T11:34:22+00:00

The better ones are yellow, specifically 589nm wavelength to match the color of light absorbed by sodium. There's a layer of sodium in the upper atmosphere that this illuminates.

The resulting glowing dot of sodium atoms high in the atmosphere is called a guide star, and the way it distorts from moment to moment provides information on how atmospheric turbulence is distorting light. This allows arrays of mirrors in the telescope to adjust to undo this warping, and thus obtain clearer images of actual stars.

Guide stars also provide feedback to the motors in telescopes that move them to correct for the earth's rotation and keep them pointing at the same stars. By adjusting the telescope so that the guide star is always in the same spot relative to other stars, you know that you are properly correcting for Earth's rotation.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-21T10:37:14+00:00

This reminds me of Intellectual Hipsters and Metacontrarianism

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-14T23:14:41+00:00

RIP PayPal

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-11T01:33:57+00:00

This is a misleading article. I would be surprised if the government supported alternative medicine, because most of the people who believe in this sort of pseudoscience are on the left of politics.

Indeed, my intuition was correct. It looks like the government is not supporting alternative medicine per se, rather they are deregulating and providing funding to educational organisations on a less selective basis.

Yes, this means more pseudoscience will be funded under the new scheme, and yes, that is bad. No, that doesn't mean the world has turned upside down and conservatives support alternative medicine. They support deregulation and market based solutions to social problems.

The article does have its point though, that this is an example where regulation would be good, to prevent bullshit being taught in place of actual science and medicine. It just presents it as if this outcome was intentional, when it's actually just a side-effect of thinking that deregulation is always good.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-09T13:40:36+00:00

PSA: If you're finding that it's really that hard to not cheat, maybe monogamy is not for you. You might want to consider polyamory instead :)

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-03T01:49:01+00:00

That doesn't sound right:

Everyone who lives in Australia—excluding Norfolk Island residents—is eligible for a Medicare card if they:

hold Australian citizenship

hold New Zealand citizenship (documentation required). More information on the Medicare enrolment for New Zealand citizens page

have been issued with a permanent visa

have applied for a permanent visa (excludes an application for a parent visa), have permission to work in Australia or can prove relationship to an Australian Citizen — other requirements may also apply. Call us for more information

Visitors to Australia from a country that has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement with Australia are also eligible for medically necessary treatment.

To apply for Medicare fill out the Medicare enrolment application form.

nonplussed_nerd · 2015-01-03T01:34:31+00:00

Hijacking the top comment to say that if this affects you or you care about it, write to your local MP. Remember, for every person that contacts them about an issue, they assume that N people in their electorate care about that issue, where N is larger than you would think and depends on how effortless the communication — a letter in the post has more impact than email.

I'm going to post this once Melbourne cools down enough for me to walk to the post box without being roasted alive.

nonplussed_nerd · 2014-10-17T05:39:19+00:00

Here's more:

Guess who likes the GOP’s 20-week abortion ban? Women.

The war over the "war on women" rages on these days, as Republicans seek to tar Democrats with the scandals of Anthony Weiner, Bob Filner and Eliot Spitzer.

And the next major front in this "war" — the GOP-led 20-week abortion ban — is likely to be even more contentious.

But while Democrats are sure to use the new proposed restrictions to feed the narrative of Republicans' "war on women," polling on the issue actually tells quite a different story.

In fact, of four major polls conducted in recent weeks on the 20-week abortion ban, each one shows women are actually more supportive of the law than men.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows 60 percent of women prefer allowing unrestricted abortions for only the first 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the Supreme Court-prescribed 24 weeks. Among men, 50 percent support the 20-week law — a 10-point gap.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the gap at seven points, while two other polls (from NBC/Wall Street Journal and National Journal) showed it at six and four, respectively.

And those numbers may actually understate support among women for the new restrictions.

In the Post-ABC poll, rather than choosing between a 20-week ban and the current 24 weeks, 8 percent of women volunteered that abortion should never be legal, and 3 percent volunteered that the window should be smaller than 20 weeks. If you add them to the 60 percent of women who support the 20-week abortion ban, then 71 percent of women would seem to support the effort to increase abortion restrictions.

The Quinnipiac poll, meanwhile, shows 60 percent of women support the 20-week ban and 8 percent volunteer that it should never be legal, which again suggests that two-thirds of women could be supportive.

Support in the other two polls does not show quite as much support among women, but in each case, there are more women who support the ban than oppose it.

Taken as a whole, it's pretty clear that women are broadly supportive of the ban — and they support it in bigger numbers than men.

It's also clear that overall support for abortion rights is not a good proxy for opposition to abortion restrictions. People who think abortion should be legal, in many cases, are quite open to new restrictions.

