gameman144

I don't think this is an unreasonable view, but it does seem to me that the declining Christianity rates aren't super useful on their own for determining actions from a systems thinking perspective.

Maybe rates are declining because the religion is legitimately not appealing, in which case your action is right. An opponent would say that it's declining because it's culturally discouraged (since even religious pockets are exposed to the national zeitgeist), in which case ignoring it would be the exact opposite of what we'd want to do.

I actually have long disagreed with this sentiment -- I know people who don't want and never want kids, and they seem to totally comprehend the kind of love I have for my children. I also remember being a teenager and always kind of understanding the depth of the love my parents had for me (as in knowing "they love me implicitly, and they'd die for me, and they wish me so much happiness", and all the other trappings that I'd use to describe it with my own kids).

Being able to feel that love directly is, of course, a different story that's probably indeed pretty unique.

I don't see any editorializing, mostly just reports that China is actually competing well.

Whether you're for or against China, seeing that they're outperforming or performing close to American-owned chipmakers seems like very relevant information.

> You can't expel people for 'working like they do in the real world'.

You totally can, though. In the real world if I can't remember something, I might look it up in a textbook. Closed-book tests have historically been a totally accepted practice, though, and getting caught bringing notecards with textbook info secretly into a closed-book test would absolutely bring about disciplinary action.

Given that we support megafauna today, could you explain why? Legitimately asking, since I don't see a reason they couldn't adapt just as well.

It would, yes. There's large worker/union pressure in many of these fields to not take away overtime by reducing hours, though, since it is such a huge part of total compensation.

Government physical mail has the benefit that substantial tampering is way harder to do at scale.

It's the same vein as criminals using cash vs Bitcoin; both can hide crime, but one is way easier to scale up.

It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.

I don't think the parent is even saying that, their point is pretty reasonable: having some objective measure for before and after in any study is more reliable than self-reporting, especially when the subject might be incentivized to lie.

The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.

Could you elaborate? The project structure looks extremely normal to me, but I don't know if I'm overlooking red flags all over the place.

This seems to have the positive effect that patching applications on your own device (a la Revanced patching Spotify) appears blessed, since government prosecution would need to demonstrate a public interest case, if I'm reading this correctly.

This metric disincentivizes carpooling -- everyone should drive a light single-seater to minimize their tax.

(I agree with the spirit, just calling out that there are going to be edge cases galore with a scenario like this)

In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need!

In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.

In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.

> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?

Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.

I don't think the author was arguing at all that these things should be illegal, more just that there should be more consideration of other people's preferences where possible.

It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that as improper socially.

> I concur (fancy word for believe which I wanted to share lol) you are talking about america.

Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"