HN user
I think the difference is that you can specify independently verifiable criteria for the selection process and require participants to decide based on those criteria alone without forcing them to become political actors who must directly bear the consequences of political decisions.
Not totally immune to issues of partisanship, but at least somewhat insulated.
Physical Health, mental health, the economy, social disorder, family; we can influence these things that cause stress but often we can't "control" them.
I'm relieved to see another educated person doing this.
It's gotten worse for me lately, where I keep mixing up train stations and locations with similar names or characteristics, so I can totally imagine hearing Thailand and thinking about Indonesia instead.
Meanwhile, they forced AI Copilot bloat into Notepad, whose singular use-case was supposed to be that it does one thing well without unnecessary features.
I appreciate your response, even if the other poster doesn't.
He was hilariously brazen in his attempt to sell a Senate seat. His attempt to claim it was all a conspiracy against him was even more hilarious.
But that leg must weigh more than a person because their total biomass of 12 megatons is "more than all the wild birds and mammals taken together".
Their answer to me is "but you called us", which is fair, but they could just rephrase the message to "WE WILL NEVER CONTACT YOU TO ASK FOR THIS CODE"
Assuming the drop in social program expenditure doesn't already compensate for the drop in tax revenue.
You cannot give away some thing that doesn't belong to you.
If I accept stolen property which I know to be ill-gotten, then I am as responsible as the thief.
A Jewish state could've been established peacefully somewhere out in Utah instead (or joined the millions of American Jews prospering safely in their communities), but Palestinians had their land taken instead.
Why? Racism, plain and simple. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were treated as mere savages who could be dispossessed without consequence.
- The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism
- They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals
- The British enabled Jewish immigration to Palestine when it was clear that Zionists intended to take over the entire territory of Palestine
- The local Arab population wasn't stupid and they understood that Zionism was an organized political program driven in large part by Jewish religious extremists to take away their home
That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting".
They were only there because of the British and still waged war against them, mirroring Israel's refusal to heed US admonitions against illegal land grabs in the West Bank despite absolute dependence on American protection.
It's a client state that feels it can write the rules, steal what it wants and bites the hand that feeds it.
No group would or should have to tolerate a foreign state being established on their soil at gunpoint by colonial powers.
the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution
- That doesn't make sense. Israel didn't exist until it was established.
- The Arabs didn't voluntarily leave their villages.
- And during 1947, the Arabs ejected from the Arab side of the UN partition line did not leave because they wanted to give more land to Israel or because of the Arab League intervention a year later in 1948.....They left because of ethnic cleansing by Jewish religious extremists.
other founding figures in Zionism called for peace and integration in the Middle East.
To the contrary, Israeli leadership wanted all of Palestine and the UN plan was treated as a stepping stone toward Greater Israel.
The current Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu also rejects a two state solution, insisting for decades that only Israeli sovereignty should be allowed between the Jordan River and the Sea.
That isn't a very accurate characterization.
At the time, there was no significant population of settlers in the area. Most people were either fully or at least partly Indigenous like the Metis.
The goal was to protect First Nations from American settlers and prevent violence between the two which would trigger US military intervention.
This occurred in the wake of the Cypress Hills Massacre:
The Cypress Hills Massacre occurred on June 1, 1873 [...]. It involved a group of American [...] hunters, and a camp of Assiniboine people. [...] The Cypress Hills Massacre prompted the Canadian government to accelerate the recruitment and deployment of the newly formed North-West Mounted Police.
[Canadian Prime Minister John A.] MacDonald's principal fear was that the activities of American traders such as the Cypress Hills Massacre would lead to the First Nations peoples killing the American traders, which would lead to the United States military being deployed into the NWT to protect the lives of American citizens on the grounds that Canada was unable to maintain law and order in the region.
The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.[9]
Establishing trust and security with the First Nations was a key motivation:
The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.
Only if we could restrict the questions to the facts of the case, but my phone has a lot of unrelated personal stuff on it and so does my brain.
.... and once that problem starts injuring as many people as driverless cars, then we might start looking at it as a public policy issue.
"Okay, but couldn't we at least make the game fun anyway?"
"No! It has to be just barely fun. If the game was TOO FUN then there would be no reason to MICROPAY in order to make it MORE FUN!"
Practically everybody against the idea confused a hash false positive with the system’s false positive.
Doesn't the system output the result of the hash?
What is the difference?
The American and European auto, agriculture and aerospace sectors are all so dependent on subsidies that the same could be said for them as well, and yet those industries remain the bedrock of global capitalism.
2/3 of Canadians living in a home their family owns is still far from a situation where a critical mass of voters are demanding pro-renter housing policies.
Even those living at home with parents will be benefiting from the status quo when they eventually inherit their parent's property.
National Geographic's audience might not tend toward the lowest denominator.
There's a good chance that people who read that magazine have a higher average reading level.
To add to my reply, it appears that - rather than "plummeting" since 2011 - homeownership went up even more recently and actually peaked in 2019:
About two in three Canadians lived in an owner-occupied home in 2022. Since 2017, the home ownership rate in Canada has fluctuated and in 2019, it peaked at approximately 68.6 percent. In 2022, this figure was slightly lower, at 66.5 percent.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198969/home-ownership-ra...
Your chart shows home ownership recently peaked at 69% in 2011.
The current 66% is (a) not that big a change and (b) still high compared to historical averages so it's not so much "plummeting" as it is "reverting to the mean".
(which means we'll just continue to uphold the status quo like we always have)
A courageous member of the British parliament named Samuel Plimsoll tried for years to get legislation passed to improve safety and maintenance on ships, and to regulate the overloading of cargo encouraged by greedy owners to maximize profits at the expense of safety. He was stymied at every turn because many ship owners were MPs themselves and loathed passing new laws that would be to their disadvantage; they were making fortunes in the shipping business.
Looks like another example where the idea that private interests would ever be adequate for regulating safety is provably false.
you are correct in that the Wikipedia page specifically states that legislative change came after about three decades of this (and suggests it was at the behest of insurers):
They were generally eliminated in the 1870s with the success of reforms championed by British MP Samuel Plimsoll. [...] Plimsoll stated in the British Parliament, "The Secretary of Lloyd's [Insurance] tells a friend of mine that he does not know a single ship which has been broken up voluntarily by the owners in the course of 30 years on account of its being worn out".[5]
It says a new coat of paint over a rotting ship would suffice in those days.
I wonder if you've ever seen this classic video mocking such marketing claims which is called "MongoDB is Web Scale": https://youtu.be/b2F-DItXtZs
every concept will eventually have been expressed or referenced somewhere, so we have a system where every single possible scenario becomes a "trope" with a tidy label.
what - aside from gibberish or nonsense - isn't a trope at that point?
See also "co-determination", i.e., where unions have representation on corporate boards.
Britain is currently governed by the UK Conservatives and elsewhere this was already taking place under previous centre-right governments (enormous increasing in housing costs took place under Trump in the US and under Harper in Canada)
it's this comment where the user suggests that dropbox will never be successful because it's "trivial":