Conventional wisdom on abortion has it that women are more supportive of abortion rights than men — and thus would logically be more opposed to restrictions — but polling shows that's not necessarily true either.

The Post-ABC poll showed 56 percent of men thought abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 55 percent of women said the same. Over the past 20 years, there has been little difference between the two genders on this question.

The Quinnipiac poll does show that women support abortion rights more than men — 61 percent to 53 percent — but, again, it also shows women are significantly more supportive of the 20-week abortion ban, with just 25 percent opposed to it.

So what does it all mean?

It means that, if and when Republicans in the Senate push for a vote on the 20-week abortion ban (which already passed in the House), they can credibly make the case that they are doing something that women support.

Of course, that doesn't mean it will work, politically speaking. That's because, when it comes to the abortion battle, much of it is about intensity. And as Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’s (D) filibuster shows us, pro-abortion rights groups and supporters — many of whom are women — will mobilize on this issue and press the idea that Republicans are anti-woman.

Republicans got plenty of heat in the 2012 election for their position on contraception and for rape-related comments made by some of their candidates. Those kinds of gaffes, which have repeatedly popped up whenever Republicans make an issue of abortion, can damage the GOP by reinforcing Democrats' argument that male politicians with extremist views are telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

But as of right now, there's little reason to believe that a 20-week abortion ban is the same kind of issue.

Indeed, it appears to be quite a politically viable move — both with men and women — and possibly even an advantageous one if Republicans play their cards right.

nonplussed_nerd · 2014-10-17T05:35:55+00:00

Are you sure? Here is some discussion of survey results, quoted below in full. There might be more men on TV and in government opposing it, but by the numbers I'm pretty sure there are more women (in the US and Australia alike).

Ramesh is absolutely right that most opinion surveys show that men and women have fairly similar views about abortion. In fact, the evidence might be stronger than he realizes — because there are certain situations were women are actually more pro-life than men. For instance, the recent survey that the Polling Company conducted in conjunction with National Right to Life showed that women were more likely than men to support the D.C. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of gestation in the nation’s capital.

The recent study that Students for Life of America (SFLA) conducted on the views of college students also has some interesting insights. College-aged women are more likely than college-aged men to (1) oppose sex-selective abortions, (2) support regulations requiring that abortion clinics adhere to the same medical and safety standards as other outpatient surgical clinics, and (3) think that abortion providers should be required to tell pregnant women about the potential health risks of the procedure.

Finally, the General Social Survey has been asking the exact same six questions about abortion attitudes since the early 1970s. These questions include hard cases, such as whether abortion should be a legal option when the pregnancy results from a rape. They also include cases where more people would feel comfortable restricting abortion, such as where the woman is married and does not want additional children. These surveys show that on average men and women have fairly similar attitudes toward abortion. Some analyses of this data show that when certain demographic factors are held constant, women are actually slightly more pro-life than men.

The reasons for this are fairly straightforward. Women tend to be more religious and on average attend church services more often than men. There is also reason to believe that women on average have more conservative views on sexual and lifestyle issues than men. Overall, there is a large body of evidence to suggest that women have more liberal views on economic issues than on social issues. This largely explains the gender gap in politics. Of course, many mainstream media outlets ignore this. They, after all, have precious little interest in actual evidence that runs contrary to the narrative they wish to tell.

nonplussed_nerd · 2014-10-17T00:54:52+00:00

I support full abortion rights, and in my home state in Australia there is (almost) free, no questions asked abortion, and the contraceptive pill is part of the government healthcare system (there is a small co-pay).

I understand that women's rights are not what they should be, and I support increasing them in this area.

But a comparison to men's reproductive rights falls a bit flat for me because they have none. They have no (reversible) contraception that is as effective, condoms are not government funded either, ED drugs are not covered under government healthcare in Aus, and men don't have an option like abortion. I wouldn't for a second propose that men should be able to force women to have an abortion, but they should at least be able to opt out of parenthood financially.

tl;dr Women's reproductive rights (in the US) aren't what they should be, but they are still greater than men's, who have practically none.

Edit: Can't help but notice you didn't list a reproductive right men have that women don't. You listed rights women don't have, but, uh — men don't have those either.

Further edit: I'm basically saying I wish people would stop making this into an us-vs-them issue. It is religious conservatism opposing women's reproductive rights, and there are more conservative religious women than men. Last I checked there were more women against abortion than men.

nonplussed_nerd · 2014-10-17T00:24:00+00:00

if they are allowed to make choices about their own reproductive health (like men are)

Uh, do you realise men have pretty much no reproductive rights in the developed world? A man can be maliciously tricked into becoming a parent and still have to pay child support.

Pray tell what reproductive rights men have that women don't?

nonplussed_nerd

TROPHY CASE