Forum Replies Created
November 14, 2014 at 9:06 am in reply to: Congressman subpoenaed by Grand Jury: Guess what Party? #3127
And the one who is in the lead by far on every criminal and perv metric you can name too.
Fucking with young girls sexually? Republicans.
Convicted while in office? Republicans.
Being seriously, criminally gay while rallying against gayness? Republicans. And that one is hilarious, and painful.
I could go on, and we’ve put the lists here in the past. Maybe we should revisit those for some, you know, discussion?November 14, 2014 at 12:26 am in reply to: Congressman subpoenaed by Grand Jury: Guess what Party? #3119
We can soon add him to the long list of Republicans who are convicted.
Go big with that. It will help.
Totally agreed Alfredo.
Got an idea to lable these things in some quick and easy to understand and discuss way?
Generally, we can say irrational, but that is too broad. Not potent enough.
@F&B, I have a thread running too. Bring your example and arguments. The point of this is to weed out useless basis, forcing us to either bring new ones out, thus improving all of us, or surrender positions that really have no rational basis, also improving us.
Or, we can be honest and place it in the belief or preference box and understand what that means in terms of speaking with authority or implied authority on the related matters.
An easy example is God Says. Nobody anywhere at all can offer anything other than a personal testament. That is fine to do, but not authoritative. Clearing out those things should focus discussion to a more productive end.
You said this is your video game. Yeah, I get that, as do others.
Time for us to level up some and give the new software some use worthy of Dan’s efforts.
That is my question exactly.
So far, I see the most painful policy visions out there, and they have no appeal for me personally. Not just ideological validation either. I’m talking about value added to my life.
Dems have some things out there I can point to and express either positive benefit already actualized for me, or I can see a benefit easily in the future without having to cite dubious or well debunked ideas in support.
There just isn’t much on the table from the GOP to get excited about.
As an ordinary person, I’m not interested in largely useless fights over wedge issues. Those have political significance, but not a lot of material relevance in my life. I want it better, not to just win, whatever that means ideologically.
The difference is seeing data driven, fact based policy intended to improve our lives as opposed to ideologically driven policy, assumed to improve our lives.
The GOP currently is strongly focused on the latter, which isn’t something to get excited about, unless one is all about merely being right, or validating authoritarian rule, neither of which make any sense, unless the data points to some material benefits.
I very strongly suspect the majority of Americans, who aren’t fixated on these kinds of issues, would strongly identify with the general desire to make it better.
Dems brought me health care availiability, which freed me to take some risks and advance my career helping to build a little company into a bigger one. Also freed me from being trapped at one where people are corrupt, abusive and incompetent, limiting my future.
Dems here in Oregon are making pot legal. Great! I can go and have a nice time with friends and not worry so much about that, same as booze. I can also feel the impact of a less strained judicial system more able to focus on meaningful crime.
Dems are beating back racism, bigotry and theocracy, which I can see in my life in positive and material ways with my peers living happier lives.
Minimum wage measures did well, and Dems are bringing the wage issues up and are suggesting and implementing things that my kids can benefit from right away, along with peers struggling hard despite working hard.
Dems have been rational about foreign policy. I don’t like all that I see, but not having a war going on feels better. I stress less, or if I do, it’s meaningful.
I could go on, but the real message in this election isn’t that the GOP is somehow validated. The same painful, failed, not fact based, not data driven policy vision favoring oligarchs and social regressives is out there, unchanged. Not good enough.
No, the real message is that Dems need to stand on their wind more strongly and they could really use some more relevant dialog in the party leadership so that voters can see positive policy vision ideas as well as high impact wins more clearly. Obama did well connecting to younger voters. The party overall isn’t paying attention.
In general, voting for things and people makes a lot more sense than does the negative voting against backed by fear and misinformation.
Freedom from fear and shame overall is a very positive and practical message we should be experiencing more of. Life is short man. Who has time for that shit?
To be fair, there are valid fears and shames, and we should give those consideration, but only in tandem with solution visions that improve lives, backed by data and facts we know are peer reviewed, valid and being studied and improved.
If you want to get that one off the list, you need to present an argument. Start a thread and make your case.
Let’s remove this from the list of arguments used to support various things then. F&B used it to support his view on abortion, and that’s why I questioned it here.
I’m not going to debate positions on that, and I don’t think anyone else should either. Sharing something that resonates with us personally is a good thing. Let people arrive at their own realizations. Better for everybody all around.
However, questioning a basis, such as the claim that objective morality exists, and that it’s somehow important, or good, or effective support for some politics, belief, or policy is a great exercise! Given we have a burden to support what we say, having that support be meaningful makes a lot of sense.
I do not see the idea of objective morality being meaningful in any fashion, meaning it’s useless in the role of support and adding value to a discussion.
…unless anyone here wants to actually step up and improve on any of that, or maybe just cite an example of objective morality for some discussion.
I’m going to start to make a list of these. Call it the bull shit list, and this one is the first item on that list. When we see some BS, we can call it out quick and easy, moving on to more valuable discussion.
It’s like the dodge list, which might have to be remade… depends on Dan and the archives. Maybe I’ll go attempt to fetch that right now for safe keeping.
