This is what happens with socialised healthcare, america. Whatever you do, don't let people being healthy get in the way of profit margins. Luckily, you've elected the right people to make sure you're fucked over again and again.

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

No, it's not really a no brainer. The few studies done, when other known factors are considered, showed that virgin marriages had <2% difference in satisfaction, probably within the margin of error....divorce rates are obviously skewed because most virgin couples are extremely religious, which accounts for lower divorce rates...it doesn't mean they have happy or successful marriages.
STDs and unwanted pregnancy are easily avoided with responsible safe sex...granted, most teens aren't very responsible.

Your reasoning is flawed...if Christians raise Christians, (and I assume you think the same goes for other religions) where do atheists come from? Also, you do know that children given abstinence only sex ed, usually Christians, have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs, don't you? Very few follow church instructions once outside of church, that's why less than 5% of marriages are by virgins.

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

1v1 mid to 5v5 is like checkers to chess, so I'd be interested to see if it can also master all of that.

It's curious how aggressive it plays. When you watch AlphaGo I think one of the defining features of it was that didn't look for huge leads because the margin of victory is meaningless. OpenAI seems totally different, it practices a sort of brinkmanship that is almost human. The games I've seen it lose were because of moves that actually did seem very human - it went all in up high ground and got unlucky for instance. I'd have somewhat expected it to evaluate doing that as an unnecessary risk when it can just extend its advantage in other ways... but then maybe it is overestimating the ability of its human opponents to keep up with last hits and raze placement.

So basically you're not to blame if you contractually agree to a shitty service and then forget to maintain the conditions? There's a good reason I do my credit business through reputable establishments with reasonable T&C and interest rates rather than Bruce the leg breaker at the local fucking pub... Because Bruce is a cunt and his T&C are ass rape...

I have 55 days interest free on my platinum card and I've not spent a single cent in interest in about 16 years. Mostly cos my wife would kick my ass harder than the bank, but it's a matter of discipline rather than the bank being a pack of pricks. I agreed to the terms, I need to meet them.

There's probably a fair point to be made somewhere in there about usuary rates re: credit cards, but the airline bit is a fucking silly...

Budget airlines offer everything as a pay for after the ticket price service because people want cheap fairs. In some cases, it's actually cheaper to fly today than it was 30 years ago in the 80's... (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/international-air-fares-at-30year-low-20160422-gocr1r.html)

Well, funny that, people don't want to pay for a premium product and they get a shitty one that nickel and dimes them to death to try and keep the margins up (aka "staying in business").

You can look at plenty of markets where cheap, shit products are now the standard because people either won't or can't pay for quality ones. It's the entire reason why many industries outsource to foreign wage slaves and why cheap Chinese shit shows up everywhere as well known and reliable brands go out of business.

Yes, the US certainly has a problem with a lack of oversight on various industries which allows them to get away with a lot, but the customer/end user has to take some responsibility as well.

I agree with most of his points, but from what I see, the left doesn't completely ignore antifa. I would hope that most of the left disavows these fascists against fascism at every opportunity. I would like the dnc to follow the republican party who, today, finally said they don't want the votes of Nazis and white supremacists...the dnc needs to say the same about antifa. These extremists on both sides threaten us all. They need marginalization.

No NHS in the states. Personally, I think that'd be the way to do it. And I think it kind of needs to be a long and difficult road, to make sure that drastic option is necessary and won't be regretted later.

It's a bit hard for me to accept it, because I tend to think of it like that episode of South Park. Kyle can't actually become a tall black kid, and his dad can't actually become a dolphin.

But even though I think that is true -- you can't really become something you aren't -- I recognize that gender reassignment surgeries can be life saving / massively beneficial to quality of life in many cases.


To take a stab at answering your other questions:

I believe that Trump is saying that the military is instituting a blanket ban on transgender people from serving in the military. If / how the military elects to enforce that remains to be seen. I don't know the full timeline on that sort of stuff, but back in the 60's one (considered extreme at the time) way for young men to get out of being drafted to go to Vietnam was to take photos of themselves naked with another man (implying they were gay) or wearing women's clothing (implying they were trans). The mere implication that you might be either was enough to disqualify you from military service.

More recently, during Don't Ask Don't Tell you could be gay or trans in the military, but couldn't reveal that you were. That ended only 5-6 years ago. The military definitely wouldn't have paid for trans-related medical treatments prior to that, and didn't for quite a while after until Obama OK'd it.

