Or do I have to record myself saying "stop! I have a gun" then prove they understood the warning before I can shoot
The guy you're responding too may be full of shit, but you really want that outcome. If you actually have to shoot someone you'll be playing courtroom roulette, both criminal and civil. Vastly better to scare the guy away (which is why IMO a pump-action shotgun is the best home defense weapon - it's multilingual!).
I've heard that it's common for the police to write up a gun suicide as "accident when cleaning the gun", so the family will get the life insurance, so the number get even more confused. (But really, who shoots themselves by accident when cleaning a gun? No one sober, for starters.)
You're free to believe whatever you want without a shred of doubt, but the data says your faith is misplaced. The average IQ in India is 82, more than one standard deviation below any European people.
It's not the "average Indian" who is going to tech school, and more than it's the average American who goes to med or law school. Poor nutrition is known to have a significant effect on IQ, but that doesn't affect Indians from non-poor families. 800k grads a year is only about 4% of the population of graduation age, and since that's more prestigious than a doctor or lawyer in India, that's presumable close to the top 4% of IQ.
IQ tests results, as a statistical measure, predict success in high school, in college, and job success with a high correlation - the highest of any psychological test. Within a given country, IQ is a better prediction of economic success in life than how wealthy your parents are.
Early IQ test were very culture-specific, but that was a long time ago. Better modern tests are entirely symbolic, and language-free (beyond the instructions). IQ tests are very repeatable - they are a scientific measure.
The Conscientiousness personality trait is also a decent predictor of college and life success, but it's much harder to measure reliably.
If you're equating vapor clouds with shit hitting you, you've having a seriously overblown (see what I did there) reaction, or you have some deep-seated trauma relate to them that you should really talk to someone about (not, me - someone who's not an asshole).
You're missing the point here. Perhaps "freedom" is ambiguous.
If the rule is "if what you do harms me in any way, you can't do it", that's a totalitarian society, because there's no liberty left, only rules ensuring freedom-from-harm. That is, of course, the current "progressive" model: no one should be allowed to even so much as offend another - that's harm, so you can't do it.
If the rule is "I must show non-trivial harm (not just annoyance or offense, but actual harm) before I can restrict another's actions: that allows for liberty, but not freedom-from-harm (still, reasonable limits on harm, but there will be some harm).
I value liberty over freedom-from-harm. That means I put up with things that annoy me, offend me, or cost me needless (IMO) taxes, because that's what liberty costs. But that's me - what do you value?
The correct question is: is the second hand effect from people vaping a de minimis effect that we should just put up with, or is it a non-trivial concern? Everything you do harms someone somewhere, in some way. The very idea of freedom requires accepting de minimis harm from everyone else; that's just the trade off.
The burden of proof is on you to show that another's action will (on average) cause you non-trivial harm before you can make any sort of argument for restricting freedom.
America did OK after our civil war, which led to quite significant changes. Ancient Athens went through some radical changes over the centuries, as did Rome. Nothing lasts forever, but if you're still going 100 years after some radical change, you have new problems.
No, really, there was a lot of market research on this. People like fake sales. Really they do. It's the festive atmosphere or somesuch, even if the price isn't better. Most people aren't obsessive geeks focused on price alone.
Time-wise, the company fell apart when they stopped the price abuse. For whatever that's worth, correlation vs causation etc, but shoppers weren't at all happy per the JCP financial docs.
Every web page, for example, tries to sell you something else before giving full information about a product.
Only because it works. Every pixel is fine-tuned for maximum sales, and continuously validated. I'd rather see the product details above the other products, but then I'm a geek and so hardly representative of the greater shopping public. (I've heard it doesn't matter: most people just ignore everything and scroll down to the reviews.)
Playing games with prices is EXTREMELY self-destructive. People buy much more from companies they know they can trust.
This part of your post has been proven false by experiment. Oh, sure, it sounds truthy, but experiment trumps opinion. JCPenny has it's entire business built on this sort of deceptive sale. A CEO came along and tried to end the practice, start having non-gamed sale prices, and the business cratered. Shoppers wanted the "sales", even long after everyone knew the game. Not sure why, not what I would have expected, but you can't argue with reality.
People just aren't strictly rational as consumers, and have all sorts of oddball preferences.
You know, I'm not sure that's strictly true, but a counter-example doesn't spring to mind. Anyhow, my point was that it's better to think of energy, not mass, as the source of gravity, momentum, and so on. It's only for historical/traditional reasons that we would think of energy as "having mass", rather than the more useful idea of mass as "a kind of energy".
Your comment isn't related to mine, as far as I can tell. Or are you saying "fewer people bribing an elected official" == "concentration of power"? That would be a very odd thing to say.
