alwaysdoit

Aren't US citizens and corporations prohibited from paying anything to Iran due to sanctions?

I wish the protocol was to introduce your name about 5-15 minutes into the conversation because then I would have some other information to attach it to. When it's the first piece of information I receive I think my brain just doesn't really know where to put it and it gets lost immediately. The "use their name several times in the first conversation" trick is a good workaround for this.

Personal cars also take up space on the road when they aren't being used. It would be much easier to build physically separated, safe biking lanes and drop off areas if we could use all the space we currently dedicate exclusively to personal vehicle parking on public streets.

Mostly agree, but choosing not to risk a new collision in order to maybe get there slightly faster (what if you damage the ambulance and are unable to continue?) to maybe help someone does seem like the right call

He never says "AI could lead to post-scarcity" in the entire piece. In fact, he says:

> Before making this argument, I want to defend the topic. Utopia is not around the corner; these issues don't have any practical urgency. But I agree with Bostrom that thinking about utopia “can serve as kind of philosophical particle accelerator, in which extreme conditions are created that allow us to study the elementary constituents of our values.” Reflecting on utopia might tell us something interesting about human nature more generally.

TBF, for the more popular shows, they are spending that money on an English dub (which is considerably more expensive).

This almost always means "security patches" but the general public almost always interprets this as "feature updates" and tech journalism never manages to draw the distinction.

If they really wanted to, they could offer two versions: one which includes a charger, and another which does not and donates $5 to an environmental charity.

Why do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?

I am a pretty big advocate for good faith communication and think the article is right that it is necessary. The thing that disheartens me though, is the asymmetric nature of the problem: good faith communication is hard. It takes time and patience. Bad faith communication is easy. You can write 20 bad faith drive by comments in the time it takes to post one thoughtful reply. And due to the wide open nature of most of these platforms you're rarely interacting with the same person twice. So it's hard not to feel that that effort is entirely going to waste.

Commercial property tax rates (incl rental) should be higher than residential. All things being equal, it would be preferable for someone to own the house they live in, rather than pay rent to another party indefinitely for exclusive access, and our tax code should incentivize in that direction.

I guess you're going to volunteer to feed them the human blood they need to reproduce, then?

No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by law for everyone. Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable, they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc). If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!

> To the extent that interpretive canons accurately describe how the English language is generally used, they are useful tools. … [But w]hen this Court describes canons as rules or quotes canons while omitting their caveats and limita­tions, we only encourage the lower courts to relegate statu­tory interpretation to a series of if-then computations. No reasonable reader interprets texts that way. [Alito in concurrence]

Why would it be horrible if there were a well-defined grammar for legal texts?