Again, I don't really think that the military should be required / expected to pay for those kinds of treatments for soldiers, BUT I'd be 100% OK with something like the NHS making it available to any citizen, as in the UK. For one thing, I wouldn't want trans people to see the military as the only way to get those treatments (short of paying out of pocket), and having that be a major part of their motivation to join.

And I 100% agree that this is a basically a political distraction that sets back the rights and acceptance of an already marginalized group that in no way deserves it.

The thing I can't quite figure out is...why do hardware makers continue to play in the Android sandbox? Aren't margins per device near zero or even, in the case of some the Chinese manufactures, weirdly negative?

Yes, I know Samsung makes money as a corporation, but on the phone business alone?

buildings are designed and built to support the vertical loadn, with plenty of safety margin. I think any failure mode in an earthquake is going to come from horizontal movements.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

So this is relevant because of a recent surge in support for "radical left" (i.e. democratic socialist, centre-left) Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who has had a huge surge in popularity in recent weeks in a general election campaign he was expected to catastrophically lose by all mainstream sources.

Since winning two Labour party leadership elections in 2015, voted in by historic margins by ordinary members having their say for the first time, he has faced hostile criticism from all mainstream media sources and most politicians including his own party.

The grass roots, which helped drive his earlier victories, appears to be doing the same thing for him in this general election campaign. The grass roots involvement has included youth musicians, artists and activists coming together from multiple campaigns (Save The NHS, WASPI, most unions, including teachers, fire, police and transport, and far too many other interest groups to mention, including multiple disability campaigners). As well as individuals, parents, elderly, and Momentum - a group formed in the afterglow of his leadership win.

On the other hand, Theresa May's and the Tory party's campaign has gone from disaster to disaster. After claiming to be the party of economic security, they released an entirely uncosted manifesto (Labour's was fully costed, other party's included some costings). After trying to make it a match of personalities, she has gone from robotic gaffe to robotic gaffe, dodging questions whilst Corbyn's easy charm and honesty has gone quite a way to show those weaknesses up. She has claimed to be stable and strong, and the best hand to negotiate Brexit, but performed u-turn after u-turn and is now avoiding all but mandatory press contact because her and her brand have become toxic, thanks to things like the "Dementia Tax" and a promise to vote again on allowing barbaric fox hunting. She has been caught out, and regardless of the results of the general election, Theresa May is finished as Conservative leader. Potentially, the back of austerity has been broken and exposed. A movement has been started and even if the Tory's win, watch out for a mass people power'd intervention over their heinous plans.

God i could go on, this has been amazing to watch. Obviously i'm biased towards Labour, and whilst a centre-right opponent might describe things differently, the facts are the same.

Significant things are happening in the UK right now, not wholly dissimilar from the rise of Sanders, only this time it's for the actual prime minister position - Corbyn managed to outmaneuver the corruption of his party. If the election was 2 weeks longer i would predict a huge Labour landslide. After being so ridiculed by a hostile media for so long, election bias rules have forced the press into giving Corbyn a fair hearing and the more people see, the more they appear to like. The question is, have people already cast their vote by post? Will people turn up and vote? A big turnout is expected to favour Labour. A strong youth turnout will be hugely beneficial to Labour.

He doesn't own most of the properties that bear his name, in case you're confused. In fact, there's no evidence that he owns any of them since he won't release any financial information.
I'll admit, he was great at selling his name as a brand, but today his name is Mud. Watch how many skyscrapers or clubs he puts his name on after he's out of office.

That's not what Republican senators are saying, many have started using the "I" word in public.
BTW....Hillary DID win the election, but lost the electoral college...something you seem to have forgotten because you believe Trump when he says he won by the biggest margin ever and there were 3 million fraudulent votes, all for Clinton (even though the only one actually found voted twice for Trump) and you never even check to see if it's true. (It's not)

At least we finally have an investigation of Russian involvement (and any cover-up of it) where Trump can't fire or blackmail the lead investigator. Time will tell what he finds.

Macarthur must have been terrified of being primaried by the Kochs---so F--ing terrified---to decide to back the second round of the Ryan/Trump bill knowing that this would be the result.

However, he did the 3rd district of NJ in 2016 60-40% versus a Democrat--that's basically a landslide---And Trump won it 51-45. So, he's probably going to win again in 2018 (I would predict with a smaller margin, but nonetheless, he should win)

But for some other marginal Republican guys---this might not end so well.

*promote.

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.