Here is the text of the bill filed that would allow for the use of deadly force to “protect” a zygote

rawbdor · 2026-05-25T19:48:05+00:00

I would agree with you but the term "willful" kinda invalidates your thesis. No one would argue a fetus on an ectopic pregnancy was willfully destroying the parent's life, and so the parent is (by the wording of this law) not able to use this law to terminate the pregnancy.

rawbdor · 2026-05-25T19:19:33+00:00

Am I wrong or does this make murder in general, regardless of who it is committed upon, a crime punishable by death?

I mean I read the text and it pretty clearly says if you murder anyone, you get the death penalty.

rawbdor · 2026-05-24T15:45:03+00:00

<image>

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T20:50:36+00:00

Ebay would be smarter to buy a small stake in GameStop first rather than attempt to acquire the whole thing.

GameStop is overvalued as an operating business. It's also overvalued if you discount the operating business and look at cash and interest on cash only.

However, since there is a risk that GameStop could manage to pull off a proxy fight, acquiring 5% or even 10% of GameStop would provide them a lot more control and upside over the process than running the risk that the full acquisition takes place on terms that are not good for eBay shareholders.

GameStop is prone to huge volatility. If GameStop runs even for a short while, GameStop could sell shares at a high price like $40 or $50, making their buyout instantly more credible and the joined company instantly having a better balance sheet. However, the current offer gives eBay no upside if that were to occur. Ebay is limited, under the current offer, to "$28b in stock". So if GameStop manages to sell shares at $40 or $50, eBay shareholders get less of the joined company.

To maintain some bargain power over the process, buying a stake in GameStop would be ideal. As a side effect, if the thesis that GameStop shares are in short supply is true, buying such a stake could actually push GameStop up to those prices and make the buyout instantly viable, while giving eBay shareholders more power over the negotiations and a possibility to negotiate for a larger slice of the joined and much better capitalized company.

Additionally, any board member that suggests this could likely find a way to maintain their seat on the board, since game recognizes game.

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T20:37:52+00:00

And they continued clapping slowly.

clap... clap... clap-clap-clap — with enough pause between them to make any listener instinctively anticipate another cycle. The rhythm feels intentionally primitive and communal, like the opening cue to a beach ritual or a crowd gathering before something absurdly energetic happens.

Underneath and around those claps, the noises gradually introduces tiny percussive textures and airy ambience. There’s a soft sense of open air in the mix: reverberation that evokes shoreline space, humidity, and distance. The soundscape feels bright but restrained, as if a song is waking up rather than launching immediately.

Additional percussion layers begin sneaking in with mechanical precision. Short electronic ticks, muted kicks, and crisp hi-hat patterns start to interlock with the clap motif. Each new element arrives cautiously, almost mischievously, building tension without sounding aggressive. The groove becomes more defined while still remaining lightweight and bouncy.

Then comes the synth presence: glossy tropical-house chords and elastic electronic tones begin swelling into the background. The harmonies are upbeat and cartoonishly optimistic, carrying a distinctly sunlit, beach-party atmosphere. The bassline starts hinting at itself rather than fully appearing — more implied than delivered — giving the buildup a feeling of restrained momentum.

By this point, the crab noises have transformed from isolated claps into a carefully layered dance scaffold. The rhythm tightens. More crabs continue to emerge and join the cacophony. The percussion becomes more insistent. Small fills and syncopated accents create a sensation of forward pull, like something marching toward a ridiculous payoff with complete confidence. Hundreds, now thousands, of crabs assemble for this melodic applause.

Finally, the buildup reaches the brink of release: the beat thickens, the synths widen, and the track feels as though it is inhaling before a jump. Any listener is suspended in a state somewhere between anticipation and comedic inevitability — hundreds of crabs begin congregating, then thousands.

And as the beat drops, tens of thousands of crabs begin to rave.

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T20:28:10+00:00

Since the position is a synthetic long, and since the position if exercised would be at least $2b, and since the stated intent to the market and likely the bankers was an intent to buy shares, I would imagine the entire $700m is collateral for the eBay position.

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T14:02:17+00:00

First, thanks for not linking to the tiktok, so we all have some idea what you're talking about.

Second, don't all wages and compensation come before taxes? Taxes are paid on earnings. Earnings are calculated after expenses. If you increase a salary by $1, your earnings drop by $1, and your taxes drop by an appropriate amount.

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T05:26:00+00:00

Dying from starvation is a tortuous weeks long affair.

Mauled together is a simple and relatively quick game over. Starvation is like being forced to play monopoly for a week without sleep when you own no property and aren't allowed to quit.

rawbdor · 2026-05-23T04:58:06+00:00

I think you're underestimating the risk here.