Well, any "establishment" politician has hundreds of companies he owes regular rewards to. If Trump only is corrupt in favor of family and friends, that will be a major improvement IMO.
You're pretty much done with politics after the presidency, so "political suicide" doesn't amount to much. I've never been a big Trump fan, but I'll give him this: he does what he thinks is right without regard to any political fallout. I like that. I could wish he'd put more emphasis on the thinks in that sentence, but, hey, it's an imperfect world.
You do realize that most CEOs are salesman-in-chief, right? And rarely have much to do with the day-to-day operations of the corporation? The exceptions are rare enough to be noteworthy.
is idiot peasant followers from the village will come after you with social media attacks, pitchforks, handguns, and pit bulls.
Wait, so progressives support Trump now? Or have you missed the fact that 100% of political violence since November was initiated by the progressives, and social media hate mobs are entirely a progressive phenomenon?
Wow, the Russia Nothingburger still gets a +5 on Slashdot - entirely fictional, but I guess there are still a lot of/.ers who actually believe the news. Shockingly naive.
If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats
The only way that would ever happen is if a president were actually fixing the corruption in DC. While I think Trump has done a small amount of that (or at least hes handed 0 $trillions to banks thus far, unlike the last couple guys), it's small enough that he's at no risk.
NASA used to launch all the secret military stuff, for decades. It was only in the 90s IIRC that the Air Force moved to controlling most of its own launches. Heck, the space shuttle was designed for servicing military sats.
Where did I say "irreplaceable". Oh, you made that up.
The point is that the pool of top talent - in any complex endeavor - is small. So, sure, you can replace a good CEO if you have a good selection process, but you can't keep doing that very long. If we're instead talking about, say, novel publishing, it's not so obvious who replaces the top talent. There are a handful of authors that sell very well indeed, and only some of that is marketing. At the extreme of the bell curve, you go centuries between William Shakespeare and Agatha Christi.
Of course, you can also replace anyone easily - you just stop caring about how good the replacement is. That what normally happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Or do I have to record myself saying "stop! I have a gun" then prove they understood the warning before I can shoot
The guy you're responding too may be full of shit, but you really want that outcome. If you actually have to shoot someone you'll be playing courtroom roulette, both criminal and civil. Vastly better to scare the guy away (which is why IMO a pump-action shotgun is the best home defense weapon - it's multilingual!).
I've heard that it's common for the police to write up a gun suicide as "accident when cleaning the gun", so the family will get the life insurance, so the number get even more confused. (But really, who shoots themselves by accident when cleaning a gun? No one sober, for starters.)
You're free to believe whatever you want without a shred of doubt, but the data says your faith is misplaced. The average IQ in India is 82, more than one standard deviation below any European people.
It's not the "average Indian" who is going to tech school, and more than it's the average American who goes to med or law school. Poor nutrition is known to have a significant effect on IQ, but that doesn't affect Indians from non-poor families. 800k grads a year is only about 4% of the population of graduation age, and since that's more prestigious than a doctor or lawyer in India, that's presumable close to the top 4% of IQ.
Wrong on both counts.
IQ tests results, as a statistical measure, predict success in high school, in college, and job success with a high correlation - the highest of any psychological test. Within a given country, IQ is a better prediction of economic success in life than how wealthy your parents are.
Early IQ test were very culture-specific, but that was a long time ago. Better modern tests are entirely symbolic, and language-free (beyond the instructions). IQ tests are very repeatable - they are a scientific measure.
The Conscientiousness personality trait is also a decent predictor of college and life success, but it's much harder to measure reliably.
If you're equating vapor clouds with shit hitting you, you've having a seriously overblown (see what I did there) reaction, or you have some deep-seated trauma relate to them that you should really talk to someone about (not, me - someone who's not an asshole).
You're missing the point here. Perhaps "freedom" is ambiguous.
If the rule is "if what you do harms me in any way, you can't do it", that's a totalitarian society, because there's no liberty left, only rules ensuring freedom-from-harm. That is, of course, the current "progressive" model: no one should be allowed to even so much as offend another - that's harm, so you can't do it.
If the rule is "I must show non-trivial harm (not just annoyance or offense, but actual harm) before I can restrict another's actions: that allows for liberty, but not freedom-from-harm (still, reasonable limits on harm, but there will be some harm).
I value liberty over freedom-from-harm. That means I put up with things that annoy me, offend me, or cost me needless (IMO) taxes, because that's what liberty costs. But that's me - what do you value?
Freedom is at least as important as health.
