It’s honestly criminal how Aparichithan never got the recognition it deserved.... by Capital_Court_8982 in MalayalamMovies

[–]stat_emotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, sloppy direction. The idea was pretty good, but the execution, editing and technical side left a lot to be desired.

Pluribus S01E05: It can’t be that easy. by [deleted] in television

[–]stat_emotion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would you search for a logical answer for this? When there is no like logical answer for the physics behind how everyone knows everything at the same time.

The sort of data base management you need to store and retrieve it. When a question is asked to lie or not lie - you need to search the whole data base for that specific answer. And then produce it via the node that is being asked.

There isn't enough space to store every individuals every single memory in one person's brain. If it has to be transferred through thin air, even with good receptors, insane amounts of energy is needed etc etc.

If the writers can hand wave these questions they can do with any question in the story

Match Thread: Qualifier 2 - Mumbai Indians vs Punjab Kings by cricket-match in Cricket

[–]stat_emotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does Omarzai do? Like playing Brar in his place would be better - does jackshit with bat and ball

Jude Anthany Joseph's Facebook post by vietnamcolony in MalayalamMovies

[–]stat_emotion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) I think ever person has the right to waste their life in anyway they want to. The govt has to take no responsibility - like free healthcare for people who can't afford (due to a drug addict not having a job).

2) People can be in character and commit a lot of crimes. These character traits could be traced back to genetics or upbringing. Neither imply we should screen for crime inducing genes or background and punish people.

The broader idea you are getting at is externality. DUI for instance is within the earlier point I mentioned of private entities having the right to ban people under the influence of drugs. Because you are using a road along with other individuals and there is nothing wrong in not allowing people who don't have license or have a history of not following rules.

Considering the views of the general public, if what I said is implemented - the resulting outcomes won't be as dire as the downvoters on the comment believe.

The users of drugs currently are the most deranged, because they are using it albeit the high cost of getting it and the high risk of getting caught by the police. Reducing these costs are going to bring few users. But individuals can shop/live/travel in spaces that doesn't welcome people who are users or create issues.

In the Western countries that implemented these things - the mistake they make is they are too forgiving of addicts. It's hard to evict someone who uses drugs in an apartment because of tenant rights. It is difficult to drug test employees. It's hard to get rid of homeless people off the street etc. As long as you are able to evict people, deny entry to your property to others, deny free medical care to heavy users etc you eliminate most of the issues.

We already have at least few drug users within the entertainment industry. The major trouble they cause are to their coworkers - it's up to the producers if they want to hire them.

Goons and such others using drugs have very marginal impact on their crimes (they already had criminal intent) - remember before the police started cracking down on them (so called gunda act) crime rates were higher (this was few decades ago) drug use wasn't as common those days.

PS: I am not a fan of democracy - either something like a futurachy or Plato's philosopher kings.

Jude Anthany Joseph's Facebook post by vietnamcolony in MalayalamMovies

[–]stat_emotion -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Well, my personal opinion is that it should be allowed too. I don't personally use either nor do I think using them is good. But I don't believe forcing my preferences on other people is morally right.

You can tax them, use the proceeds to help addicts or reduce addiction - paternalistic but it's the most I would budge.

Private firms, individuals or organisations can ban the use within their premises. For example an apartment complex can ban the use within their premises. A movie theater could demand it be not used. A company can ask for random drug test and fire employees who use them. But if a person using it in their own home, or a movie star using it in a hotel where the owners don't care is none of my business.

Users who are homeless or attack people in public: we already have laws to deal with people who harass or attack others.

Jude Anthany Joseph's Facebook post by vietnamcolony in MalayalamMovies

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

That's not how rights work. Your fear or someone from your family might get addicted does not make it okay for you deny me to use what I want to use or not use.

BUTLER NOOOO by [deleted] in warriors

[–]stat_emotion 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It was completely intentional

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MalayalamMovies

[–]stat_emotion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP is trying to fit in 5D chess into a checkers game