ifyoubuildit

9 ms·

91.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
I'm glad you have that opportunity too, but purely on the financials it's probably not so much of a win when you consider the heightened cost of everything (housing in particular) in a city, right?
92.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> This cynicism is several years out of date. Jesus, it's bad enough I can't leave a js project for 6 months without it starting to rot. Now my cynicism has to be updated too?
93.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
No
94.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
I'm not a trump supporter. The point is that neither of the choices were acceptable. The blue team can't be rewarded for the shit they pulled, even if you have the boogie man on the other side. Also, is anyone claiming that Trump
95.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, (why doesn't this sentence end here?) distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do
96.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
How does it change your calculation if you realize the lack of a primary is probably why you have the evil villain behind January 6th in office? I'm not talking about Harris specifically re Epstein, no idea what her involvement is. I&#
97.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
1. I don't believe that he was steering the ship, which is kind of important. Maybe you're fine with his team making all the decisions. That's a betrayal of trust for me. 2. I'm not a Republican and I like the idea of th
98.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
What about the people who just voted against a party infrastructure that 1) insisted that a vegetable was sharp as a tack, 2) that you can't have a primary no matter how much you want it, 3) that the guy who won in 2016 is definitely w
99.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Probably not. What needs to happen is the government should be small enough that you can realistically fund it entirely via some minimally invasive tax scheme. Government is essential, massive government is not. Yet the system we have now i
100.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
It's simple: it's just a multiplier, like power tools or heavy equipment. You can use a giant excavator to do a ton of work quickly. You can also knock the house over by accident. People probably said the same things when the firs
101.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
You get less of what you disincentivize. Putting artificial friction on every single transaction is not free, and it's fucking obnoxious. Meanwhile, the government you fund takes that money and uses it to surveil you, and commits crime
102.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> The category of "food" in economics is vast and absolutely includes things that humans don't need to live Yeah, but if the whole category goes away, not many of us survive. Isn't that what makes it essential? > N
103.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Were you doing some kind of study? Cause I don't think reading your favorite subs on reddit is how sampling works either. Even (or maybe especially) if you spend an unhealthy amount of time on the site, your sample is probably nowhere
104.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> with most content posted after ~2018-2019 being extremely low quality, outside of some niche subreddits. I've read plenty of garbage on Reddit, but what percentage of Reddit content since 2018 do you think you've seen? How ma
105.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
What does "pearl clutching" have to do with the truth? The whole point is nobody knows what the outcome will be for people being on these things for weight loss long term. Some people think things will be great, and we've alr
106.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
> It seems like you really missed the point Yeah, I guess I don't really know what your point was if it wasn't to ask why we get cancer. Maybe that's my fault? > A medication may have side effects ... beyond the initial
107.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
This seems like exactly a win win for cafes and for people that want to easily find a place to work remotely. Who loses out here otherwise? > Extracting money out of everyday life to make our world less friendly and more expensive. Isn&#
108.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
As I understand it, species that are really good at healing from injuries are more likely to develop cancer. So evolution has to optimize for survival via healing vs survival via not getting cancer. Some people probably do come at it from t
109.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
I wouldn't call myself a vaccine skeptic, and I don't have a problem with anything else you said, but "feel entitled to disregard medical science progress" puts my back up. We are in fact all entitled to that. I think a
110.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Wouldn't "financial isolationism" just be not trading period, in other words plain old isolationism? Being a little isolated seems like being a little pregnant.
111.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Can you break down the isolationist streak for me? The US government seems to want to intervene in every place it can, and doesn't look anything like say old school China or Japan. It seems like some people see anything short of maxima
112.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Why do you think it's up to you to decide what's more suitable for someone else? Where do you get that right? The problem you're running into is that it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you what these people want to d
113.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
"Mostly there are just pearl clutchers complaining about how elderly cash poor people sitting in large old houses on expensive land they've lived in for 20 years would be financially nudged into downgrading" I wonder if you w
114.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Your "statistical proof" is an offhand vague quote about how it "still can help". Here's an actual study from nejm: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 There was a br
115.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Alright, let's see this proof ("statistical" or otherwise) that being vaccinated meant you were "unlikely to transmit". Keep in mind, this proof has to deal with the fact that 1) a majority of people got vaccinated
116.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
I give up.
117.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
"A" was your initial assertion.
118.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
That's amazing. A: If vaccinated then p(transmission) = low. B: p(transmission) != low, given that many vaccinated people had to have transmitted . How can A and B both be true? Or are you saying that B is not true, and everyone got s
119.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Op: When Fauci made comments about “get vaccinated and it’s unlikely you’ll transmit Covid” You: Fauci's statement is true. Me: How does that square with the fact that approximately everyone got covid? Do you think all of the infection
120.
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
How does that square with the fact that approximately everyone got covid? Do you think all of the infections came from unvaccinated people?

More ›