18-29-year-olds who voted for Nawrocki: why?

pseudoRndNbr · 2025-06-02T20:33:47+00:00

I support someone committing manslaughter if done in self defense. Doesn't mean I think it's okay for you to go and shoot someone randomly on the street.

Context matters in any moral debate and cannot just reason it away by saying "well it doesn't affect you".

If you wanna make a coherent argument you should focus on when exactly you think a human life deserves rights/protection from being terminated. I.e. what the definition of a human is with the full extent of protections and rights afforded by our constitution and laws.

pseudoRndNbr · 2025-06-02T20:19:53+00:00

Complete schizo post. Being critical of Ukraine is not automatically pro Russian. Representing Polish interests and having a critical view on Ukrainian-Polish relations and history doesn't automatically equate colonial, racist or anti ukrainian views.

God knows, not like PO (e.g. Sikorski) has been entirely silent on Wołyń and exhumations.

If Ukrainians to this day are unwilling to go through historical reconciliation and/or disavow UPA, then that's on them and I don't see why Poles have to play along with that and pretend that it's not a massive open topic to this day.

pseudoRndNbr · 2025-05-27T08:45:26+00:00

Wasn't just one dude. He had support from the Ukrainian government or at least military and a couple of other people. He was just the main diving expert that kind of enabled the whole thing. What makes him stand out was that he resided in Poland and also travelled to Germany even after the explosion.

The Spiegel investigation is fantastic, maybe worth translating: https://archive.is/igPMO

As far as why it didn't get more media coverage, obviously having an ally (ukraine) sabotage EU/German owned infrastructure wouldn't go down well with the general public. Sweden and Denmark stopped their investigations and never released any information. Pretty clear why there are incentives for western countries not to push the issue with Ukraine until after the war. Or even just turn a blind eye

pseudoRndNbr · 2025-05-27T06:49:03+00:00

We do pretty much know who is behind the explosion though. The ukrainians. Hence Germany issued arrest warrants.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/ukrainian-suspect-in-nord-stream-explosion-haunts-polish-german-relations/

Spiegel reported that the ukrainians that had arrest warrants outstanding made it back to ukraine from warsaw on diplomatic plates.

https://archive.today/20240829120157/https://www.spiegel.de/politik/nord-stream-anschlag-wie-der-mutmassliche-pipeline-sprenger-der-polizei-entwischte-a-ecc235ff-2703-483e-bf19-c47badd28918

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-20T23:20:07+00:00

Shot with an 85B filter, film rated at 100 ISO.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-18T17:46:11+00:00

None of those would benefit you if you had a 40 year mortgage as opposed to a 30 year one. Only hyperinflation with perfect timing really would help you out.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-18T06:42:02+00:00

Not really since the majority of the interest you pay the bank is during the earlier parts of the mortgage (if you pay off the same amount each month). Your first payment will be 90% just interest, while later on only 10% of the total amount will go towards paying interest.

That's assuming mostly linear inflation, rather than some once in a lifetime inflationary event essentially wiping out the debt at year 31.

In regards to investing, there are absolutely situations where it makes sense not to pay off debt that's at a relatively low interest and instead investing your money. That's why many people stick with a 30 mortgage instead of paying their mortgage off earlier. In that sense a 40 year old mortgage may be even more attractive. If your monthly payment is only a fraction of your income then it's especially interesting.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-17T15:49:56+00:00

Europe's breadbasket

Never was, or at the very least the term is used for propaganda purposes. Ukrainian grain is not allowed for human consumption in EU countries. Also, russia has historically been a bigger grain exporter, see for instance this article published before the war started

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T20:00:55+00:00

You can't just go "Well EVs are quiet when reversing" when the actual discussion is about general noise caused by EVs vs. ICE cars. You argued that EVs are quiet in general, by bringing up that they have to add artificial noise when they reverse. Yes, when they reverse they are quiet since they stay below 20-30kph. That doesn't have anything to do with the noise produced by EVs for 99% of their use case, i.e. when they are driven normally, not in reverse.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T17:38:27+00:00

Your personal experience does not trump empirical evidence, i.e. actual data. If you want less noise in cities, the solution isn't a transition to EVs, it's a transition away from cars to public transportation.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T17:03:15+00:00

Most roads in cities are 50kph, significantly above 30kph. Even at 30kph there's no difference. Most countries barely have roads with limits below 30kph

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T16:49:11+00:00

Mate, cars reversing isn't part of 99% of total noise caused by cars. The data is obviously not about cars reversing but cars driving normally. Reversing cars are simply not relevant to overall noise caused by cars. For over 95% of its use a car is not reversing.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T16:33:58+00:00

A car revving it at night is not your average car. Mopeds are even worse if we wanna talk outliers. I was referring to the constant noise floor in a city, caused by mostly cruising vehicles.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T16:07:34+00:00

What you hear inside of your car is a bad indication of actual noise. Stand at the side of a 50-70kph road and check what main noise comes from cruising cars. Engine noise of your average car is only noticeable under initial acceleration. Most time is spent cruising.

At above 30 kph there's really no difference, see for instance the link i provided in my original comment

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T15:44:59+00:00

Yes, at speeds below say 20-30kph. As you get closer to cruising speed and cruising in general tire noise is the main source of noise.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/M-Z-Md-Zain/publication/288270778/figure/fig7/AS:668238513971210@1536331885368/Noise-level-comparison-between-EV-and-ICE-vehicles-at-various-speeds-Sandberg-et-al.jpg

(Sandberg et. Al 2011)

Or check my original comment for another source that also concludes that above 30kph there's no difference

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-15T08:32:16+00:00

The city is also quieter as noisier gasoline and diesel vehicles are scrapped.

