Roboticide

I imagine just trying to cut government spending, since the Argentinian government has been printing money like no tomorrow. Their economy is in shambles and inflation is up like 400% or something.

This guy is an absolute nut job but after the establishment left and establishment right failed to fix anything, you can kind of see why he won by 11%.

They point to women’s impressive performance in extreme distance events, like 100+ mile ultra marathons.

But that runs head long into the question of “How far do you have to actually chase an animal for it to collapse from exhaustion?” I’m having a hard time finding hard numbers but I don’t think gazelle have the endurance to run 10+ miles before collapsing. So women may be biologically equipped for ultra-long distances, but I don’t see how this correlates to endurance hunting as that advantage doesn’t play out hunting game.

That’s not to say the basis for the theory on male hunters/female gatherers is not without flaw, but the arguments being made against it don’t seem to really be citing evidence that backs up women being significant, let alone dominant, in that role either.

No, it’s not a terrible argument. Anyone can have a pitch or idea. That does not mean it’s automatically a viable product/service or a viable business.

It’s a valid question, how do we define “founder”? To play devil’s advocate, I’m curious if the people who think Musk didn’t co-found Tesla also agree Aaron Schwartz didn’t co-found Reddit. He joined later, after reddit was already incorporated by Hoffman and Ohanian.

In business, “founder” is already an honorary title. It has no inherent power. Co-founders often ensure they get C-suite positions as a company grows, have stock/shares, or other legal powers, but none of those are guaranteed just by being a “founder”. So practically, there’s no difference between calling Musk a “co-founder” versus “honorary co-founder.” Let’s just focus on calling him a piece of shit for the very definitive and obvious things we can point to.

Three of nine justices wanted to.

I mean, possibly, but yeah “heresy” isn’t really a big deal in the modern sense. Like, Protestants are heretics. Nobody really cares at this point.

This guy hasn’t been defrocked, just removed from the bishop’s seat. He’s still a priest. If he goes and starts a different (non-Catholic) church, he’d be dismissed, probably excommunicated, but that’s pretty rare I think. And regardless of what he thinks of his boss, his whole life is basically being a Catholic priest. I doubt he’ll leave.

You have roughly equal amounts of people pulling the lever in the “kill one person” direction and the “kill many people” direction.

The only people interested in pulling a lever that adds a third rail are the “kill one person” crowd. The moment enough of them let go, the lever goes in the “kill many people” direction because that crowd has no interest in a third rail, they quite like the “kill many people” option. You’ll never get enough people to join the third option from both crowds simultaneously. No third party has seen any real form of success in nearly 200 years within the current system. Changing the system is necessary but taking out hands off the lever is a disaster.

Democrats can be really dumb sometimes. Too many would rather stick to idealistic principles because at least then when they lose they can claim the high road and a persecution complex.

Maybe it’s not much of a “complex” when that persecution actually then happens (like the Dobbs decision), but if Democrats would just shut up and vote with the best option available instead of not voting at all, maybe we’d win more. Trump wouldn’t have been elected in 2016 if Democrats had turned out in the same numbers they did in 2008 but instead 4 million Dems just didn’t show up.

If Democrats won more, we could at least start to implement changes like Instant-Runoff Voting or doing away with the Electoral College. Republicans don’t want any of those changes, because they know it weakens their position. But so many liberals just refuse to vote because there’s no “good” option and refuse to vote for the option that even enables a “good” choice, while any conservative will do anything they can to vote for anyone willing to put an ® next to their name. It’s so fucking juvenile and I’m still ashamed to admit I once used to believe it too.

If you’re in the US, with a two party system, not voting for the less evil is actively enabling the greater evil.

You think Trump or any GOP candidate wouldn’t do the same? Or worse? They’re certainly not going to do anything better than Biden.

Voting on principles is for the Primaries. Try and get the best candidate possible that you actively believe in into the race. Election Day however is when it’s time to put your adult pants on, accept the world is messy, and vote for the least worse option possible, because otherwise you’re just abetting the worst option.

He basically was willing to discuss all the areas where the Israelis were making concessions. He wasn’t willing to discuss any of the areas where the Palestinians were supposed to make concessions. So it seemed like he had just said no.

But what I subsequently learned - about 18 months ago, I had a dinner with a former Palestinian negotiator who’d been part of the delegation. He said the whole Palestinian delegation had decided among themselves they should accept it. They went back to Arafat, and Arafat said no. I subsequently heard from another Palestinian on that delegation who said Arafat thought he could still do a better deal under Bush because he thought maybe Bush will be even more forthcoming.

Holy shit, so Arafat alone basically blew the best chance we had.

Jerusalem should just be made a UN protectorate or independent third city-state at this point as part of a two-state solution (like the Vatican).

And yeah, I know everyone will hate that idea, but hey, at least then everyone will hate the idea.

Many just won’t vote.

Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesn’t vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isn’t, it’s still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Biden’s response look measured.

Many people are angered by Biden’s response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. You’re actively allowing an even worse option.

I mean, kinda? They’re also heavily descended from 7th Century AD Arabic conquerors, but yes, many other natives may have adopted Arabic culture, language and religion at that time.

But Jewish culture is also derived from the Canaanite culture, with arguably more overlap. Jewish culture in the region can be traced back to at least the 9th Century BC, with the literal Kingdom of Israel. So the argument of “Well who was there first?” does not necessarily favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.

This has always been happening though. It’s not like the Ottomans took over the region peacefully. It’s been conquered and re-conquered by Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans…

That’s been happening for the last 5,000 years in that region though, since the Canaanites.

It’s not like the Palestinians were the first there.

And where these are most popular, the police would choose not to do anything anyway.

There’s nothing more capitalist than pushing coal and oil.

And any rational green energy advocate knows it’ll take us decades to build enough solar/wind to fill the fossil fuels gap, but would only take us a couple years to fill that demand with nuclear and also produce fewer emissions. That’s simple numbers.

So are you just irrational or a coal-snorting capitalist yourself?