IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

750

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is a great point, and the same logic applies to someone who's destitute vs someone with the median net worth of about $100,000.

See this is where you failed logarithms. Let's talk domestic and then we'll move on to developing world. To explain it a bit better here's a breakdown. Let's say I take all my net worth and sell it. Lock, stock, and barrel. Convert it to cash and then take 50% of that dollar amount and hand it to someone. That value will allow a single person to have an apartment, furnish it, and pay rent for about 48 months. Now take the same billionaire and put it towards that same person. That 50% of that dollar amount is 43 times more money than if you completely liquidated the entire town of 12,000 in middle of nowhere Tennessee I live in. The billionaire could purchase forty-three of my towns. I can grant someone an apartment for maybe four years.

It's all the same 50%, but because of MATH, it's wildly different in what is possible with that same 50%. That's the "great point" you should be walking away with. Logarithms and orders of magnitude are wild things!

Now let's move to international. Minus the whole point I just made, one would think, oh if I give some money overseas, they'll be able to go to Walmart and grab some rice. Well they don't have Walmart. If I gave them $50k it is about as worth $0 because there's nowhere for the money to go that'll directly help them. It's not till I give them enough money to actually build the Walmart (or whatever shopping center, or you can call the Walmart farming equipment, or access to seed and fertilizer, or whatever basically enough money to grant them access to a resource that is just removed completely from them).

That's the thing people forget about abject destitution. They are so poor and exist in an environment that is so resource poor, handing them $100,000 might help keep them warm at night by burning the cash. But they are SO poor, you need a massive injection of funds to literally kick start their economy, and surprise $100,000, a quarter million, or half a million ain't going to cut it. You need nine figures to even get started and that massively ignores the complexities of the geopolitics and the fun details of despotism. But I side step all of that for simple fact that we just need to keep this to math and what I had previously indicated.

The economy is mostly based around the buying power of the median. So every log₁₀ past that point means massive change.

A developing nation's economy is in 1e-n territory for the median buying power relative to the US dollar. So for large n, you need large positive exponents to compensate. If some economy relative to the US dollar is 1e-6 for purchase power, then me sending 1e5 in funds is still fractional buying power on the order of like 0.1 relative to the dollar.

to feed a bunch of people in the developing world and it wouldn't ruin their life

The feeding you have to remember is someone here in the US buying the food and then sending the food. We buy the food at US prices, so it'll feed at the same rate it feeds a US mouth, because we didn't buy it at developing world nation price, we bought it at US price. We buy the food in the US because those nations are so poor, they do not even have food to buy for them to eat, you have to bring all the money required to invent all of that there.

So like I said, that whole 50% means vastly different things in terms of different log base. It's all the same 50%, yes, but it's wildly different values.

There will be a vote. When I remember to do a vote. But only on MAJOR changes and I get to define major!

Yeah this is missing magnitudes of scale here. Someone with 100,000 and someone with 1,000,000,000 are wildly different scales of magnitude. It's like people who look at a mag-4, mag-5, and mag-6 earthquake. Each of those is on a log scale, so while you're just going form 4 to 5, the scaling means that's a massive amount of change.

Same diff here. The economy is mostly based around the buying power of the median. So every log₁₀ past that point means massive change. So going from 100,000 to 1,000,000 is a pretty big change in the amount of security one has. So going from 1e5 to 1e9, that's a change of 1000 on the scale. The level of change between those two is absolutely astronomical.

I get this facet of mathematics eludes folks. All the while the whole "double the number of grains per square on a chessboard" thing we all like to play with because it's interesting. But this is that IRL. The average person and the average billionaire are on two totally different scales. It's like saying, "why a beetle doesn't glow when the sun does?" Like you can't reasonably compare those two things. Yeah, both contain hydrogen at some level but in massively, massively different quantities. It's like saying, your computer is just an overgrown abacus. It's just ignoring scale so much that it veers into very wrong.

I get what you're trying to say. But you've got to acknowledge the vast difference of scale here and that your point is not just oversimplification of an issue, but a gross by planetary magnitudes oversimplification of an issue. Just mathematically speaking, the average person and the average billionaire are not even close to the same kind of person in economic terms. It's just completely unreasonable to even remotely think they are. The numbers are just too far apart, to even attempt this argument in good faith.

Might I interest you in one of my favorites?

similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure

Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.

It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.

In short, "weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments." The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.

The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and
protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.

So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why "none of that matters" without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of "because unborn babies are important" WITHOUT explaining the "why" of that statement. That's the point of the court to establish the "why" of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it's their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That's the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That's literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that's how you know they are full of shit.

