ArbitraryValue

joined 2 years ago
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

It sounds like the point they're trying to make is that Americans don't want to have children because things in the USA are getting bad, but if that was the correct explanation then we would expect to see (1) people in countries where it's worse having even fewer children, which we don't see, and (2) people in countries where it's better having more children, which we also don't see.

It's annoying to repeatedly read the same completely unsupported explanations for fertility rate declines.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

The computer that controlled all the doors refused to open any of them, including the door to the room in which it was physically located.

It wasn't quite HAL 9000 because doors could still be opened from the inside, but control over the computer was regained only with the help of a locksmith.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 21 hours ago

No, not the bees. My eyes!

Or so I've heard...

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Bezos looks pretty good for a man his age.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Built to fail? The Constitution worked, more or less, for over 237 years and 44 different presidents. It hasn't even failed yet now, although it is in a lot of danger.

It's the job of Congress to stop the President from doing this, via impeachment. However, in a democracy the people get to choose their leaders and if the people elect not just a man like Trump to be President but also a majority in Congress to support him almost unconditionally, then the people get what they voted for.

Even now, Republicans in Congress fear that they will not be re-elected if they oppose Trump. Thus they're still carrying out the will of the people.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a good point, and I suppose that someone sympathetic to Trump might think that he was being unfairly prosecuted after other presidents hadn't been.

I disagree with your implication that a former president should always be punished for having broken the law. The rules do need to be different for presidents than for ordinary people.

A prince, when by some urgent circumstance or some impetuous and unforeseen accident that very much concerns his state, compelled to forfeit his word and break his faith, or otherwise forced from his ordinary duty, ought to attribute this necessity to a lash of the divine rod: vice it is not, for he has given up his own reason to a more universal and more powerful reason; but certainly ’tis a misfortune: so that if any one should ask me what remedy? “None,” say I, “if he were really racked between these two extremes: 'Let him see to it that it be not a loophole for perjury that he seeks.' He must do it: but if he did it without regret, if it did not weigh on him to do it, ’tis a sign his conscience is in a sorry condition."

Montaigne' Essays, book 3 chapter 1

It's one thing to break a law with the belief (perhaps unjustified) that doing so is necessary for the good of the nation and quite another to do to because power protects you from deserved punishment, but how can the law itself make this distinction?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

Even the Trump appointees seem like the sort of people who would want to defend the rule of law at least to preserve their own (and therefore the court's) power, so I wonder how each of the six "conservative" judges was convinced to rule the way that he or she did. I don't imagine all of them doing it for the same reason. Maybe some were rewarded for their votes and others wanted to see Trump wreck things (Alito and his flag come to mind) but did some actually think that it was a good idea or the correct legal decision?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 123 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Yeah but he also said to love each other, and people quickly realized that he was wrong.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

since 2015-2016

Hah, I would be ecstatic if we had a Romney now instead of what we do have. Or even a McCain. Or hell, even a GWB as long as he wasn't allowed to invade anywhere.

 

The fascinating thing here is that the government's lawyer, the one supposed to argue against this guy's return, appears to have sided against the government.

"Give us 24 hours to get him back, Reuveni said. "That was my recommendation to my client but that hasn't happened"

 

When I was a teenager, I thought people in their 20's were the most attractive. Now that I'm about 40, I still think people in their 20's are the most attractive. It's hard for me to believe that I might ever be attracted to someone past retirement age, even when I'm past retirement age myself, unless the person is like one of those celebrities who look way younger than they are.

This isn't something I can comfortably ask most older people I know, but there's one man who admits that he isn't and one woman who is. Which is more normal?

 

It'll cost $9 each time. They're raising money for the mass transit system by charging specifically those people who don't use the mass transit system and that feels really unfair to me.

 

Archive link.

As recently as February, Mr. Walz said on a podcast that he had been in Hong Kong, then a British colony, “on June 4 when Tiananmen happened,” and decided to cross into mainland China to take up his teaching duties even though many people were urging him not to.

But it was not true. Mr. Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, indeed taught at a high school in China as part of a program sending American teachers abroad, but he did not actually travel to the country until August 1989.

Why bother making something like this up?

view more: next ›