Frankly I think the US is in store for a mass civil upheaval, and considering one side is very well armed and "has god on their side", and the other are physically weak, deluded and over-confident assholes, take one guess about which side will win
Um, the side that stays more legal? In civilized countries, we delegate a lot of our potential for violence to people who work for the government. Modern criminal justice systems have a lot of problems, but far fewer than if we practiced private vengeance.
If a "good ol' boy" fires a rifle at me, that "good ol' boy" is likely to be arrested, convicted, and lose the right to own a gun.
I'm in the top 1% of the world, sure. Most of the US population isn't. The population of the US is roughly 5% of the population of the world, and there are quite a few more people in rich developed countries. If everyone in the US was better off than everyone not in the US, only about 20% of the people in the US would be world 1%ers.
We care much more about local things than distant things.
And this is perfectly reasonable. I know what's going on with me. I can make decisions that immediately affect myself. If I were to try to improve things in parts of Africa where people have a lot more urgent needs than I do, I could send money personally, and apply a teeny amount of political influence In neither case do I have solid confidence that I'm actually helping. There are enough well-meant charitable actions that screw things up more than they help. Technically, I could go to an impoverished area myself, but considering my health and skills I don't know how much good that would do.
Oh, the attraction on the part of the people running the company is obvious. However, to have all that money to do fun things with, they need to scare up some investors. GP, I believe, is talking about people investing in these things.
Now, it's reasonable to throw money at start-ups, figuring that most will go bust but that the others are likely to more than make up for that, but we're not talking about startups. It's reasonable to not pay attention to P/E when one expects the company to grow rapidly. However, a smart investor will want some prospect of reaching a good P/E in the not-too-distant future. Not that long ago, Tesla had an incredibly large market cap. At that price, it wasn't going to get enough earnings to make the P/E reasonable for a long, long time, assuming everything went really well for them.
From my point of view, you're also identifying dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. There are a lot of people who'd describe themselves as Second Amendment defenders who are way over the top, hurling vituperation at anyone they think disagrees with them, for example.
Remember that Usenet was a small group of mostly educated people at its most successful, and I was around for some debates on whether it (or the Internet) could be used for commercial purposes. Modern social media are businesses. The sort of moderation you advocate (which, FWIW, seems reasonable to me) will either be more or less profitable than the sort of moderation now in place, and I figure the free market can sort it out eventually.
Your definition doesn't seem to match the intended use, as SJW is an epithet right-wingers use about left-wingers. Slashdot is an excellent place to find right-wingers who fit that definition.
Scratch that about straight white males and you've got a lot of right-wing groups on that definition. The right wingers tend to blame blacks, non-Christians, scientists, and other groups, not straight white males.
No, the real problem is that we're talking about humans. Washington, D.C. has been in a bubble for a long time (and pretty well satisfies your list of adjectives in many ways), and the millennials don't have the power there.
While I'm happy enough blaming lots and lots of things on Trump, I don't see that he contributed to that particular bubble of thought. He has contributed to some, but quite unlike Silicon Valley's.
I do, but carefully. I don't push my views on people who don't want them. If you want to stay employed, you're doing the right thing by not making a fuss about your views.
Please note that "rethink your approach to women" was a conditional, based on being worried about a rape charge. If you have legitimate reason to fear being charged for rape, you're either of a non-popular skin color or have been pushing the limits.
That's a lot less important than you seem to think it is. As long as platforms are available, and they continued to be, that doesn't suppress free speech. You right-wingers are far too hung up on regulating private institutions to spend limited resources on carrying your messages.
The groups pushing anti-speech zones.
Political parties, with their detestable "free speech zones". This was bipartisan. The case I'm most familiar with (having lived in the metro area at the time) was a Republican convention, but Democrats did it also.
Demanding safe spaces,
Like Pence wanting Broadway to be a safe space? Republicans attacking football players for peaceful protesting, and who apparently wanted NFL stadiums to be safe spaces? Of course, the wealthy and/or powerful creating safe spaces for themselves, where they don't have to listen to other people's opinions, goes back millennia.
I really don't think the Republicans involved called themselves SJWs.
My moral problem with lynchings is that they existed. The fact that they're murder means they're significant, and the fact that the victims were normally black shows private racial discrimination. That's significant private racial discrimination, as I said. If lynchings were of a racial mix similar to the population, they wouldn't suggest racial discrimination, although they'd still be murder.
I don't consider anything from mises.org to be undebatable historical fact. Your cite says that minimum wage laws changed the nature of discrimination, not that they caused discrimination. The article specifically said that the laws changed discriminatory wages to discriminatory employment.
BTW, we have a class of people in this country exploiting economic divisions for gain, and it's not the lower or middle classes. There is class warfare going on, and the rich are currently winning.
Your cite from the Harvard Review describes (as far as I could tell in a quick skim) the role of the educated elite in discriminator eugenics programs reasonably correctly. This fails to describe large quantities of other discriminatory legislation or private discrimination.