So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it's weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.

That said.

In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements

That's broad powers. That's how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law "protect animals that might go extinct", "fix our highways", and "protect our armed forces" and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they're Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.

But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is "OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!" Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.

Is this really the content that we want for @news ?

There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you're attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn't Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.

Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of "with great power comes great responsibility." Maybe ask "openly" why you're being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that's not cool.

Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general." Yes, it's better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that's what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it'd be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.

Agencies that built around that openness: “How could our reliance on a private entity have backfired on us like this?”

Also those same agencies: “Does anyone know a free private company we can build upon now?”

I blame shitty politicians and corrupt police departments for the riots. I too am calling on all parents to step up and help out.

Major questions doctrine:

If a law is so broad that it brings about questions on how one should implement it, rather than asking Congress to fix it, SOCTUS gets to dictate what specifically the answer to the question is. But if Congress doesn't like that answer SCOTUS gives, Congress may pass a law being more specific. That is, the Court isn't indicating that the law, ruling, or order is unconstitutional, they are ruling that it is too broad in scope and that SCOTUS is "fixing it" for the time being. But Congress is openly invited to completely override anything they've said.

Now of course, "Major Questions" brings about the obvious. "What is the definition of too broad?" And of course there's all kinds of precedent on that as well and SCOTUS saying "well this is broad, but this isn't broad". Since the WV vs EPA (2022) case, SCOTUS Conservatives have gotten a bit more ..... (and it may shock those that I'm using this word) "liberal" in what they consider "broad". And the liberal justices are more than happy to point this out each and every time to the Conservatives:

It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.

— Justice Kagan (brutally assaulting and ripping the Conservatives' jugular while dissenting in WV v. EPA (cir. 2022))

So it looks like we're in for a whole lot of "quite a precedent" as the Conservative Justices look posed to whip out the Major Questions doctrine to be allowed to "double think". Major Questions isn't usually used this often and by golly the Conservative Justices seem posed to right that perceived wrong, apparently. And the Liberal Justices have indicated, it's not wise to over use this doctrine. The 6-3 bench isn't forever.

Is currently running VLC.

"We only need one official sub!!" — Average Kbin/Lemmy newb

"First time?" — Average Linux distro enjoyer.

It's changed who she is in their minds, and it clearly has an impact on her relationship with them

Had you not been straight with them, this would have been your outcome too. And just like cheating, lying or distorting the truth eventually gets found out. There's plenty that I'm sure who would get on here and indicate age as being the factor. Age plays a role for sure, but even if your children were 7 and 10, they deserve the truth albeit with less detail or more explaining depending on the child.

But there are very few people on this planet that you should strive to shoot straight with. Your children are part of that group. So is your spouse, which is why cheating hits so hard when it happens. So, you will do right to be straight with your children about the situation.

They stay in touch with her and do things with her, but it's clearly out of obligation (at least it's clear to me)

Remember that she's the parent, she's going to need to be the one who repairs the relationship. There's no point in asking your children to be more adult than your former wife. Your children may be doing out of an obligation to maintain some semblance of normalcy, may be doing it out of respect for you and not knowing other means to show that. But your children are going to have the relationship with your former wife, that your former wife forms with them going forward. Relationship inertia is a thing and your former wife would be wise to use that to help repair the broken trust and the attempt to be deceitful with them. That inertia eventually will run out of steam and if your former wife spends too long fuming over the revelation, she'll lose any grace she's been given to help in the repair. Remember, your kids are smart enough to understand that mom wanted to "hide" this from them. That's in their heads be it they say it or not.

I feel bad for her, I really do.

Then you would do well to remind her that she's got to take control of this situation and earnestly repair this relationship with her children. If you do care still for her in some fashion, then reminding her she's got repair the trust she has torched with her children and not attempt to hide from it. I don't know your wife, but ultimately, whatever relationship she has with her children is exactly the one SHE CREATED.

I believe the kids have a right to know why their lives were suddenly and completely changed out of the blue

If you value your relationship with your children, you would do well to not lie or betray their trust. Especially now. It's easy for them to become really jaded from this experience and see faults in all of their parents. It's a popular idea that there's the good parent and the bad parent, but there is parent A, parent B, and each child. You are all your own separate beings. Again relationship inertia has them "flock" to you at the time, but as this whole thing ages, it'll start to take a personality of its own and affect how they see paternal relationships in general.

It's good that you have empathy for your former wife and perhaps if you wish to help the relationship between your kids and their mother, you can share your empathy that you have as a guidance for your children. Best of luck.

