austinjp

29 ms·

391.
by austinjp 4y ago
Curious, how many others are finding the comments here depressing? All the way from feminism is a plot by elite men, through fear of emasculation (literal castration, or declining testosterone), through men losing out because of incentivise
392.
by austinjp 4y ago
That's a very odd way to consider how whales live. They form social groups, communicate with each other, navigate and migrate, avoid and fight predators, and so on.
393.
by austinjp 4y ago
This is called "disaster capitalism". Why not choose a different path?
394.
by austinjp 4y ago
Dude. The site is great, and people mention it from sheer good will. For anyone who visits, consider donating!
395.
by austinjp 4y ago
> do an array-of-struct to struct-of-array transform on the steps I call this "pin-making" after Adam Smith's famous/apocryphal account of the division of labour in a pin factory [0] and do it in pretty much every are
396.
by austinjp 4y ago
I'm curious about why and how you've become a CTO? Presumably, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. If that's true, be nice to yourself and remember that on a regular basis :) What you've described is
397.
by austinjp 4y ago
> pudmed A more appropriate typo I haven't seen in a while. I'd definitely read pudmed. (For those with English as a second language, "pud" is a folksy abbreviation for "pudding".)
398.
by austinjp 4y ago
Nope. People were arrested at public events that were not funerals. Unless you're redefining "state funeral" in some new way?
399.
by austinjp 4y ago
While this may all be true, a more sobering perspective comes from considering the impact on the individuals paying the taxes: "the poorest fifth of people paid 22.9% on indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax (VAT) compared with 9.1% f
400.
by austinjp 4y ago
FWIW, I agree. Be the change you want to see in the world. 'Actively not caring' is insidious and depressing. It normalises data surveillance and says there's no point fighting it. Comments here seem to ask if cookies are rea
401.
by austinjp 4y ago
Exactly. When better to protest against an activity than when and where that activity is taking place?
402.
by austinjp 4y ago
People were arrested at public events, not at a "funeral service". It's not permissible to arrest someone on the grounds of "lack of respect" or "making a fool of yourself". Arrests have been made under se
403.
Not my king: do we have the right to protest the monarchy at a time of mourning?(theconversation.com)
7 points by austinjp 4y ago|6 comments
404.
by austinjp 4y ago
That link is dead for me, but the sticky remover bookmarklet seems to be here: https://lolfi.com/posts/browsingdeez/
405.
by austinjp 4y ago
Amazing. Thanks to you and parent poster for this. Seems to work well.
406.
by austinjp 4y ago
Yeah I'm not super convinced. If I want untraceable transactions, cash is hard to beat. (Pleeeeeease nobody mention crypto I beg you.)
407.
by austinjp 4y ago
If as you say there's no difference, then why not write it down? If there is a difference, why is that? (I'm asking these questions to point out that your statement raises them - I'll have a go at answering them below.) Mor
408.
by austinjp 4y ago
See my comment elsewhere here. Support dips to 31% in those aged 18-24. It's very high in the over 65s, with 77% supporting the monarchy. As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some s
409.
by austinjp 4y ago
I'm not confused :) The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!" That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change. You suggest: > The UK constitution is based
410.
by austinjp 4y ago
Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as
411.
by austinjp 4y ago
I can't really parse your points. > You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's
412.
by austinjp 4y ago
Are entirely sure you think it's okay to "march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country [edit: multiple countries], under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple int
413.
by austinjp 4y ago
> Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13&
414.
by austinjp 4y ago
I know plenty about the UK, thank you :) Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachroni
415.
by austinjp 4y ago
Well which is it? Politics, or the Royal Family? If they're separate please ask a more specific question. If they're not separate, shouldn't they be? As for your specific points, are you being facetious? They seem deliberatel
416.
by austinjp 4y ago
There are plenty of issues with this line of argument. Black swans (monarchies everywhere we look), crystal ball gazing (we can't see the future so we can't identify if we're living in aberrant times), might is right (the pow
417.
by austinjp 4y ago
I hope from my comments here and this of others that recent events are not just a "pageant". If you can explain how there is really "nothing more" to it and why we shouldn't care, I'd be grateful for the reve
418.
by austinjp 4y ago
> Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense? I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showin
419.
by austinjp 4y ago
I've heard several variations of this argument recently: that democracy or peace or [other favourable circumstance] are an aberration rather than a norm. The problem here is that none of us can see the future. We can't know if dem
420.
by austinjp 4y ago
Well indeed. That phrase signifies that monarchy should be uninterruptible, which I'm suggesting deserves questioning.

More ›