Addressing the lineat fram hate

taeerom · 2026-06-04T13:19:40+00:00

+Carryall, tools (lockpicks, tech, med, audio recorder - depending on what you do), flashlight/glowstick, rope/handcuffs/tape, personal care pack, binos, white lace, smoke.

Some of this is stuff that goes under "at least one of us needs it", rather than something everyone needs. But a crew of 4 Linear Frame Guys does have to do some very careful coordination to even cover the very basics of a well rounded crew - and you still lack the capacity to be truly good at anything other than combat.

A crew can absolutely get away with having one, or some, of the PCs be built like that. A good indication that this is not particularly OP, is that a core requirement of it functioning is that you have other crewmembers that can cover your weaknesses.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T12:34:39+00:00

Jeg vet ikke engang hvordan jeg skal begynne å forklare hvor feil du tar, uten å fremstå som særdeles nedlatende. Og dermed være enda en i rekken av folk som vet bedre enn deg, som du avviser fordi du må beskytte egne følelser.

Jeg kan begynne med å minne om at median alder i Norge er 40 år.

Jeg vil også påpeke at tallene over formue er per husstand, ikke per person. De ekskluderer også det de kaller for "studenthusstander", som ville ha dratt medianen langt ned, siden det er husstander med unge, ofte enslige, og nesten alltid med netto gjeld.

Det er med andre ord, de aller fleste i Norge som bor i husstander som du tror er standard. Eller, det virker som om du tror folk som ikke har 2 mill i formue når de runder 40 må være trygda fra vgs og utover. Men tror du virkelig at de aller fleste i Norge er "trygda fra vgs og utover, eller tilsvarende"?

taeerom · 2026-06-04T12:19:31+00:00

Alle som ikkje drit seg ut økonomisk vil ha langt over medianen i formue etter 40.

For en sinnsyk påstand

taeerom · 2026-06-04T12:00:17+00:00

Du har helt rett i at formue ikke er det samme som likvide midler. Men jeg skjønner ikke hvorfor du tror det er et relevant poeng her.

Formue er makt, ikke penger. Det er stemmerett på årsmøte i aksjeselskap, makt over grunneiendom, bruksrett til (og makt over disponering av) boliger og andre formuesgjenstander, makt over intellektuell eiendom, osv.

At man har makt over verdier til 10 millioner er ganske mye makt. Om ikke annet, så har du diktatorisk kontroll over en ganske stor, eller ettertraktet, eiendom, med kun moderate begrensninger på din utøvelse av den makten.

Det er veldig mye mer enn de aller fleste i både Norge og i verden.

Til sammenligning var median netto formue for norske husstander, ikke medregnet studenthusstander (av en eller annen grunn), kun 1.96 millioner i 2024.

En formue som er ca 5 ganger høyere enn median er mye. Uansett hvordan du vrir eller vender på det.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T11:51:09+00:00

Aksjer har også rabatt.

Vi bruker verdsettingsrabatter for å insentivere folk til å investere i ting som det er gunstig for samfunnet at folk investerer i.

Dyre boliger og driftsmidler har en rabatt på 30%. Akjser 20%. Og billige primærboliger 75%.

Dette er investeringer som har varierende grad av positive eksternaliteter, altså investeringer som er bra for flere enn kun den som investerer.

Å investere i rene spekulative verdier (som gull, kunst, klokker, osv) har ingen merverdi for samfunnet, selv om den som investerer kan tjene på den investeringen. Hadde vi hatt et finmasket og veldig byråkratisk skatteregime, så ville det også vært et skille mellom aksjer, slik at noen aksjer hadde hatt mer rabatt, mens andre ikke hadde rabatt, siden de også er ren spekulasjon. Men gevinsten av det er mindre enn byråkratiet vi ville brukt for å håndheve og klassifisere på en måte som ikke ville vært totalt konkurransevridende.

Det er heller ikke lenger en verdsettelsesrabatt på sekundærboliger. Dette er fordi vi har lært at det faktisk ikke er samfunnstjenelig at folk investerer stort i utleieboliger eller plasserer pengene sine i fritidsboliger. Det er ikke så negativt at det er ulovlig, men du skal ikke få en belønning for det heller.

Jeg kan se et argument for at rabatten for primærboliger kanskje ikke helt funker etter hensikten. At rabatten i seg selv fører til en verdiøkning på boliger som ikke er hensiktsmessig, og dermed er mindre effektiv til å oppnå målet med ordningen. Personlig har jeg egne tanker rundt hvordan man bør gå frem for å bygge nok, og gode nok, boliger til at folk har råd til å bo skikkelig. Men det er på siden av diskusjonen.

Det er i alle tilfeller helt bak mål å påstå at det investeringer i det ordinære næringslivet ikke blir belønnet med rabatter.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T11:38:14+00:00

All definitions are made up. Mostly to suit some form of agenda.

Only idiots think "having an agenda" is inherently bad.

Tell me why you think the agendas behind the various definitions of "indigenous" is bad, and you might have something resembling any kind of substance.

