xyzzyz

52 ms·

751.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
I remember that Google Warsaw office had CO2 meters in every conference room, and they’d actually beep when it got high.
752.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Yes, they are breaking laws by selling drugs. No, they still pay taxes. The reason is that the federal drug enforcement agency that could go after them for breaking the low most likely will not do that, whereas IRS highly likely will go
753.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
A good mental model is that EU works pretty much like US did 100 years ago. The US states were roughly as sovereign as EU states (with some important differences, especially in defense and immigration), and US federal government was similar
754.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
There is no “legal distribution” of marijuana in federal law, and it’s the federal law that’s most of the tax burden. The federal law simply does not allow you to deduct expenses on marijuana business.
755.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> You seem to strangely think that the liberal arts uniquely boosts left-wing policy as if that's not true for knowledge and education generally. Why then education and knowledge boosted right wing policy as recently as 15 years ago
756.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
The headline of the third article on your list: > Joo Koon train collision: Some passengers cried and there was vomit in the train, says witness “Vomit in the train” would never make a headline in an American newspaper.
757.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> This shows me that a polity with just STEM graduates and tradespeople is a polity that can't function properly. The word “properly” does a lot of work here. In context of the previous sentences, it most straightforwardly means “it
758.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> This is good because it prevents populism and because it creates voters who are able to critically evaluate public policy. I certainly do not believe in the slightest that humanities graduates can “critically evaluate public policy” an
759.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Maybe, but here is the thing: that’s not the argument actually put forward in Roe v. Wade. This thread is not about litigating whether there is a constitutional right to abortion. Instead, it’s whether the particular case, Roe v. Wade, was
760.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
It’s not so much about getting paid by NYT, but rather about NYT going through every word they paid for, and deciding whether to publish it or not after all. Facebook and Twitter do not do that: while they do have some very basic automated
761.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
In fact, the original Roe v Wade decision is the archetypical example of outcome oriented judiciary, of “judges ignoring the constitution, the law, past precedent, the will of the people, and the facts of the case, in order to make up a log
762.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> What we are talking about here is judges ignoring the constitution, the law, past precedent, the will of the people, and the facts of the case, in order to make up a logically incoherent "argument" that happens to promote the
763.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. > (...) > Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. So what is your complaint here, exactly?
764.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without sign
765.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do. How can a corporation do any of these without natural persons being actually the ones deciding on and performing these
766.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
This applies to every court in this country, and even more so to some. If 5th circuit is “corrupt, incoherent activism”, I’m lacking words to even describe the 9th.
767.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Sorry, can you explain the turnaround to me? What’s the relationship between Citizens United and this?
768.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Silence in response to your comment is great evidence for its thesis.
769.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
That's hardly a nontrivial thing to try, and indeed, I came up with this genius idea independently. Should have published it! Do you have children of your own?
770.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Don’t worry, this one will come up naturally. In general, I recommend taking all advice with a grain of salt: not because it is bad advice, but because no kids are the same, and what works with one will not necessarily work with another. Ju
771.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Cutting edge research indeed. We need to spread the news, tell all the parents that carrying kids helps sooth them. There is no way that parents could have come up and tried this on their own.
772.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
It’s bigger and harder to get rid of.
773.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Have you noticed any actual development on Wikipedia? Only thing that changes from the user perspective is that the donation request get more and more annoying every year.
774.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place? This particular fine, possibly, but they’d get some other fine then, for something else. The process here is outcome oriented, not about law or
775.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> If you are "a fan of" any organization such as Monsanto, you should reconsider that choice. Monsanto won't love you back. Dude, what? I’m not a fan of Monsanto, what are you talking about? Do you know what the word “impu
776.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
But why? You’re proposing something with clear negative consequences. Do you have some reason? Are there some benefits of blocking parenting organisms?
777.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> That's a bad analogy. Photographs don't reproduce with each other. So what? How is this relevant? The crucial aspect is captured by the analogy: accidental copyright infringement is by and large not possible to prosecute, but
778.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
> A process that's far more time consuming than CRISPR. Yet now, there's suddenly no incentive to improve plants unless a corporation can own the results outright for 20 years? If you are fine with the process being much slower
779.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
These things are perfectly reasonable in the world of regular copyright. If you take a photo, and accidentally catch a copyrighted content in the frame, it’s perfectly fine, but if you deliberately crop the copyrighted content from your pho
780.
by xyzzyz 4y ago
Do you prefer that the companies patenting the DNA never developed the organisms in the first place, and that the farmers are left without the option of using them? Or do you have some alternative in mind to incentivize the development of b

More ›