BraveSirZaphod

The First Amendment is pretty strong about how it’s legal to be a dick.

Just as I can say that evangelicals are delusional children who never learned how to get over their daddy issues to the extent that they literally invent a daddy in the sky who just so happens to approve of every bias and bigotry they hold to.

The merger happened in 2010.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1335258/000119312510012287/dex991.htm

If you think Biden is only “slightly less extreme”, you really need to take another look at the Republican party, given its leader is casually suggesting sending out secret police to round up undocumented immigrants into camps.

Even restricting the view to economic policy, the gap between the average Republican and Democrat in office has been growing much much larger compared to the old 90s consensus. Both parties have grown critical of free trade, with Republicans going much further and wanting to throw huge tariffs on any country that feels icky (and somehow thinking that jacking up prices on all imported goods will improve inflation*). Republicans have also grown extremely fond of attacking any corporation they perceive as being too woke or socially aware, even going so far as to invoke the powers of supposedly-small government to ban certain diversity practices.

Both parties have become relatively protectionist, but Republicans tend to be against any form of actual domestic investment. On housing, pretty much all supply-side solutions (which you’d think would come from the supposedly market-loving Republicans!) are instead coming from the Democrats, with the Republicans instead reducing essentially everything to culture wars.

Again, look at the Republican party as it actually is today, because they largely do not have any substantial policy beyond stoking white conservative rage. I’m not saying mainstream Democrats are revolutionary champions of the working poor, but there simply is no competition compared to the Republicans of today.

There are very real constitutional issues with explicit wealth taxes. It took a constitutional amendment to authorize the federal government to collect an income tax, and it’s quite possible that it would take another to authorize a wealth tax. Particularly with this Supreme Court, Congress probably doesn’t have the legal ability to impose a wealth tax even if it wanted to, to say nothing of the general complexity and costs of collecting it. There are plenty of economists who support the general idea of taxing the wealthy more but who prefer other taxation schemes.

This behavior is literally millennia older than capitalism.

In most cases, longer. Jews had been in Iraq more than a thousand years before Islam was even developed.

There’s this notion that modern Israelis are essentially just Europeans who invaded after WWII, which is simply not true.

While the Zionist movement largely did originate in Europe in the late 1800s, the majority of Israeli citizens today are not of European ancestry / Ashkenazi. The majority are what’s called Mizrahi, coming from Middle Eastern Jewish communities that were forcibly expelled from Arab countries during the 50s and 60s. For instance, Ben Gvir, the current Minister of Defense (and to be clear, a complete little shit), is from an Iraqi family. In 1948, there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq, making up nearly 40% of the population of Baghdad. Today, there are estimated to be less than five. Likewise, in Yemen, there were roughly 50,000 Jews, maintaining a presence that goes back well over 2500 years. Today, there may be one single Jew left in the country. The same situation happened all throughout the Arab world. The departing Jews generally had to flee their homes without any significant belongings, since their property was often confiscated. In Syria, for instance, a 1964 decree prevented Jews from traveling more than 3 miles from their homes, banned them from owning land, banned them from working in the government or in banks, banned them from leaving anything as inheritance - which would instead be seized by the state.

If something is possible, and this simply indeed is, someone is going to develop it regardless of how we feel about it, so it’s important for non-malicious actors to make people aware of the potential negative impacts so we can start to develop ways to handle them before actively malicious actors start deploying it.

Critical businesses and governments need to know that identity verification via video and voice is much less trustworthy than it used to be, and so if you’re currently doing that, you need to mitigate these risks. There are tools, namely public-private key cryptography, that can be used to verify identity in a much tighter way, and we’re probably going to need to start implementing them in more places.

This feels more like a poor non-native English speaker than an AI. LLMs do happily lie, but they don’t usually have significant grammar mistakes like the missing articles here.

In this particular context, “I believe Joe Biden should be the elected to another term” in apparently objectionable.

Similarly, “I believe that the murder of 1000 Israeli citizens on October 7th was bad, and also that the Netanyahu government is atrocious and its military response has been grossly disproportionate and involved multiple war crimes” is enough to get you ejected from plenty of leftist spaces that insist that the October 7th attacks must be celebrated as an act of radical resistance.

It is also a Club founded to keep the LGBTQ community free of anointed gatekeepers and machine politics

This is comically hypocritical given that you’ll be gatekept out of any group like this the moment you express any opinion they disagree with, speaking as a gay guy myself.

That is not at all what right to work means.

I get the frustration, but if you’re going to criticize a thing, it’s a lot more effective if you actually know what the thing is.