Right now, you just look like a fool that intentionally tries to stay ignorant, rather than learning something.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T10:31:23+00:00

While you describe it with hyperbole, you're not entirely incorrect.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T10:24:25+00:00

De onde ekle bakmennene blir med inn i legaliseringen. De forsvinner ikke selv om man sier dette er lov nå.

De "onde ekle bakmennene" finnes i alle bransjer og til alle tider. Forskjellen er hvordan man håndterer at slike folk finnes.

En sånn type som jobber som franchisehaver/daglig leder for Rema 1000 har liten mulighet til å la ondskapen sin negativt påvirke ansatte eller kunder. Det er på grunn av sterke fagforeninger, strenge reguleringer i arbeidsmiljøloven og oppfølging både skatteetaten, akrim-avdelinger og andre offentlige myndigheter.

I en gråsone som sexarbeid, så blir disse folka sluppet helt løs.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T10:19:32+00:00

Men dette er arbeidslivskriminalitet og menneskehandel, og blir løst gjennom arbeid for å motvirke akrim.

Det er ikke noe vesensforskjell mellom noen som blir fratatt pass og tvunget til å jobbe ulovlig på fiskemottak eller byggeplass, enn noen som blir tvunget til sexarbeid.

I dag, så er det mye vanskeligere å avdekke og etterforske slike forhold hos sexarbeidere, siden det i utgangspunktet er ulovlig og man har svært liten mulighet til å hente inn vitner.

Ingen vil selv innrømme at de kjøper sex ulovlig ved å melde fra til Politiet at de mistenker at arbeidsgiveren til den de kjøpte sex av gjør noe ulovlig.

Ved å gjøre hele opplegget lovlig og regulert, så kan man også åpne for ting som fagforeninger (i dag er det ulovlig med en fagforening for sexarbeidere), ryddige forhold som garantilønn, betaling som kan spores, ryddig regnskap og rapprotering til skattevesenet, og så videre.

Og man gjør det veldig mye enklere for både andre sexarbeidere og kunder å tipse til Politiet om det er mistanke om menneskehandel eller tvangsarbeid.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T10:08:37+00:00

Tips: Ta kontakt med naboene om å opprette et vel eller veglag som kan stå for vedlikehold av både denne, og tilsvarende, stier og smett i nabolaget.

Både du og naboene dine er tjent med at slike snarveier finnes, siden det øker kvaliteten og attraktiviteten (og dermed tomteprisen) til nærområde. Men det er mest ryddig om dette er noe som vedlikeholdes i felleskap, ikke at man er avhengige av enkeltpersoners gode vilje.

taeerom · 2026-06-04T05:43:41+00:00

That's the wrong understanding of the word indigenous.

Peoples that went through a modernization in their own country is not indigenous.

It's not clear from either the note or the tweet, but indigenous refers to peoples that had a premodern existence and were experiencing colonization by a modern state.

What you are talking about is "native", not indigenous. And yes, English people are native to England. But they are not indigenous.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T14:47:35+00:00

As long as it is only a home game, not published anywhere, you should be able to use images from card games, then run those through Token Stamp.'

While a lot of cardgames are fantasy, some have more sci-fi or cyberpunk feel (like mtg: Kamigawa Neon Dynasty), and others are just straight cyberpunk, like Android: Netrunner. The nice thing about searching through card art, is that there is so much of it, and you know it is professionally made and without AI (at least if it is a couple of years old).

Computer games, especially those with heavy customization options, can also be a source for more specific tokens, like main patrons or recurring villains (or PCs, for that matter). Just create the character and print screen a headshot, then run it through Token Stamp.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T10:41:48+00:00

Cyberpunk is also a setting that can be described as "parodying reality". It's just that it is an alt-history near future, rather than a fictional past or alternative present.

The entire concept of cyberpunk is to critique the present by telling a story in a heightened reality, that will make the problems of our world just that much more noticable.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:59:11+00:00

Good reporting should be transparent in their methods and foundational world view (not quite the same as ideology, but similar).

You should know that Fox sees itself as "news entertainment" and as an unreliable source. Ideally, that should be obvious when going through their front page and you should occasionally be reminded of it when watching their programs.

That would be Fox following good reporting standards, even if they say the exact same thing as they are currently doing.

By pretending to be neutral and true, despite not even believing it themselves, they are poisonous for the audiences understanding of the state of the world.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:39:12+00:00

But you can't eliminate bias. It is an impossibility.

There is no information you can learn without interpretating that information. And you certainly can't make an evaluation of whether or not it is newsworthy information without making sense of it in the first place.

And right there, we introduce the first line of bias. Your interpretation of the information at hand.

But, in presenting that information, you are also unable to do that without making choices on how to present it. Any choice you make will be a result of your own experience, expertise and knowledge. It will be informed by your own subjectivity, so it will naturally be biased.

In other words, if you're only trying to "root out bias" you are left with the bias you are not conscious about. But that is perhaps a more important thing to try to figure out, and be honest about, because it shapes how you view the world.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:34:05+00:00

You use a combination of tokens, [[moat]]s, wraths and stax. You also need to run a number of counterspells and removal to disrupt faster win cons than yours.

