I have a rule: Don't go to New York City, not even once. It is, as I understand it, a little hell.
Yep. Design your shit to last forever and design your shit to be repairable if it does break. 90% of things we replace would never be replaced in our lifetimes after that. "But the companies will go our of business!" maybe or maybe they can try to create stuff we actually want to buy instead of just selling us progressively worse versions of the same shit year after year.
The AC/DC conversion is just a bridge rectifier and some smoothing caps. They tend to be pretty minimal power draws.
Having officially upgraded from 16GB to a whopping 32GB of memory, I'm excited at the prospect of having three chrome tabs open at once without swapping to disk!
I wonder what would happen if someone tried to wire up a European 220v light bulb to an American 120v light socket? The active current regulation chip would presumably try to keep the current the same, and the voltage across each LED would be half, so as long as you're hitting the minimum threshold voltage, you should be driving those LEDs way less. Pick up a 100W equivalent bulb, it's suddenly putting out 50W equivalent, I'd guess you'd have a bulb that lasts more or less forever.
Or maybe not?
Or maybe not?
lol no kidding. "Wait, that's what this feels like? This sucks! It must be against the rules(when they do it)!"
I might be misreading that, but it looks to me like a conspiracy like "The sun rose today, and now this happened. Clearly there's a connection. Very suspicious."
I mean... of course a political campaign sent fundraising texts?
I mean... of course a political campaign sent fundraising texts?
It really makes you think how important spaces are.
I mean, if you send a text saying you'll "be at my wife", it's bad grammar but it's generally a good thing. Lose one little space, and suddenly you'll "beat my wife".
I was going to say they're totally different things, but really there's no way to beat a wife you aren't going to "be at"...
I mean, if you send a text saying you'll "be at my wife", it's bad grammar but it's generally a good thing. Lose one little space, and suddenly you'll "beat my wife".
I was going to say they're totally different things, but really there's no way to beat a wife you aren't going to "be at"...
These people are so dumb they don't realize that their argument suggests we don't bring in any more Haitians because apparently their presence causes assassination attempts.
The scary part is despite higher interest rates debt has been soaring because households are so badly in distress from the cost of living increases.
Establishment media seems to be predicting a 50 basis point cut to the federal funds rate.
According to the fed and the government things are better than ever before, record low unemployment.
So why cut? If anything if you believe the government lies then interest rates should be shootint way way up! Unemployment being so good, everything's being so fine, you might hold but you certainly wouldn't cut... If you believe what the government and the FED have to say...
So why are they calling for a 50 basis point cut? Could it be that they're just not being entirely honest with us?
According to the fed and the government things are better than ever before, record low unemployment.
So why cut? If anything if you believe the government lies then interest rates should be shootint way way up! Unemployment being so good, everything's being so fine, you might hold but you certainly wouldn't cut... If you believe what the government and the FED have to say...
So why are they calling for a 50 basis point cut? Could it be that they're just not being entirely honest with us?
Whatifalthist has laid out a pretty good case over the years that you are correct to be concerned. The models of Peter turchin predict that there's going to be a major revolution sometime soon, and unfortunately it is often the most extreme factions that win revolutions. It would be one thing if the intellectual petersonians were to win the next century, but it seems much more likely that a much more unreasonable faction will end up taking the reins and all reasonable people should have reason to be concerned. Arguably the French revolution marked the beginning of the modernist period, and even today we are still living with the fallout of the policies of the Jacobins around the world, as well as the Russian Bolsheviks and the Chinese maoists. In a lot of ways, extreme progressives are still trying to achieve some of the societal changes that were already tried back during the French revolution and scaled back because they were just too much.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.
New eras tend to be reactions to the last, and this era that we're likely concluding right now is the most feminized, the most egalitarian, and the most open in history. For that reason, I would fully expect there to be an incoming era of extreme masculinity, extreme hierarchy and class distinctions, and potentially one of the most closed in history. That our current state of Muslims are part of a reaction to the Muslim Golden age ending and everyone can see what that looks like.
I think it's important overall to have a view of the world that isn't just a reaction to whatever exists today. Yesterday I wrote a pretty long post describing a way of being that in my view is about the only way that we could improve the world on a personal level, and one of the key things about it is that other than my criticism of modern movements as trying to save the world where the individuals participating can't even save themselves, it is rooted in timeless ideas of acting with virtue and following your personal moral compass. In doing so, often you will start to see movements that you did agree with starting to miss their Mark and movements that you didn't agree with saying some things that you can't argue against, and that doesn't mean that you should go flipping between one side or the other but rather that you need to have that moral center within yourself and not rely on society to necessarily provided for you.
