Skip to main content

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frenzie

Otter Browser Forum / Re: Vivaldi
It definitely looks promising. :)
I was particularly pleased with the results from Georgia. :D
Interesting, thanks!
It's strange that puritans think people only go out after 10 to party.

Also it's quite odd how common curfews seem to be in America (pre-covid). I consider curfews a symbol of the nazi occupation, a breach of our proud constitutions.

They instituted a curfew here too, for the first time since WW2. I doubt it'll hold up in court, but for now we're stuck with it. It was quite disturbing a few weeks ago when I wanted to get on with moving-related business and had to look up whether I was in fact allowed to be out.[1] Because let's see, what's the risk associated with me by myself... I can't quite figure it out.  :zip:
And even now I already forgot if the curfew thing was 0 or 1. I'd read 22 somewhere but that was about Wallonia.
Otter Browser Forum / Re: Vivaldi
Vivaldi is what Otter was trying to be.
I don't think that's quite true, but it sounds like Vivaldi is what you want. ;)

Vivaldi is more or less what I expected when Opera announced they were doing away with Presto. Otter's closer to what I was hoping for.
some well-meaning ones would say to the candidate that he should not be aiming so low.
You already get that if you apply for a job that "only" requires a bachelor's degree.

I know that it is possible to earn more as a trash truck driver
It may not be the most educated job, but I figure a truck driver's license can definitely be seen as a fair bit beyond untrained labor. That's vocational training like a hair dresser or a chef (except they do make more than those).

The education fails to inform the students that the modern civilisation is out of meaningful jobs, regardless of the level of education.
Definitely things we discussed in philosophy and sociology and the like, in high school too. Nowadays the popular term seems to be bullshit jobs but the concept is ancient.
Is it not possible that we in our societies have duped tens of millions of young people into believing that the prolongation of their formal education would lead them inexorably into the sunny uplands of power, importance, wealth, and influence, when in fact many a PhD finds himself obliged to do work that he could have done when he was 16?
Could have done in many cases quite likely, but note that most without degrees couldn't have done it then and perhaps still can't now. Unless the guy's referring to flipping burgers we also would've never been allowed to. It's not our fault that a job we could've done at 16 requires a college or even a university degree to get it. Back in the '60s that was different. Then a high school diploma was enough to get started at virtually the same job.

The guy's either deluded himself or he hasn't got a clue. What we believe is that not having a degree would put us at a significant disadvantage, not at an advantage. The only thing I may have been semi-duped into believing is that it'd lead into sunny uplands of more interesting and challenging than a job I could've done or at least gotten back when I was 16. Yet depending on the job you manage to land I'd say that's indeed somewhat to mostly true, and it's true for me now. It's one of my previous jobs where the demand for a degree seemed rather odd... but from a hiring perspective I suppose the vast majority of people without one couldn't do it now and especially not when they were 16.

Also, wealth is relative. My starting wage a few years back was some 600 a month more than a mail carrier with 35 years of experience. Perhaps that says more about how little people with unskilled jobs make, but on the flip side they can live well enough. The difference is that I can save or waste more. Last I checked that's still wealth.
Huh, I didn't realize that. I would imagine consistent beating would nevertheless fall under child abuse laws.

To be clear, smacking a child's hand away from an open flame or janking them onto the sidewalk in the face of traffic is evidently something else.
Not 51st because I noted Puerto Rico voted in favor of statehood today.
They've done so before.
When you hear Americans saying they have a isn't a true Democracy they're speaking of, it's only an American version/type/form of Democracy.....not a true "Majority Rules" Democracy practiced elsewhere.
Elsewhere practices representative democracy with separation of powers, checks and balances, and so on. Not direct democracy. What a lot of elsewhere doesn't practice is winner takes all.
"Highly competitive elections in US tarnished by legal uncertainty and unprecedented attempts to undermine public trust, international observers say"
just over £15 a month
15 thousand? :)
Der Spiegel trying to clickbait the lede or something? That first sentence strikes me as almost Trumpishly inaccurate.
Democracy in the United States has long been regarded as the great, shining example for many countries around the world. No longer. That U.S. President Donald Trump would prematurely declare himself the winner of the presidential election and accuse his political opponents of fraud, even though hundreds of thousands of ballots still haven't been counted, is grotesque, absurd -- and anti-democratic.
What kind of new power safety?
Charities can be insolvent and liquidated, whatever you want to call it. Of course I was surprised that it sounded like the New York Catholic diocese was a business, which is why I'm curious if it's a business or a charity (as per New York statutes).
What I couldn't immediately find is if they're a business or a charity?
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Some commentators noted that it was a grim reminder of a virus that does not distinguish between rich and poor, weak and powerful.