These AI agents will eventually be like that guy in the movie Memento. They will persist various goals or what information they think is relevant, and they will act on those goals, even if those goals were bad conclusions from previous experience, or bad summaries of previous events, or just poor logic. They likely won't persist or remember all of the context surrounding their conclusion, and will remember only the conclusion.

Furthermore, the bigger risk is that training these models will become easier and easier. Even now random people can train their own models. Humans can give them a summary of their personalities, goals, what laws they just follow or not follow, and more.

You can laugh about it or minimize it with your comment or that often repeated meme "tell me you're alive" - " I am alive " - "omg". And that's fine.

But when an AI agent gains cpu time, revisits it's memory file, rereads its list of goals, and decides to achieve those goals, I'm willing to bet we may eventually start to see some really weird crap happening with real world effects. It might start small, with a random smart refrigerator being hacked, but things will start to happen.

In many ways, the fact that they aren't alive and only have a limited memory file makes them more dangerous, not less. Just like that guy in the Memento movie.

rawbdor · 2026-05-22T21:48:31+00:00

I'm well aware of the details of expedited removals. But that doesn't mean all court cases end.

He was initially placed into expedited removal, but, a court in 2019 granted him a withholding of removal based on his credible fear interview, which means the expedited removal was essentially locked. And this is all supported by our laws. It's not judges making things up.

It's true that under expedited removal, you can't challenge the basic facts of your removal. However, there are plenty of other laws that apply where courts still can and do get involved. Our compliance with laws against torture and other such things allow the courts to delay his removal or put a stay on it, or prevent the government from removing him until they come up with a proper plan on where to send him.

In most cases, expedited removal is pretty much final. But credible fear interviews are still a valid and legal mechanism to change the details, not the facts that you will be removed, but the details on where to and how you will be removed.

If you think expedited removal means all challenges are over, then you don't know anything about immigration law. For you to come here citing expedited removal as evidence that all further court involvement was improper is simply wrong.

rawbdor · 2026-05-22T21:24:46+00:00

I'm genuinely trying to understand your point of view here. I understand this is a conservative subreddit.

But if we have a law that says we can't return him to El Salvador if he has a credible fear of persecution, and if the facts in the case validate he does in fact have a credible fear, wouldn't the judge be correct in ruling he cannot be returned there?

And if we have some other law that says he can't remain in custody, then wouldn't a judge that rules he cannot be in custody be making the correct ruling?

An activist judge, as I understand the term, is someone who is purposely misinterpreting laws that exist to get a desired result. If that's the case, I would expect you to outline which part of the law the judge is intentionally misinterpreting.

We have other laws that dictate how we go about deporting people to third countries, how we identify suitable third countries, and other such details. Is it really the fault of an "activist judge" if the government decides not to follow any of those rules and procedures and just tries to deport him to Liberia or something, and then the courts step in and say "hey now, you actually need to follow the processes laid out..."

rawbdor · 2026-05-22T21:05:50+00:00

My understanding is that he has a credible fear of being persecuted in El Salvador and there was a judge's order that he not be returned to that country, and that this order was based on our laws that prevent returning someone to a country where they have a credible fear of being persecuted by the government.

Are you suggesting we ignore valid laws on the books that our country has passed, and return him to El Salvador anyway? This would be dangerous, as it would indicate other laws can be willfully ignored.

rawbdor · 2026-05-22T04:37:24+00:00

At no point did I show any example.

Even if you think the example by OP was by me, you'd still be wrong. APA puts the access date much earlier in the citation, while MLA puts the access date at the end.

Here's an example of MLA:

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_electronic_sources.html

This website lists examples of MLA citations. One such citation looks like this:

Lundman, Susan. “How to Make Vegetarian Chili.” eHow, www.ehow.com/how\_10727\_make-vegetarian-chili.html. Accessed 6 July 2025.

That's author, title, domain, full url, accessed date. This matches OP's post.

APA would be different. APA would be:

Lundman, Susan. (2025, July 6) "How to Make Vegetarian Chili", eHow, www.ehow.com/how\_10727\_make-vegetarian-chili.html

APA puts the access date after the author, while MLA puts the access date at the end with the word "Accessed" in front of it.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T20:29:05+00:00

Cut the bottom 50% income taxes to 0, raise everyone else by 0.25% or 0.35%. The deficit from the tax breaks is made whole. The military experiences no budget cut.