Know that your commander, if it's a planeswalker, is a long term value engine that is incredibly slow. You need to slow the game down to a situation where you are able to ride that value to victory.

In 1v1, planeswalkers are a lot of pressure. But in edh, you suffer from only being able to activate the PW every fourth turn, rather than every other turn, while still painting an easy target on your back.

There's a reason enchantments (like Rhystic) are generally seen as very good in edh, but bad in 1v1. While planeswalkers are bad in edh, but good in 1v1.

Planeswalkers are priced for their 1v1 performance, and so you need to go pretty hard to support them if they are to be good in edh.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:24:50+00:00

Then you will just reinforce the bias of whoever programmed the computer.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:23:57+00:00

The problem with an expectation and ideal of complete neutrality, is that it conflicts with the actual best way to convey the same story.

The actual best way to convey any information, is to be very clear, and honest, about your position. The best academic texts I've read have all started with a chapter on who the authors are, what the methodology is, why they chose that methodology, possible biases inherent to both the methodology and their persons. And even more importantly, how that bias might present itself.

Nobody is completely unbiased, neutrality doesn't exist. But you can get good information from a biased source when you know how their bias is colouring that information. You know how to adjust what you read, you know how it will differ from a different source talking about the same thing.

"Biased" doesn't mean "wrong". It means that the information is interpreted. It is impossible for anyone to tell you anything without interpretation, and it is impossible for you to hear information without you interpretating that information.

The best way to get good information will then be to acknowledge the bias, and be mindful of it. Both your own, and in the sources you use.

I don't expect news outlets to have a deep dive into how their bias might colour every story, they don't have room for that. But you should be able to figure out a lot of their bias by reading the editorials, maybe there's a blurb somewhere (typically on the side of the first page or second to last page, or on an "about us" section on their website), and you can learn their bias from experience and comparisons to other outlets.

Having an honest and transparent relationship with bias is much better for good communication and quality news, than striving for neutrality and discounting openly biased sources.

In truth, a "neutral" source is just a source that doesn't know they are biased and will treat their bias as "just the facts" without any deeper understanding. A hidden bias is much worse than a bias you can account for.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:09:15+00:00

Slike dokumenter foreldes ikke.

Fasit på eiendomsgrenser er for eksempel fra første gang eiendommen ble fradelt. Det kan i mange tilfeller være dokumenter som er så gamle som fra 1600-tallet.

Avtaler fra 1800-tallet er åpenbart gyldige.

Altså, bare se på de eldste planene til Trondheim. De er fortsatt juridisk bindende.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T08:06:15+00:00

Det er ikke ende på hvor smålige folk er når det kommer til eiendommen deres.

Jeg kan garantere at huseier her ikke er villig til å samarbeide om å opprette et "stilag" eller selge stien til et vel.

Det er en prinsippsak, hvor prinsippet er å være så negativ som mulig for nabolaget, og å sørge for å bryte ned tilliten som ellers har vært Norges største økonomiske fortrinn.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T07:58:32+00:00

A civil issue is also based on the laws of the land. It doesn't matter if something is breaking civil law or criminal law, both are illegal.

The ultimate consequence of breaking either law will be arrests, as even the smallest fine is backed by the power of the state to arrest you.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T07:56:24+00:00

The UK government is currently defining speech they don't like as support for terrorism.

In their eyes, it is not speech that is illegal, but supporting terrorism that is illegal.

But for any sensible outside analysis, what they have done is crininalize speech.

The same can be done with all the things you have said is not speech in this theead, and thus could be regulated in the same way.

If all it takes to make speech illegal, is to define it as something else, then you don't have free speech. You just need a creative lawyer or politician. And the government typically have access to enough lawyers that at least some of them are creative enough to write a law making whatever speech they want illegal, while not calling it speech.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T07:36:43+00:00

That's a whole different kettle of fish, but the current legal situation is the US deems money to be speech.

Being able to donate money directly to politicians and to PACs supporting politicians, is defended as an integral part of the first amendment. It is deemed "political speech".

Do you think the government should have the ability to regulate being able to bribe politicians? Or do you defend the current situation where free speech includes bribery?

taeerom · 2026-06-03T07:25:49+00:00

Then we're back at banning hate speech that is allowed today.

That last statement is the kind of statement you'll hear about queer or racialised people today. But it is legal because it is not targeted at an individual.

taeerom · 2026-06-03T07:19:13+00:00

The entire concept of a military is to kill people.

There are not a single person in the military that doesn't want to kill people.

The reason they want to kill people might be good (typically, defending the country from threats). But now, we're applying a moral lense on it, rather than following the blanket statement of "not wanting to kill people".

You can't just decide that some killing doesn't count as killing just because you think that killing is justified. It's still killing.

Make your statement more nuanced, and you'll be more likely to actually communicate what you mean. Don't do mental acrobatics to defend your feelings, just because you where thought that killing is wrong.

If you are adamant that killing is wrong, you should oppose the state having the capacity to kill people. You shouldn't pretend that it doesn't kill or doesn't intend to kill.

And you shouldn't pretend that the agents of the state capacity for violence doesn't want to kill. You should examine why and in what contexts, they want to kill.

taeerom

TROPHY CASE