Lots of policies, historically, have been put into practice because they're popular, to get votes. Much of the current tough-on-crime crap going on is because it attracts more voters than a more realistic soft-on-crime position.
I can't really look up YouTube cites at work, but Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on the Southern Strategy, including quotes.
If you're going to try to learn anything from history, I suggest dropping the "not subject to debate or interpretation" concept. Historical facts may be undebatable, but interpretations change, and the interpretations are far more important than memorizing historical facts individually.
Clinton is competent at most things, and I've seen no sign of psychopathy. Trump is corrupt as they come or more, using the office of President to directly help out family businesses. There were some dubious things going on with the Clinton Foundation, but when checked out it proved to be a bona fide charity, unlike anything Trump's done. Trump's been saber-rattling at North Korea, of all places.
The people did select the lesser of two evils. The electoral college didn't.
From another point of view, what matters is the number of deaths. There's various ways to look at this, and the number of deaths is valid.
It's hard to calculate how many deaths are due to guns. Without guns, less effective weapons would be used. This is probably going to reduce the suicide death rate (don't discount the possibility that you or a loved one might develop some sort of mental illness and die of suicide), and likely the homicide rate.
Guns can also prevent deaths, but figuring out this effect is probably impossible.
And, yes, I don't pay attention to dangers less than those which I defy by driving to work daily either.
For maximum financial efficiency, you set your withholding so you owe almost enough to get an underpayment penalty. Not so it comes out near the correct amount.
While there's speculation about not allowing human driving (in "Demolition Man", apparently only police vehicles were allowed to drive themselves on public roads), that's a long way off.
They actually do, in competitive markets. As an extreme, commodity pricing depends very heavily on the cost to produce. Reduce that, reduce what you charge, get a lot more business.
Employment forms (W-2s and the like) are due at the end of January. Other forms are allowed to take longer. I didn't get what I needed from my brokerage account until sometime in March. (Then I did the taxes while going through colonoscopy preparations, figuring that one would take my mind off the other.)
I couldn't resist sending the money on Friday the 13th. (I had an unexpected stock sale due to an acquisition, and the capital gains threw off my tax planning big-time.)
"You could thread a needle to get into orbit around the moon of a disant planet instead of doing a flyby,"
If a probe is heading for a distant planet, it's moving pretty fast, because we don't want to wait several lifetimes to get the information back. If it's moving pretty fast, its nowhere near orbital speed for a moon (Triton?), and its trajectory is going to be limited so it won't be able to play fancy games with gravity slingshots. That's the big problem with getting into orbit. Not precision of trajectory.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the side that stays more legal? In civilized countries, we delegate a lot of our potential for violence to people who work for the government. Modern criminal justice systems have a lot of problems, but far fewer than if we practiced private vengeance.
If a "good ol' boy" fires a rifle at me, that "good ol' boy" is likely to be arrested, convicted, and lose the right to own a gun.
I'm in the top 1% of the world, sure. Most of the US population isn't. The population of the US is roughly 5% of the population of the world, and there are quite a few more people in rich developed countries. If everyone in the US was better off than everyone not in the US, only about 20% of the people in the US would be world 1%ers.
And this is perfectly reasonable. I know what's going on with me. I can make decisions that immediately affect myself. If I were to try to improve things in parts of Africa where people have a lot more urgent needs than I do, I could send money personally, and apply a teeny amount of political influence In neither case do I have solid confidence that I'm actually helping. There are enough well-meant charitable actions that screw things up more than they help. Technically, I could go to an impoverished area myself, but considering my health and skills I don't know how much good that would do.
Oh, the attraction on the part of the people running the company is obvious. However, to have all that money to do fun things with, they need to scare up some investors. GP, I believe, is talking about people investing in these things.
Now, it's reasonable to throw money at start-ups, figuring that most will go bust but that the others are likely to more than make up for that, but we're not talking about startups. It's reasonable to not pay attention to P/E when one expects the company to grow rapidly. However, a smart investor will want some prospect of reaching a good P/E in the not-too-distant future. Not that long ago, Tesla had an incredibly large market cap. At that price, it wasn't going to get enough earnings to make the P/E reasonable for a long, long time, assuming everything went really well for them.
Heck, my wife beats me up almost every morning. I'm more of a night owl than she is.
From my point of view, you're also identifying dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. There are a lot of people who'd describe themselves as Second Amendment defenders who are way over the top, hurling vituperation at anyone they think disagrees with them, for example.
Remember that Usenet was a small group of mostly educated people at its most successful, and I was around for some debates on whether it (or the Internet) could be used for commercial purposes. Modern social media are businesses. The sort of moderation you advocate (which, FWIW, seems reasonable to me) will either be more or less profitable than the sort of moderation now in place, and I figure the free market can sort it out eventually.
I used to have "Studying to pass the Turing Test" somewhere as a tagline.
I read Slashdot for the comments. They're usually at least entertaining, and sometimes very enlightening.
Your definition doesn't seem to match the intended use, as SJW is an epithet right-wingers use about left-wingers. Slashdot is an excellent place to find right-wingers who fit that definition.