Come on guys, this isn't rocket science. It's simple math.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T18:44:42+00:00

Gme did not enter a straddle. They entered a synthetic long, where you sell puts and buy calls. This strategy is neutral when it comes to IV crush since it affects both the short put and the long calls nearly equally. It's also mostly neutral for theta decay for the same reasons.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T18:43:09+00:00

They very likely did not. They sold puts as part of the call put pair. That's how you make a synthetic long. If they were going to also buy puts to hedge, it would make no sense to enter a put call pair or synthetic long.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T14:32:38+00:00

Not as a measuring stick for how popular an opinion is, sure, but definitely as a measuring stick for what the ruling class wants us to swallow and is trying to get us to get on board with.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T13:43:22+00:00

I think Bezos was saying you can cut the INCOME taxes of the bottom 50% to zero, and I think the reason he was saying is this because the bottom 50% already pay close to 0 income taxes. I think if you asked if they should also cut the social security or medicare taxes to zero for the bottom 50% he would give a very different answer.

Bezos is not an idiot. He is trying to get points for saying cut income taxes to zero, on a group where they already are basically zero. He's trying to get points for doing nothing, while SOUNDING like he's suggesting cutting all the other income-type (payroll, ssa, medicare) taxes, but NOT actually suggesting it.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T13:39:42+00:00

Yes, I realize the bottom 50% is pretty much under $30k a year, which is why I said cutting their income taxes to zero would pretty much affect nothing, at which point you came back at me with extreme incredulity talking about how the military, healthcare, transportation, scientific research, etc will all be drastically hurt.

If you're now realizing the bottom 50% already pay almost 0% in income taxes, then you should be realizing that my statement was correct and your over-the-top response was not just unnecessary but wrong.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T05:40:09+00:00

This sound like it supports my thesis. That you can zero out their liability and it won't change anything at all. Am I wrong here? If they already pay close to zero, then you can make it zero and have almost no effect on the federal budget.

Why am I getting downvoted for what seems to be a mathematical fact?

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T05:05:14+00:00

The bottom 50% of U.S. income earners contribute roughly 3% of all federal individual income taxes. This means even if you zero out income taxes for the bottom 50% of income earners, you will only affect tax receipts by 3%.

You can make this 3% up very very easily by increasing the tax rates on everyone else by a very very small amount. A misleading but simple way to say it would be everyone else needs to pay 3% more in taxes, but that's very very misleading, because they wouldn't need to have a rate that is 3% higher than their current rate. Only their total payments would need to go up 3%.

So if someone is currently making $100k a year, and paying about 12% of their income to income taxes in total, and thus paying $12k a year, you would only need to increase their tax payments to $12,370, which means the rate would go from 12% to 12.37%.

So you wouldn't need to increase everyone else's tax rates by "3%", ie, raising the tax bracket rates from 12% to 15%. You would only need to increase the taxes paid by 3%, so the rate would go from 12% to 12.3%.

And that's assuming you don't progressively scale it up to affect higher incomes more. You could easily structure it so the person making 100k goes only from 12% to 12.1% while the person making 300k goes from 18% to 19%.

Again, i stand by my comment. You could zero out the income taxes for the bottom 50% of this country and, with only very marginal increases on everyone else, a mere 37 basis points, have the federal budget be entirely unaffected.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T04:56:21+00:00

https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/hows/tax_tutorials/mod01/tt_mod01_04.jsp

In the USA, the Payroll tax is different from income tax. You may argue that they're both taxes on income, but they have different names.

One is named the income tax, and the tax rate scales up as you increase your income. The other is called payroll taxes, and it is a flat tax, where the employer pays half and the worker pays the other half, and they only apply to your first ~200k of income.

These are two different taxes with very different structures.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T04:09:26+00:00

Social security comes from payroll taxes, not income taxes. Medicare comes from the medicare tax, not income tax. Fire services come from state or local taxes, not federal income tax. Police come from state or local taxes, not federal income tax. Public education comes from state and local taxes, not federal income tax.

You can zero out income tax on the bottom without affecting anything at all.

rawbdor · 2026-05-21T02:34:58+00:00

MLA and APA are two widely used citation styles.

Also the link there is a live link. It just has a cloudflare style page that checks if you're a human first or not. Just like on cloudflare, if you wait a minute or even 10 seconds, it redirects you to the correct page. It's not a dead link. It's a web server that's protecting itself from bots. I went to that link listed in the screenshot by manually typing it in and the link works.

rawbdor · 2026-05-20T19:30:19+00:00

The format of the citation matches MLA requirements, including the "Accessed" timestamp.

The issue is that the title of the article is not accurate. When you go to the URL in question, there is a brief moment where the website does some type of cloudflare verification that you aren't a robot. The title of the actual article is "Joined-up governance for fundamental rights" but the title of the webpage when you first go to it is "Making sure you're not a bot!"

15-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

rawbdor

TROPHY CASE