lliamander

4 ms·

1.
by lliamander 1y ago
This is similar to an intuition I've had about what it means to program "algorithmically". We often draw a distinction between "algorithms" and "business logic", but fundamentally they are the same thing.
2.
by lliamander 1y ago
I should probably clarify - I don't mean to presume to know if the judge did it, I just mean I agree with the above poster's qualifier.
3.
by lliamander 1y ago
Not every case of reframing in a debate is "whataboutism". Whataboutism is where you bring up unrelated topics. In this case, looking at how we got into a messy situation in the first place is entirely legitimate.
4.
by lliamander 1y ago
> There is no discussion to be had when the Trump admin is directly violating people's constitutional rights. And yet here you are, still talking. So long as we are continuing this conversation, do you have any thoughts on how the
5.
by lliamander 1y ago
I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh. I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there i
6.
by lliamander 1y ago
No, you made up a hypothetical scenario that was highly sympathetic to your position. I am saying that we should not let edge cases (real or hypothetical) dictate general policy on how we handle immigration law enforcement, and that any ou
7.
by lliamander 1y ago
The right move would have been simply to not help Flores-Ruiz evade ICE.
8.
by lliamander 1y ago
Anecdotally, I have heard that the most trustworthy (perhaps only trustworthy) Federal law enforcement group is the US Marshalls.
9.
by lliamander 1y ago
> Which is why all US military clothing is mandated to be domestically produced (Berry Amendment). Cool. > But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing? I actually want the market to decide that. But that i
10.
by lliamander 1y ago
No, I did not. Are you actually going to engage with the arguments I have made?
11.
by lliamander 1y ago
No. We don't make our own clothes because: 1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries 2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve thei
12.
by lliamander 1y ago
> Do you want people operating sewing machines or (say) welders? Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all condi
13.
by lliamander 1y ago
Yes, there will still be specialization and trade in a balanced regulatory environment.
14.
by lliamander 1y ago
Minimum wage is possibly the worst, most ham-fisted way of driving productivity gains. Minimum wage and similar regulations are why so many jobs have shifted overseas in the first place. The "productivity gains" have almost entir
15.
by lliamander 1y ago
> cheaper One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through
16.
by lliamander 2y ago
> but replacing the fundamental principles of existing licenses with new simple principles that slice the world into acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a better fashion. Feel free to come up with a different set of principles, but d
17.
by lliamander 2y ago
You cannot have soft enforcement of ethical norms without hard entry requirements. That soft enforcement can only be achieved in the context of high trust social groups, which exist in the context of relatively insular cultures.
18.
by lliamander 2y ago
That's the thing, while there is value in investing in open source (for corporations and individuals) that value is often speculative and hard to quantify. When times are tough, people tend to focus on short-term, concrete benefits.
19.
by lliamander 2y ago
There's no 11th commandment to be nice. Look, if you didn't find it funny, you're right. But those people who found it funny were also right. Humor is a matter of taste. > It's just being a dick in a way that it'
20.
by lliamander 2y ago
"Kind" is at best a context-dependent virtue. There are plenty of situations where being critical or divisive is the right thing. And even when the harshness doesn't come from the best place, we still need it to some extent
21.
by lliamander 2y ago
> Yes, and abortion means intent, which is an aggravating factor. What is the "intent" exactly? If a young woman has been propagandized by the surrounding culture into thinking the child growing inside her is nothing more than
22.
by lliamander 2y ago
EDIT: I want to clarify something. When I say: > The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed What I mean is that each social media platform needs to define what conte
23.
by lliamander 2y ago
> One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the &#x
24.
by lliamander 2y ago
> This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. > Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. I mean that the social media platform has
25.
by lliamander 2y ago
> I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent. Why? In no other place in the
26.
by lliamander 2y ago
> conservatives see it as a power tool. That is not an accurate statement of the conservative view of government regulation. I think a more accurate description of the difference would be to look at Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation
27.
by lliamander 2y ago
> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. No one (except certain strains of anarchists) is against laws rest
28.
by lliamander 2y ago
As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic attempt to control the discourse. The right strategy is a two pronged approach: Th
29.
by lliamander 2y ago
The mass of unpunished retail crimes that has afflicted US cities these last several years rather undermines your narrative.
30.
by lliamander 2y ago
> #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out. Seems more likely to me that attempts to solve #3 will lead to #2. If we actually attempted to curtail fossil fuel consumption as much activists

More ›