Scratch that about straight white males and you've got a lot of right-wing groups on that definition. The right wingers tend to blame blacks, non-Christians, scientists, and other groups, not straight white males.
No, the real problem is that we're talking about humans. Washington, D.C. has been in a bubble for a long time (and pretty well satisfies your list of adjectives in many ways), and the millennials don't have the power there.
While I'm happy enough blaming lots and lots of things on Trump, I don't see that he contributed to that particular bubble of thought. He has contributed to some, but quite unlike Silicon Valley's.
I do, but carefully. I don't push my views on people who don't want them. If you want to stay employed, you're doing the right thing by not making a fuss about your views.
Please note that "rethink your approach to women" was a conditional, based on being worried about a rape charge. If you have legitimate reason to fear being charged for rape, you're either of a non-popular skin color or have been pushing the limits.
That's a lot less important than you seem to think it is. As long as platforms are available, and they continued to be, that doesn't suppress free speech. You right-wingers are far too hung up on regulating private institutions to spend limited resources on carrying your messages.
Political parties, with their detestable "free speech zones". This was bipartisan. The case I'm most familiar with (having lived in the metro area at the time) was a Republican convention, but Democrats did it also.
Like Pence wanting Broadway to be a safe space? Republicans attacking football players for peaceful protesting, and who apparently wanted NFL stadiums to be safe spaces? Of course, the wealthy and/or powerful creating safe spaces for themselves, where they don't have to listen to other people's opinions, goes back millennia.
I really don't think the Republicans involved called themselves SJWs.
My moral problem with lynchings is that they existed. The fact that they're murder means they're significant, and the fact that the victims were normally black shows private racial discrimination. That's significant private racial discrimination, as I said. If lynchings were of a racial mix similar to the population, they wouldn't suggest racial discrimination, although they'd still be murder.
I don't consider anything from mises.org to be undebatable historical fact. Your cite says that minimum wage laws changed the nature of discrimination, not that they caused discrimination. The article specifically said that the laws changed discriminatory wages to discriminatory employment.
BTW, we have a class of people in this country exploiting economic divisions for gain, and it's not the lower or middle classes. There is class warfare going on, and the rich are currently winning.
Your cite from the Harvard Review describes (as far as I could tell in a quick skim) the role of the educated elite in discriminator eugenics programs reasonably correctly. This fails to describe large quantities of other discriminatory legislation or private discrimination.
Lots of policies, historically, have been put into practice because they're popular, to get votes. Much of the current tough-on-crime crap going on is because it attracts more voters than a more realistic soft-on-crime position.
I can't really look up YouTube cites at work, but Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on the Southern Strategy, including quotes.
If you're going to try to learn anything from history, I suggest dropping the "not subject to debate or interpretation" concept. Historical facts may be undebatable, but interpretations change, and the interpretations are far more important than memorizing historical facts individually.
Clinton is competent at most things, and I've seen no sign of psychopathy. Trump is corrupt as they come or more, using the office of President to directly help out family businesses. There were some dubious things going on with the Clinton Foundation, but when checked out it proved to be a bona fide charity, unlike anything Trump's done. Trump's been saber-rattling at North Korea, of all places.
The people did select the lesser of two evils. The electoral college didn't.
From another point of view, what matters is the number of deaths. There's various ways to look at this, and the number of deaths is valid.
It's hard to calculate how many deaths are due to guns. Without guns, less effective weapons would be used. This is probably going to reduce the suicide death rate (don't discount the possibility that you or a loved one might develop some sort of mental illness and die of suicide), and likely the homicide rate.
Guns can also prevent deaths, but figuring out this effect is probably impossible.
And, yes, I don't pay attention to dangers less than those which I defy by driving to work daily either.
For maximum financial efficiency, you set your withholding so you owe almost enough to get an underpayment penalty. Not so it comes out near the correct amount.
While there's speculation about not allowing human driving (in "Demolition Man", apparently only police vehicles were allowed to drive themselves on public roads), that's a long way off.
Given what happened to Sony when they yanked the advertised OtherOS off the PS-3, I'm not too worried about Tesla.
They actually do, in competitive markets. As an extreme, commodity pricing depends very heavily on the cost to produce. Reduce that, reduce what you charge, get a lot more business.
Employment forms (W-2s and the like) are due at the end of January. Other forms are allowed to take longer. I didn't get what I needed from my brokerage account until sometime in March. (Then I did the taxes while going through colonoscopy preparations, figuring that one would take my mind off the other.)
I couldn't resist sending the money on Friday the 13th. (I had an unexpected stock sale due to an acquisition, and the capital gains threw off my tax planning big-time.)
If a probe is heading for a distant planet, it's moving pretty fast, because we don't want to wait several lifetimes to get the information back. If it's moving pretty fast, its nowhere near orbital speed for a moon (Triton?), and its trajectory is going to be limited so it won't be able to play fancy games with gravity slingshots. That's the big problem with getting into orbit. Not precision of trajectory.