Yep. Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction, and the understanding is that the point when the 5th attaches is when a jury is sworn or the first witness is heard. In mistrial, the fifth does not attach so long as there is minimum delay between juries and the prosecutor has not had enough time to strengthen their case.

If the federal government wants to disqualify Judge Cannon, they must do so before this moment of attachment. Because if there is judicial misconduct the case can be halted but there's no way that the disqualification process would satisfy minimum disruption, and thus Trump would be found not-guilty on a technicality with no possible way to bring back the Federal charges he faces.

Also something, the number of people delaying care due to costs is still increasing YoY.

Some forego treatment altogether. Even myself have decided that if I am ever diagnosed with advanced stage disease to just die rather roll the dice and be sacked with seven to eight digits of debt on a, “maybe you’ll still be alive and even then you’ll just be a shell of the person you were before.”

If we’re going to keep the medical system the US has, then I honestly really want assisted suicide as well. Not this palliative, let’s keep you drugged up while you decay bullshit. No, I want in the US the ability to see the choice of $1,000,000+ maybe you’ll live versus $250 we put you in a box and suck out all the oxygen and replace it with nitrogen.

I’m not saying everyone is going to pick the death box, but after two major healthcare things in my life that I’ve gotten through, I sure as shit am not going through a third. Be that via an approved or unapproved manner. There’s just no way this system is going to put me through that again.

All of this article completely ignores why manufacturing left in the first place. By the 1970s Japan's manufacturing quality revolution put financial pressures on American corporations to become more competitive. As more globalization occurred, the ability to economically compete with foreign economies became more prominent in management philosophy. Pair this with the invention that corporations exist to drive shareholder value, increasing shareholder value became the primary concern driving corporate strategies.

Companies who listen to shareholders and not markets become asset-light with high risk aversion. Few companies want to weather a storm not because the employees don't want to work there, but because any slight can be perceived in the market as a weaken position. There has to be a fundamental disconnect from the companies and the investors. We cannot be a stable manufacturing economy if the primary driver is speculation.

With weak labor protections currently prevalent in the United States, there's little possibility to buy the notion that employees and their product will be placed higher than speculative investors who are completely disinterested in the particulars themselves. So long as boards listen to financial gurus who prognosticate from their Excel tea leaves and market models, and less to middle management who just want the company to do well, there's zero ways manufacturing will attract the numbers required for a complete return to domestic production. If we want the people to work, we must give the people the power to dictate that work. Anything less is sure fire means for a return to whence we came.

I will leave this article from the Software Freedom Conservancy which gives an analysis of the legal impact of the new terms of the RHEL CCS distribution in terms of the GPL.

In short, it is as you say, not distributing to the public at large is only a violation of the spirit of the GPL but not an actual legal violation. As for redistribution, the new terms stipulate that RedHat CANNOT STOP YOU from redistributing the code (unless you forgot to remove their icons/artwork/copyrightable stuff), but doing so will put you under consideration for a 30-day notice that your ability to access binaries and sources will be revoked.

Additionally, the SFC has gone ahead and assumed that RedHat will have little inclination to sell a single license to Rocky or Alma for them to them attempt a systematic way to get around their RHEL CCS distribution model. In short, RedHat has come full circle in implementing the full breadth of their hostilities towards downstream projects of their RHEL.

I know RedHat folks justify it as "None of the downstream projects helped patched anything. That the downstream projects were the ones being hostile and RedHat is just finally responding in like." I think the "none" might be over exaggerated, but RedHat has indeed submitted easily over 90% of the patches to RHEL's code base. That said, working with the community to help foster more contributions is the correct answer, not taking the ball and going home.

All in all, RedHat is basically allowed to do what it is doing. But everyone is free to not like this path RedHat has taken themselves down. I mean, there's a lot of "questionable" spirit of FOSS that multiple companies that contribute to open source do with their product. cough Java cough.

Ayo, NP broacketo! Upper 80 is all 0. Then it's FFFF:C0A8:14. Igotchu!

That might be the case but this might have been one of the bridges in the 2022 flood that came through Yellowstone. The flooding was such that many bridges had their piers scoured and even a brand new bridge wouldn't survive if its piers had been significantly impacted.

So yeah, this could be an infrastructure issues, in fact it's likely. But that area had an unprecedented flood that we still do not know the full extent of damage done. It could have been a brand new bridge or the flooding could have exacerbated a pre-existing condition. It's a bit early to point to the main contributing factor that led up to this event.

That said, this nation is still in need of a massive infusion of funds into the various infrastructure that has been on perpetual deferred maintenance. If this nation does not implement a sustained long-term commitment to fully fund infrastructure and put it above petty politics, then our economy, our industry, and more importantly our way of life will massively suffer.