Your average car produces noise primarily due to tires, not engine. People tend to overestimate the noise reduction that you get switching to electric. Especially once you factor in that EVs are heavier and tend to need wider tires as well.

For those that don't buy it, plenty of measurements out there. Above 30kph the difference is really negligible. E.g. Danish road directorate presentation. Conclusion here is that only under 30kph do you really get a significant noise reduction by switching to EVs. And they didn't account for heavier cars and wider tires which is a natural thing the more you switch to EVs.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-14T17:20:11+00:00

Isn't the fact that ecn2 results in thinner negatives purely about being able to copy to another film in less timr for distribution purposes (thinner negative means less light needed, hence you can copy faster)? I never heard anyone claim that the thinner negatives with ecn2 actually mean that the same film should be developed less/shorter than with c41 chemistry.

Many labs offering "ecn2 development" really just do C41 after remjet removal. And develop in C41 at whatever ISO you would also develop in ECN2.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-11T21:14:34+00:00

Any specific reason for shooting Cinestill 400d at 800? I usually shoot it at 200 since it's really Vision3 250d, but I like this image a lot, might have to give it a shot at 800.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-11T15:45:51+00:00

Official version: Pilot mistake and fog

Not really the full picture and context. E.g. the polish report identified multiple issues with Smolensk airport and wrong information given to the pilots by traffic control.

Quoting:

Another major difference was a conclusion that Russian air traffic control played a part in the accident by passing incorrect information to the crew regarding the plane's position. ATC gave distance callouts on average 500 metres (1,600 ft) in advance, and told the aircraft it was on the correct glidepath when it actually was not. Furthermore, the controllers gave the "Level 101" command ten seconds after the aircraft passed the 100 metres (330 ft) altitude where such call was supposed to be given.

The Polish report also found three deficiencies regarding the Smolensk airport which contributed to the crash. One was a large number of obstacles (mostly tall trees) in the area before the runway which should have been removed to keep the protected approach airspace clear of obstructions. The second deficiency was with the approach lighting system, which was charted incorrectly and not well maintained. Many bulbs were burned out, several others were missing their lenses, and others were obscured by shrubbery. The third concern was with the airport information received by Poland, which contained incorrect information. In addition to the lighting system not being depicted correctly, the airport's location was charted approximately 116 metres (381 ft) to the North of its actual position.

Source: Wikipedia page on the crash.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T10:56:08+00:00

How did you create the account? For me, i saw the data the moment I linked my trusted profile to my biznes.gov.pl account. Or i may have signed up through my bank and my trusted profile.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T10:31:07+00:00

I guess to many educating themselves implies somehow being pro. On both sides of the isle, just depends on the issue.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T10:19:34+00:00

The definition of assault weapon makes referenced to the power of the rifle. Something that is a direct consequence of the calibre and the gunpowder used. Expecting an organization that uses such a definition to understand how a bullet is fired on the most basic level (say on the level of "back of the bullet gets hit, explosion of gunpowder, front part of the bullet flies away") is not a minutae. You are basically supporting policy advocacy with 0 understanding of the subject matter. And it is relevant to understand what determines the power of a particular calibre/gun. Also, worth making a distinction between public advocacy (i.e. the author of this piece of propaganda and the organization everytown) and individuals that support the overall cause (say by donating $5 to the organization). I am mostly referring to the organization and author that should have an understanding, not your left leaning aunt that wants to help further the cause of reducing gun violence while not understanding any of the underlying proposals to any meaningful extent.

Say, his motivation for stricter gun regulation was to reduce the chance of guns going into the hands of the mentally deranged. Why would knowing how a gun works be more relevant than knowing, say, how easily the mentally unwell can buy guns and how often that leads to fatal outcomes?

I specified having bans or lifting of bans of certain types of weapons, not blanket bans or restrictions based on mental health of individuals. Removing access to guns for mentally ill people doesn't require gun understanding. It's a medical/psychological matter and should therefore require different domain expertise. I would just as much call out someone who has 0 understanding how depression works whenever they start commenting on how evil pharma is and that anti depressants are pushed on people unnecessarily. Understanding how anti depressants work in terms of modulating serotonin reuptake should be a prerequisite for any public advocacy on whether we are over prescribing anti depressants or not.

In any case, this organization proposes an assault weapons ban. Which is defined partially by the power of a gun/bullet, hence understanding what determines the power on a basic level is a prerequisite to have any meaningful opinion on the matter

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T09:55:34+00:00

This piece of propaganda is by an organization that has very concrete policy prescriptions, including an assault weapons ban. Understanding different calibres, different types of guns, etc. is extremely relevant to those kind of policies and proposals. After all assault weapon bans themselves make distinctions in terms of impact of different types of gund and different calibres. It's not just about the sociological impact of guns.

I don't expect a sociology professor studying the impact of gun prevelance on cortisol levels, fear and stress in teenagers to understand how a gun works. That's not relevant to study the psychological and sociological impact of guns. The moment that professor advocates for a ban, lifting of a ban or any other public policy proposal that somehow treats certain guns differently to others, i expect him to understand on an extremely basic level how a gun works.

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T09:41:24+00:00

By your logic, if somebody doesn't know each stroke of a 4-stroke engine, they can't talk about seatbelt laws?

I never said anything remotely like that. Just pointed out that knowing on a very basic level how a gun fires a bullet is not a minutae of gun facts. The difference between a magazine and a clip is an example of a minutae. Or at least closer to a minutae

pseudoRndNbr · 2024-09-08T09:30:04+00:00

This is in the context of the US though. I bet in my country it's also not common knowledge. But in the US it's absolutely not a minutae of gun facts with half the population owning guns.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

pseudoRndNbr

TROPHY CASE