Boost for android

You are not making much sense

The problem with democracy is sometimes the majority legally vote for the checks and balances to be weakened…

Pray, I guess?

“retention bots” of some description wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest…

endless wars of who’s federeated with who

i’ve been here for months and months, i might have seen this mentioned as an aside once or twice. but “endless wars”?

It would be ok.

“Internet Cafe” mid 90s. Clicked down through yahoo’s directory not really knowing what I was looking for. Found the canonical list of lightbulb jokes. Funny but overall I was quite underwhelmed. Got a print magazine that listed and reviewed websites.

Evolutionarily speaking, threats from outside are an existential threat and need spreading. Good deeds at home are already known by everyone who matters and the ‘reward’ is survival of your children, not you ‘feeling good’. People do ‘hero worship’ though. I think you are downplaying that. Though the influence that comes from such a position probably means people are inclined to cooperate with ‘power’ because it has, de facto, already shown itself to be powerful. Whereas those ‘asking’ for power are necessarily weak.

This is all pop-sci evolutionary psychology so discard at will…

Could it be “if it stops me getting at stuff, copyright bad. If it stops the rich getting richer, copyright good”?

This doesn’t correlate with good developers at all in my experience. If I was to ask one question it would be “tell me about your passion project” or “What’s the last thing you nerded out on?”

hahahahahaha nope.

Practically speaking since war is unthinkable is would result in as much economic isolation as Europe can bear. It would be the end of NATO. Almost immediately there’s be European voices saying ‘What’s the real harm?’ and other appeasers. I think the political lash back would only last 5-10 years as parties opposed would find the only tool at hand - economic punishment - to be unsustainable. It would legitimise nationalistic sentiments in Europe even further. Britain would, naturally, talk of betrayal but not be able to make any resistance of any substance.

I don’t think there’s an easy solution. There are a lot of people who don’t regard tolerating illegal entry in any form to be a workable solution. I should think they disagree with you over whether illegal crossing can be stopped. They just regard the punishment to not be high enough. Callous as you say. But I should think they’d regard the toleration of undocumented crossings that a tiny minority of are criminals evading detection is also callous on the people that suffer as a result.

I personally think more liberal but documented movement in tiers is a solution. But I don’t think the status quo of what America had been doing - tolerating illegal crossings and toying with the idea of naturalising undocumented people - was a solution because the writing was on the wall for a long time that America was democratically moving against it. The catastrophe that’s currently happening is the result.

Some people just don’t regard illegally entering a country to be a misdemeanor, rather they regard it as a serious offence. Such stances are usually as emotional as they are reasonable. But so is most politics…

♫ … Now don’t be sad, 'cause two out of three ain’t bad… ♫

And as a result there are 8 or 9 rivers called “Avon” in the UK…

I suppose people just dislike the idea of ‘anchor babies’. That is, if you’re going to illegally enter a country, you should be pregnant (or take a pregnant wife with you) so that when they’re born the state has to decide if it wants to deport the parents of an American citizen. That probably the emotional resistance to it. At least I’ve not heard people have problems with it in the context of legal migrants who start life in America, marry and have kids who are then citizens…

I’ve heard various explanations, I don’t know how accurate the following is. I’d be interested to learn more:

• the very earliest colony settlements had to bargain hard and with precision in order to survive. It began a contractual culture that eventually extended into litigation

• due to high immigration from many differing backgrounds, disputes had to be settled in litigation rather than relying on social understanding

• the religious culture was largely inherited from the Puritans who had a legalistic and inflexible reading of the new testament. (This unwillingness to compromise is why they were persecuted in Europe and fled to the new world)

• the American identity is ‘invented’ (in the sense that’s it’s an abrupt mixing of many old world cultures) and so national identity was initially based on cerebral activities (the Constitution, Bill of Rights) rather than evolved from a very long history of social bonds found in old world ‘nations’. This required a cerebral precision to be at the heart of identity which easily extended to legal rights and relations

As I say, take with a pinch of salt. But this is the gist of what I’ve heard from people who know more than me.

Have you tried talking in only short amounts that require a response? That could narrow down the specific thing that made them not want to respond. If this is happening all the time with all sorts of people that’s unusual. In your example it’s hard to tell if they were overwhelmed with your talking style or if you offended them or if you missed all signs they were uncomfortable and they felt entitled to be rude to you (without saying) or if you just happen to be encountering people who feel that’s an ok thing to do and it doesn’t really have anything specifically to do with you. Lots of possibilities.

deleted by creator

Ask him to define cooking any way he likes => point out preparing toast falls into that definition => beans on toast is cooking QED