kcplate

39 ms·

601.
by kcplate 2y ago
Suggesting that the two sides have the same motive, goal, and methods is a criticism. Suggesting that they are both full of whining dogmatists is a criticism. Here is your argument, since apparently you didn’t get it from the much more bri
602.
by kcplate 2y ago
Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied. And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that beli
603.
by kcplate 2y ago
You hope the forest accepts advice against the axe, but it doesn’t. The answer isn’t “let those dumb trees die off”. The answer should be “what about our message of peril is so easy to ignore” or “why don’t these trees respect our authori
604.
by kcplate 2y ago
> after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes Who is “we” and what did “we” do to prevent “what” outcome? Seems to me if you can answer that question you might have a clue why the forest might chose the axe.
605.
by kcplate 2y ago
You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved. It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe
606.
by kcplate 2y ago
…or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did . Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the s
607.
by kcplate 2y ago
Gotcha. So your answer is to break up the republic because you don’t like some of the region’s politics.
608.
by kcplate 2y ago
Yeah…that must be the problem. They just don’t have enough money for themselves because of all the red states. Of course what little money California does have is mismanaged to hell by its state and local governments, but that will obvi
609.
by kcplate 2y ago
That was obviously sarcasm and ironically you took it literally.
610.
by kcplate 2y ago
When you took the job, did you know it was in office work and how long the commute was going to be? I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour
611.
by kcplate 2y ago
> Meat usually is high in fat, it's very hard for it to be low-calorie. The weight loss doesn't come from a low-calorie diet For me, eating a keto diet makes it easy to achieve a daily caloric intake that is significantly less
612.
by kcplate 2y ago
> Do YOU want to move off of Facebook for some reason, or do people want to move off of Facebook for some reason. MOST people in the US, especially in a rural are are not going to quit an app because say the CEO of a company is friendly
613.
by kcplate 2y ago
Exactly for me as well. I maintain a list of feeds that interest me, HN is one of those. I’d say for general web consumption, pretty much the only way I consume anything now is if it arrived via my feeds.
614.
by kcplate 2y ago
No if I want that, I’ll explore the sites for it. I prefer to consume HN via my feed reader. I feel like I receive most or all of the original topics/posta without regard to algorithm ranking. So I will see flagged and dead posts and
615.
by kcplate 2y ago
> I am glad we got to your real answer. Which appears to be "we can't do that, we need the ultra-wealthy to spend money on us." If there are going to be ultra wealthy, then yes, locales benefit where they invest. > You
616.
by kcplate 2y ago
“Directly”
617.
by kcplate 2y ago
I use Feedly, which as a RSS reader is ok but probably one of the better ones available on iOS/iPadOS platform. I loved Google Reader back in the day, but Google loves to kill every product of theirs that I actually like and used. I b
618.
by kcplate 2y ago
It’s a real question. If it’s not worldwide you haven’t eliminated the ultra-wealthy, you have just relocated them. Their wealth is still tied up and unavailable for the redistribution the original premise hopes to achieve. In those local
619.
by kcplate 2y ago
Population of where ?
620.
by kcplate 2y ago
> That’s not an actual argument though… If you can’t answer it you can’t move forward with the plan. It might be an interesting intellectual discussion, but it’s pointless beyond the cerebral exercise because it’s impossible to implemen
621.
by kcplate 2y ago
My argument for pro billionaire is “ Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we
622.
by kcplate 2y ago
Def how I consume HN. It’s even nice to see flagged and dead which I wouldn’t see easily if I came via the HN homepage.
623.
by kcplate 2y ago
Well that is not what you originally said and what I commented on. You advocated for confiscation and destruction of a legal product to own in the UK. Fine the driver, jail the driver, do whatever the law requires when someone breaks a tra
624.
by kcplate 2y ago
According to the article it’s not illegal to own the cyber truck in the UK, just illegal to drive it on public roads. “Just because UK residents are allowed to purchase an imported Cybertruck doesn’t mean they can drive it on public roads.
625.
by kcplate 2y ago
So a cybertruck is a military biological weapon? I thought it was just an ugly EV.
626.
by kcplate 2y ago
>…laws optional? When someone commits a traffic or road infraction in the UK is the response to confiscate their vehicle and demolish it? Probably not, I am not in the UK, but I am pretty sure that is not the penalty and never has been
627.
by kcplate 2y ago
Are you really arguing for the idea that governments should seize and destroy private property? I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least I respect other people’s things. I’d rather be dull than a thief…but to each their
628.
by kcplate 2y ago
Those are inconsistencies but are they reasonable inconsistencies when someone is memorializing an event a couple of decades prior? I think yes. Small inconsistencies like that don’t bother me. Eyewitnesses perspectives are often differe
629.
by kcplate 2y ago
How about we consider a solution that doesn’t involve the seizure and destruction of someone’s personal property no matter the reason . I am just spitballing here but maybe something like— ”We can’t allow you to drive that vehicle on the p
630.
by kcplate 2y ago
What’s fucking sad is we have people advocating government seizure and destruction of someone’s private property just because they don’t like the rich guy who’s company made the product.

More ›