I was actually referring to authoritarians, who favor the person in the position of power, regardless of their merits or use of that power.
But, if you really want to talk about skin color… that says something, doesn’t it?
Neither can I.
Notice the same people being very cautious about this event with the officer are generally the same ones convinced Travon deserved to be killed by the gun toting ass clown Zimmerman.
And there will be riots when the justice system fails in a very public way. It’s the overall failure at issue, with who it failed on a mere side show.
Uber is a very interesting experiment.
They are actualizing free, buyer beware, market ideology to the maximum extent they find possible. They would more fully actualize it, but law is clashing with that goal.
On a basic level, this is disruptive, and disruptive business models and or technology are generally seen as a very good thing by the VC and start up community overall. Disruption is a condition where the means of doing business or the technology innovation presents a 5-10x cost advantage while preserving a very high fraction of the core value proposition common to both the established business and the disruptor.
Uber, TaskRabbit, et al. are all examples of micro employment where people can do as much or as little as they like and find worth doing. They are able to capture idle time and need / desire for income and realize a profit from it by providing a market for services featuring smart software able to match those two up.
On a technology basis, having that market and smart software be ubiquitous enough to function is disruptive. Older markets are not as liquid and responsive, and because of that, they have costs baked in that Uber and friends can avoid, which improves either margin, or makes the whole thing possible on a lower margin, or ideally both.
The resulting business model really does depend on there not being basic regulations in place, and the established businesses argue strongly that those regulations are there for good and proven and necessary reasons. Notably, they have argued against them in the past, citing the need to “innovate” too. Very interesting.
Personally, I believe the taxi services could apply technology to improve on their business model while remaining largely, or entirely compliant. This would be an advantage that would benefit them by reducing how disruptive Uber and friends really are, as well as potentially lowering their costs while improving efficiencies and their overall value proposition and perception.
Why isn’t that happening?
Uber isn’t all unicorns and roses. Their drivers are contractors, yet they are strongly encouraged to drive for one entity only, are responsible for various costs, vehicle inspections, etc… are not insured, unless they pay for it, and so forth.
It’s a good gig for somebody thinking they can make a few extra bucks, but as a living wage / career kind of thing, the current arrangement is dubious, or it may simply not pay as much, or may present far more risks than driving a taxi in the traditional business model does.
Applying strict laws of supply and demand have resulted in “surge pricing”, which can get really, really expensive! It’s not clear how much of the surge fare gets passed to the contractors, read drivers, and or whether or not Uber is being honest and diligent in their attempts to insure more drivers are available at those times.
Some municipalities have shut Uber down, citing their regulations as necessary, while others have allowed them to operate.
Notably, some areas suffer from poor Taxi service overall, providing a nice gap for Uber to operate in. Other areas, where service is adequate or better, Uber still operates, and has been seen pricing very, very low, beneath what regulation compliant services could charge, where their value is not so disruptive overall.
It’s a mixed bag for sure. People who are able to pay, often do, citing the high value of having a service that works better for them overall.
Reports from drivers vary widely, and there is definitely some discrimination between competing firms where drivers can get locked in to one or the other, where as true contractors, they should just be driving and citing their availability and location to maximize their time and resource investment. Not all is pretty here either.
Overall, I’ve found Taxi services vary considerably. PDX has been average to above average, but for one case I used to present to them all the time: A short ride home from the Airport.
I would use the Max to get to the Airport, and when I had late arrival back in PDX, would use a Taxi for a ride home, both to avoid costly parking. Was very nice living 10 minutes from the airport when I flew very frequently.
4 out of 5 drivers would bitch to no end when I gave them my destination. A couple of times, this annoyed me so much (and that takes a lot when I just want to get home), I declined the ride and requested the cab return me to the airport.
Of course, that annoyed the crap out of them too, and the whole affair was a complete mess.
What the shitty drivers didn’t know is I would always tip very nicely, and I did that because I know about the airport queue, and that they are hoping for good fares. Wasn’t my fault where I lived, and paying nicely for the ride made sense as doing that was still a great savings over parking, particularly on multi-day trips.
Overall, this soured me on PDX taxis. More or less hate it, and will do most anything to avoid that hassle. Some drivers are great, but many are just drivers. And that is fine. But when they are taking it out on me, I totally draw the line.
Had Uber been operating, I would have tried it. I may still, depending.
This: There is no moral objectivity.
Honestly, I’ve never, ever been convinced there actually are any objective moral facts. You have not ever presented any.
The engineer in you would be spot on.
I would add repeatability in there too. All three are needed as the basis for doing something like this.
Frankly, it’s all amazing and a real tech win for the ESA. And we get great images and some new science out of the deal.
The recent election results do not have much to do with this topic, or the idea of “war on women” in general.
Me too. IMHO, this mission represents taking things to a whole new level in terms of planning, precision, etc…
Right now, I’ve got some ugly work to do. Hope to check in later and scoop all the cool comet images up and drool some.
I’m OK with just going forward too. Ideally, Dan has more success. Hope he does.
“PDX’er since I had hair” is hilarious! Nice one Paul.