shlevy:

balioc:

The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that I haven’t seen more of the obvious right-populist-flavored arguments for full drug legalization.

Look, I don’t think it’s a good idea to poison yourself with cocaine, or heroin, or meth.  But I also don’t think it’s my business.  The nanny-state liberals seem pretty sure that it’s their business, though.  Sure enough that they’ll get all up in your face.  Sure enough that they’ll send their DEA narcs in the black helicopters around to go sniffing.

In fact, they seem so sure of it that they’re willing to single-handedly fund all the murderous criminal cartels in Central America, and South America, and the Middle East.  Because that’s what they’re doing!  All those gangs support themselves through drug sales, on which they have a monopoly, because our government was stupid enough to give them a monopoly!  Strike the damn drug laws, and suddenly all the users aren’t going to be buying from criminal goons – they’ll be buying from Wal-Mart!  If that money’s going to flow, let it flow into the pockets of hard-working American business owners and job creators!

Other than the last sentence this is literally what the libertarians I’ve been hanging out with since forever have always said.

But I also don’t think it’s my business

Found the part that makes it incompatible with right-populist thought.

argumate:

when journalists start quoting Reddit usernames my will to live starts dropping 1% a minute like I just swallowed RPG poison.

Sorry, I made that sound backwards. It will only grab a field if that field is public. So, you can start out with direct field accessors, but then change to a getter without having to change any of the calling code.

nuclearspaceheater:

shieldfoss:

Better, but still not really a fan, I think.

I’m not super fluent in JS, but I’m fairly sure that for a public property, you can say object.property = value

If that property becomes private and you create a set method instead, you have two choices on how to do things:

Either object.property = value no longer works, in which case we’re back where we started

Or it does still work, in which case it looks to the API user like they’re modifying the property directly, which can lead to confusion if the actual fact of the situation is that they’re touching a piece of logic that just, incidentally, also sets the property but can do other things as well.

I’m sure there’s a use case, the designers probably aren’t fools, but I don’t like it.

Is this still about Kotlin? Kotlin is a language that now also compiles to JS, but otherwise has nothing to do with it.

Still about Kotlin, a language I don’t know but whose homepage immediately made me think “JS framework” when I opened it.

Sorry, I made that sound backwards. It will only grab a field if that field is public. So, you can start out with direct field accessors, but then change to a getter without having to change any of the calling code.

Better, but still not really a fan, I think.

I’m not super fluent in JS, but I’m fairly sure that for a public property, you can say object.property = value

If that property becomes private and you create a set method instead, you have two choices on how to do things:

Either object.property = value no longer works, in which case we’re back where we started

Or it does still work, in which case it looks to the API user like they’re modifying the property directly, which can lead to confusion if the actual fact of the situation is that they’re touching a piece of logic that just, incidentally, also sets the property but can do other things as well.

I’m sure there’s a use case, the designers probably aren’t fools, but I don’t like it.

king-of-men:

shieldfoss:

argumate:

inferentialdistance:

argumate:

elementarynationalism:

exposedasproblematic:

elementarynationalism:

exposedasproblematic:

greatpostsonline:

“In the Twentieth Century, beauty stopped being important. Art increasingly aimed to disturb and break moral taboos. It was not beauty, but originality, however achieved and at whatever moral cost, which won the prizes.”

— Roger Scruton, Why Beauty Matters (via elementarynationalism)

me stating things literally everyone knows

Everyone knows this because of Roger Scruton, fam.

yeah I wouldn’t know that the point of art stopped being beauty if he didn’t say it I would just think people shitting on canvas is beautiful

You don’t know how much you’re already borrowing from him.

this is why in the 20th century no one tried to make movies featuring beautiful people wearing costumes in front of amazing sets and beautiful landscapes, let alone animated features requiring painstaking work from hundreds of artists pushing the boundaries of visual experimentation, that never happened.

Argumate, you’re confusing art and “Art”. Normal art are things like rock bands and video game concepts, etc… “Art” is pretentious bullshit enjoyed by preening hipsters, where pretension and message are the only things that matter. “Art” didn’t use to be this way, because the kind of acclaim people seek in modern times was historically possible through mere skill. But between population booms and significantly improved information transmission, genius tier artists became a dime a dozen, so mere skill became insufficient. The selection mechanism became, basically, fashion, and once quality was no longer selected for the people who abandoned it in favor of chasing the fads rose to the top.

ah yes fashions in art, something that was invented in the 20th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael#Critical_reception

That’s not what inferential was saying at all you potato bird

Dane calling someone else a potato. 🤔

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

shieldfoss:

voxette-vk:

xhxhxhx:

voxette-vk:

voxette-vk:

I was probably semi-aware of it before, but I recently had my attention directed to the difference between a percentage difference and a percentage-point difference.