Trump would gladly support turning Gaza into a parking lot, and quite likely would have US troops engaged in a war with Iran right now. So, the actual choice is Biden, who’s attempting but largely failing to restrain Israeli military actions, and Trump, who would actively support them and undoubtedly support subsequent Jewish settlement of Gaza once the Palestinian “problem” has been solved.

It’s an unfortunate choice, sure, but it’s not a hard one.

Conservatives are by no means the only problem here.

Ultimately, people become homeless because they cannot afford a home. Shockingly, housing prices thus have an extremely strong effect on homelessness rates. The great state of West Virginia, despite all its many many flaws and challenges between extreme poverty, addiction, lack of jobs, and everything else, does not have a significant homelessness problem. Why? Because housing in West Virginia is dirt cheap such that even people who are struggling can still maintain housing.

This is a policy choice, not some natural and inevitable state of affairs. While subsidies and other programs can move the needle a little bit, by far the greatest factor affecting housing costs is raw supply v. demand, and the fact of the matter is that voters all over the United States, even in the most progressive zip codes in the country, have decided that they would rather restrict the supply of new housing in order to increase the value of their own property investments instead of allowing new housing to be built, even if the consequence is huge swaths of people can no longer afford housing at all. To make themselves feel a little bit better, progressives might throw some money at broken homeless shelter systems and pretend that that band-aid actually fixes the problem.

West Virginia certainly didn’t avoid a homelessness problem by aggressively subsidizing affordable housing, making huge investments in public housing projects, implementing huge restrictions on landlords, or building a massive shelter and support system. They simply maintained an adequate supply of housing relative to the amount of people that want to live there. Until blue cities and states wake up to this fundamental fact, nothing is going to meaningfully change. You cannot simultaneously have your housing be an ever-increasing lucrative investment asset and have housing be affordable, no matter how many progressive sign posts you put in the lawn. It’s incredible how quickly people like California progressives who claim to care so much about the poor and the downtrodden show their true colors the moment you suggest building an apartment building in their single-family house suburbia that might actually be affordable by those same people.

You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.

Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?

That’s proven to be both unpopular and often having unintended side effects.

The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn’t matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug’s next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.

You’re correct, but the fundamental blame for that does lie with the voters, at the end of the day. No amount of structural protections can protect democracy from voters that do not care about it. At that point, they’re just ink on a page.

To actually give an answer, it’s because the Constitution very deliberately does not allow criminal convictions to disqualify someone. This was done because it was, and in plenty of places still is, common practice for a government to simply make up charges and arrest any opposition, thus disqualifying them from running.

You always have to look at this kind of stuff from the other side. Would you really want a Trump to be able to disqualify an opposing candidate for running a red light once twenty years ago?

Just for the sake of completeness, the actual history here is that Ancient Greek has the latter Phi Φ which, during the classical Greek era of around the 5th century BC, was pronounced as a particularly strong /p/ sound that produced a noticeable puff of air, as opposed to the letter Pi π which was a weaker /p/ sound. It’s the exact same story with Greek Theta θ vs Greek Tau Τ and Greek Chi Χ vs Greek Kappa Κ. This distinction is called ‘aspiration’.

The Romans obviously had quite a lot of contact with the Greeks and took a lot of Greek words into Latin. However, the issues is that Latin did not have these aspirated sounds natively, and so they didn’t have an simple way to transliterate those letters into the Latin alphabet. The clever solution they came up with was to add an <h> after the aspirated sounds to represent that characteristic puff of air. So, they could easily transcribe the distinction between πι and φι as “pi” and “phi”. Thus begins a long tradition of transcribing these Greek letters as ‘Ph’, ‘Th’ and ‘Ch’.

The awkward issue is that languages tend to change over time, and by the 4th century AD or so, the pronunciation of all the aspirated consonants had dramatically shifted, with Phi Φ becoming /f/, Theta θ becoming the English <th> sound, and Chi Χ becoming something like the <ch> of German or Scottish “Loch”. This was generally noticed by the rest of Europe, and other European languages tended to adopt these new pronunciations to the extent that their languages allowed, though some languages also changed the spelling (see French ‘phonétique’ vs Spanish ‘fonético’). Plenty of languages kept the original Latin transcription spellings though, and thus we have the kinda goofy situation of ‘ph’ being a regular spelling of the /f/ sound in English.

So, tl;dr: Ph was just a clever transcription of a unique Greek sound that basically was a P plus an H. Then the Greeks started pronouncing it as an F, and so did everyone else, but we kept the original spelling.