We're all just trying to find the truth here. All of us are occasionally going to use some inflammatory words, myself included, as long as we can pat each other on the back and call each other friends at the end I'm thankful for people who are willing to push back against the things that I say.
You know I didn't include it, but I tend to think that you're probably on the right track there. If Osama bin laden had sons, if they found the events of 9/11 reprehensible then you can't very well hold them responsible for the things that Osama did, but if they cheered for it and say death to America and are planning to do the exact same thing all over again then you can judge them on their own demerits.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.
Now that being said, there's probably multiple layers here where you can hold them in contempt for the views that they hold and the things that they've personally done but it's not like there's a moral justification to hunt down, kill, and feed little billy bin laden to the sharks because his dad did a 9/11. You judge him for the things that he actually did.
I'm not concluding anything about your motive, but I am presenting you with one of the outcomes of your train of thought.
It isn't healthy to be attacking a people who have existed somewhere for 400 years as if they just moved in yesterday. Even if you managed to be personally reasonable in using that argument by trying to invoke ancient grievances solely in pursuit of getting people to behave and what you believe to be a more moral way moving forward, it is an argument with inherently unreasonable ends and we need to keep that in mind.
The argument explicitly blames people who haven't done a thing for something their distance ancestors did. It explicitly treats them as the exact same as the people who originally did the thing. It isn't implied, it's right there in the argument. "Why did you migrate then?" They didn't. They live exactly where they were born, and exactly where their parents were born, and exactly where their grandparents were born. But if such an argument is going to explicitly lay the sins of people's ancestors at the feet of people who are alive today, eventually somebody is going to come up with a bright idea of not just using the supposition as a reason to try to be more moral, but instead to actively punish those who the argument says effectively did the thing.
The exact same line of thought is used by racial supremacists to blame people for the crimes of their kin. White supremacists often point at the crime rate among black people and will blame all black people for the crimes of some black people. Some people who want to attack indigenous peoples will greatly point out that human sacrifice particularly of unwilling participants is an abomination to our modern eyes as if those same people were the ones who did it. There are even people who still hold the Japanese people responsible for the atrocities of the Pacific theater of World War II, or the use of tactics like scalping in the American Indian wars, or that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11.
So I tend to agree that not all black people are responsible for every crime committed by a black person, and I tend to agree that not all indigenous people are responsible for the human sacrifices of 600 years ago, and I tend to agree that currently living Japanese people are not responsible for the atrocities of World War 2, and I tend to agree that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11, so all that being the case I have to agree that it is not a good practice to blame people who have never migrated for the migrations of their ancient ancestors.
It isn't healthy to be attacking a people who have existed somewhere for 400 years as if they just moved in yesterday. Even if you managed to be personally reasonable in using that argument by trying to invoke ancient grievances solely in pursuit of getting people to behave and what you believe to be a more moral way moving forward, it is an argument with inherently unreasonable ends and we need to keep that in mind.
The argument explicitly blames people who haven't done a thing for something their distance ancestors did. It explicitly treats them as the exact same as the people who originally did the thing. It isn't implied, it's right there in the argument. "Why did you migrate then?" They didn't. They live exactly where they were born, and exactly where their parents were born, and exactly where their grandparents were born. But if such an argument is going to explicitly lay the sins of people's ancestors at the feet of people who are alive today, eventually somebody is going to come up with a bright idea of not just using the supposition as a reason to try to be more moral, but instead to actively punish those who the argument says effectively did the thing.
The exact same line of thought is used by racial supremacists to blame people for the crimes of their kin. White supremacists often point at the crime rate among black people and will blame all black people for the crimes of some black people. Some people who want to attack indigenous peoples will greatly point out that human sacrifice particularly of unwilling participants is an abomination to our modern eyes as if those same people were the ones who did it. There are even people who still hold the Japanese people responsible for the atrocities of the Pacific theater of World War II, or the use of tactics like scalping in the American Indian wars, or that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11.
So I tend to agree that not all black people are responsible for every crime committed by a black person, and I tend to agree that not all indigenous people are responsible for the human sacrifices of 600 years ago, and I tend to agree that currently living Japanese people are not responsible for the atrocities of World War 2, and I tend to agree that not every Muslim is responsible for 9/11, so all that being the case I have to agree that it is not a good practice to blame people who have never migrated for the migrations of their ancient ancestors.