Wang Huiyao, the founder and president of the Center for China and Globalization, an influential research group in Beijing, said, "When the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, can catch this, the virus has no boundaries."
A most peculiar way of phrasing that. One imagines the virus distinguishes between, say, Merkel and Trump, even if the virus doesn't distinguish between me and Merkel.
DnD Central / Re: The world in 2030
Goals are goals, not predictions. ;)
I was going to say I heard about that on a BBC podcast half a year ago or even last year, but that was about France and this is about America. (And also possibly about Facebook instead of YouTube.)
Today this was in my alumnus magazine.
The BBC is a projection of British soft power. DW and France 24 will be happy to fill the gap, but be careful what you wish for. :)
Incidentally, we had a Singlish guest lecturer during my Englishes linguistics course at the university.
In the American system such a determination can't be made (except by Congress, in the process of enacting law...) before a case, a controversy, is brought to the court. Our judges have no power to propound such questions, let alone answer them before... Not in their official capacity.
(Such things do come up in their opinions as explanatory... But when it does it is dicta -- not precedent for future cases and of no import re the lower courts.)
Laws are written using words like "souls" and "spirits," for example in a phrase like "cities of 50,000 and more souls" (source). That's a pars pro toto or a metonymy. You're presuming the entire question to be ridiculous, which may not follow. A soul is clearly considered part of a person in common as well as legal use, even if we're just using it as a synonym for "physical person" in current reality. Under the right conditions asking the question may not be so silly as to be dismissed out of hand, whether by the prosecution or a (lower) court.[1] To presuppose that keeping a soul in captivity is not kidnapping seems to be begging the question, unless the law explicitly says "physical body" or if it's otherwise clear that "person" means "physical body."

The Dutch organization of judges somewhat regularly publishes pieces urging lawmakers to make some new law they're considering clearer, precisely so they won't have to say they can't judge. It's not the case that judges aren't aware of what lawmakers are doing and vice versa. I think the consequence of your argument is that a judge should be more like a stupid computer program[2] than like Gorsuch who skillfully uses practically applied philosophy.

That doesn't get us anywhere: The mode of transporting the victim is not a necessary element of the crime.
We're talking about interpreting the crucial element of the crime!
That's the point; I'm providing a more accurate analogy with regard to transgender people. Transgender people are dirigibles.

Quote from: Gorsuch
Employers may not "fail or refuse to hire or...discharge any individual, or otherwise...discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual'

Whether you're discriminating against a woman wanting to ride horses or against a woman wanting to fly previously unheard of dirigibles is irrelevant. You're still discriminating based on sex.

BTW: Did you read Kavanaugh's dissent?
Yup, he does nothing but repeat things that were already thoroughly addressed by Gorsuch. He's even so nice as to contradict himself for us: "our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result." Which is what Gorsuch did. It's Kavanaugh who's trying to wedge in an absurd definition of sex to avoid following the law as written.
Cf.,_Inc. with regard to some uses of the word "person" in legal parlance.
I can't process customer complaint X because there's no field for it.
I'd forgotten about this topic. I posted a presumably relevant entry here:

The bigger problem may not actually be the systemic racism itself, but rather the propensity to violence exhibited by American police. Police here normally deescalates, while police in America can use all manner of excessive violence or even shoot if there's a "reasonable" threat. "We have a society where it's often considered reasonable to take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable."

But even so, assuming you fix the corruption and the violence, stopping minorities without any clear motive is at best a waste of tax dollars and a nuisance to those people. Splitting hairs over systemic racism vs propensity to violence sounds more like a way to avoid addressing either one.

A couple of days ago, police officers in Amsterdam were literally attacked (rammed). A handful of warning shots were fired. No one was shot or died while they subdued the suspect with pepper spray. Dutch police usually manages not to shoot people in situations like the West Virginia incident.