Of course, now I’m noticing it being misused all the time.

(The difference is this: Suppose 5% of women watch a certain TV show and 10% of men watch it. That means men are 100% more likely to watch the show. But there is only a 5 percentage-point difference in their viewing habits. This is why financial things are often quoted in basis points, which are one-hundredths of one percentage point.)

Compared to the average American:

– Fifteen percent less likely to say they have a “strong sense of home” – 36% V. 21%
– Six percent more likely to say they feel like a “stranger in my own country” – 19% V. 13%
– Twelve percent more likely to say the world is becoming a “more dangerous place” – 50% V. 38%
– Twice as likely to say “things have gotten worse for me personally in the last year” – 32% V. 17%
– Much less likely to be registered to vote – 51% V. 72%
– Much more likely to be African American – 20% V. 12%
– Seven percent more likely to be aged 18-29 – 28% V. 21%
– Eight percent more likely to have not graduated from college – 68% V. 60%
– Four percent more likely to “avoid arguments” – 86% V. 82%

Case in point

I took the quiz, and I’m “politically disengaged”:

The Politically Disengaged group most resembles Passive Liberals in having lower levels of income and education and being less engaged in following current affairs. Fully 41 percent are making less than $30,000 per year, and approximately one in four have gone without food or medical treatment at least somewhat often in the past year. They diverge from Passive Liberals in being more anxious about external threats and less open in their attitudes towards differences. For instance, they are the most likely to say that being white is necessary to be American and that people who hold other religious views are morally inferior. They are more concerned about the threat of terrorism and are quite closed to the view that Islamic and American values are compatible. They are practically invisible in local politics and community life, being one of the least likely groups to participate in political rallies or vote in local elections. They are the least well-informed group on all measures of political knowledge. They are also the most pessimistic about the possibility of reconciling differences between the factions. Overall, this makes the Politically Disengaged a challenging segment to persuade.

I thought that my answers to the values and policy questions would make me a “progressive activist.” Apparently not! 

I’m a “Traditional Liberal”! Who knew?

Traditional Liberals reflect the liberal ideals of the Baby Boomer generation. They maintain idealistic attitudes about the potential for social justice in America, yet they are less ideological than Progressive Activists. They also are not as intolerant of conservatives. They have strong humanitarian values, and around half say that religion is important to them. Traditional Liberals are significantly more likely to say that people “need to be willing to listen to others and compromise.” They are the most likely group, along with Progressive Activists, to handle conflict by “getting to the heart of the disagreement.” Overall, Traditional Liberals respond best to rational arguments and are inclined to place more faith in the viability of American institutions, even if they are disillusioned with the country’s current direction.

I found the quiz and study to be pretty bad in general. I feel like I got Traditional Liberal for not being an absolute racist or ignoramus. I was actually wondering where the hell it would put me as I read the paper.

Christ almighty I got “passive liberal,” I might as well jump into a river immediately.

In my d e f e n c e, I already knew I was answering questions where I was thinking “this has nothing to do with my politics so meh”

cromulentenough:

shieldfoss:

cromulentenough:

awhiffofcavendish:

saltrat88:

mikestillneedsadrink:

saltrat88:

tilthat:

TIL that door knobs made out of brass automatically disinfect themselves in about 8 hours through the oligodynamic effect

via reddit.com

Fascinating. Good post.

Silver does this also, which was probably handy for silverware before antibacterial dish soap was invented.

That’s mentioned in the article as well. They also stated that a copper or silver container can disinfect a pot of water in a few hours. im gonna add a copper vessel to my emergency provisions now. @yourunclejingo you may find this stuff interesting too.

Its almost like our ancestors did shit that made sense even if they didn’t always fully understand why.

this is why you can get plasters with silver in them. also i think this is why IUDs are made of copper often?

Copper is toxic. It’s OK in brass for doorknobs because you don’t put your food on doorknobs, and it’s OK for cook ware because the inside is covered in tin, not copper. Which removes the antibacterial properties.

Are copper water pipes also covered in something else?

They don’t leach out into the water unless it’s acidic enough to dissolve copper. Many foods are, so :-/