The correct question is: is the second hand effect from people vaping a de minimis effect that we should just put up with, or is it a non-trivial concern? Everything you do harms someone somewhere, in some way. The very idea of freedom requires accepting de minimis harm from everyone else; that's just the trade off.
The burden of proof is on you to show that another's action will (on average) cause you non-trivial harm before you can make any sort of argument for restricting freedom.
America did OK after our civil war, which led to quite significant changes. Ancient Athens went through some radical changes over the centuries, as did Rome. Nothing lasts forever, but if you're still going 100 years after some radical change, you have new problems.
No, really, there was a lot of market research on this. People like fake sales. Really they do. It's the festive atmosphere or somesuch, even if the price isn't better. Most people aren't obsessive geeks focused on price alone.
Time-wise, the company fell apart when they stopped the price abuse. For whatever that's worth, correlation vs causation etc, but shoppers weren't at all happy per the JCP financial docs.
Every web page, for example, tries to sell you something else before giving full information about a product.
Only because it works. Every pixel is fine-tuned for maximum sales, and continuously validated. I'd rather see the product details above the other products, but then I'm a geek and so hardly representative of the greater shopping public. (I've heard it doesn't matter: most people just ignore everything and scroll down to the reviews.)
Playing games with prices is EXTREMELY self-destructive. People buy much more from companies they know they can trust.
This part of your post has been proven false by experiment. Oh, sure, it sounds truthy, but experiment trumps opinion. JCPenny has it's entire business built on this sort of deceptive sale. A CEO came along and tried to end the practice, start having non-gamed sale prices, and the business cratered. Shoppers wanted the "sales", even long after everyone knew the game. Not sure why, not what I would have expected, but you can't argue with reality.
People just aren't strictly rational as consumers, and have all sorts of oddball preferences.
You know, I'm not sure that's strictly true, but a counter-example doesn't spring to mind. Anyhow, my point was that it's better to think of energy, not mass, as the source of gravity, momentum, and so on. It's only for historical/traditional reasons that we would think of energy as "having mass", rather than the more useful idea of mass as "a kind of energy".
Your comment isn't related to mine, as far as I can tell. Or are you saying "fewer people bribing an elected official" == "concentration of power"? That would be a very odd thing to say.
Well, any "establishment" politician has hundreds of companies he owes regular rewards to. If Trump only is corrupt in favor of family and friends, that will be a major improvement IMO.
Well put. Net net, it's less corruption. Does that make Trump a good guy? Who the fuck cares, it's about what's best for the country.
They do have momentum. Hence, they have mass
That's backwards. Everything with mass has momentum when it moves, but most things that have momentum are massless particles.
Cool story, bro.
You're pretty much done with politics after the presidency, so "political suicide" doesn't amount to much. I've never been a big Trump fan, but I'll give him this: he does what he thinks is right without regard to any political fallout. I like that. I could wish he'd put more emphasis on the thinks in that sentence, but, hey, it's an imperfect world.
You do realize that most CEOs are salesman-in-chief, right? And rarely have much to do with the day-to-day operations of the corporation? The exceptions are rare enough to be noteworthy.
is idiot peasant followers from the village will come after you with social media attacks, pitchforks, handguns, and pit bulls.
Wait, so progressives support Trump now? Or have you missed the fact that 100% of political violence since November was initiated by the progressives, and social media hate mobs are entirely a progressive phenomenon?
Wow, the Russia Nothingburger still gets a +5 on Slashdot - entirely fictional, but I guess there are still a lot of /.ers who actually believe the news. Shockingly naive.
If he becomes toxic enough to the incumbents, they'll vote to impeach to keep their own seats
The only way that would ever happen is if a president were actually fixing the corruption in DC. While I think Trump has done a small amount of that (or at least hes handed 0 $trillions to banks thus far, unlike the last couple guys), it's small enough that he's at no risk.
You should really see someone about your Trump OCD. They have meds for OCD now. Or are you just off your meds again?
NASA used to launch all the secret military stuff, for decades. It was only in the 90s IIRC that the Air Force moved to controlling most of its own launches. Heck, the space shuttle was designed for servicing military sats.
Where did I say "irreplaceable". Oh, you made that up.
The point is that the pool of top talent - in any complex endeavor - is small. So, sure, you can replace a good CEO if you have a good selection process, but you can't keep doing that very long. If we're instead talking about, say, novel publishing, it's not so obvious who replaces the top talent. There are a handful of authors that sell very well indeed, and only some of that is marketing. At the extreme of the bell curve, you go centuries between William Shakespeare and Agatha Christi.
Of course, you can also replace anyone easily - you just stop caring about how good the replacement is. That what normally happens.