A little bit of neuroscience and a little bit of computing
That’s totally fair! “Exempli gratia” is fairly esoteric. Even as far as latin goes, it’s not the most straightforward to translate.
My general point is though, that “eg” can easily stand for “example given” … it’s such a mainstay of english now, without “exempli gratia” being commonly known at all.
Yea, the point of any thing like this would be to provide a better grip on what’s going on with these phrases and to break down the opacity of their coming from another language.
The thing with latin though is that it isn’t quite an alien language to english speakers … so many components of it have ended up in language that an english speaker can kind of “triangulate” some of it.
The “ad” in “ad hoc”, for instance. It’s the same “ad” in “advance” or “addition” “admit”. And “hoc” is related to English “here”. It literally means “toward this (thing)”, which takes on the meaning “for the purpose of this thing” … that is, being “for a specific thing”, not “general purpose”.
Seems to miss some big ones and providing understanding of them.
“Et cetera”
“Exempli gratia”
“Id est”
This is one of my favourite things!
I’ve walked most of it (though I couldn’t find Saturn for some reason … I suspect it was stolen).
And yea … it’s a ridiculously effective demonstration of how hard it is to comprehend big numbers. I knew these numbers, or had read them before hand, and thought about them … but seeing it all to scale was kinda devastating … like the distances between the outer planets are huuuge … you get tired walking them even though the planets are 5cms wide.
And yea, the proxima centauri thing is a very nice touch!
I believe you … gate-keeping types are all over the place really.
But vegans or the “vegan-curious” aren’t one thing or one kind of person, at least not any more. I personally have only ever had positive conversations with vegan types.
This instance, in being insistent on not entertaining any “harm reduction” or “compromises”, makes sense though … because it’s a space for people to talk about that sort of dedicated approach.
they drive away potential allies because the concept of harm reduction is anathema to their binary thinking. If you’re not ALL in, you’re the enemy.
I can resonate with that. But I come back to … “it’s totally ok for people to create their own spaces, especially on federated social media and especially for minority groups/ideas”.
There are likely plenty of other spaces for “potential allies” to engage and talk about veganism if they want to, or plenty they, or you, could make on their own.
Tacitly admitting that vegans are usually antisocial zealots. “It’s right in the name!”
Well, they’re running their own social media platform, so I’m not sure how anti-social they are.
Right. Well, I think the instance name “vegantheory.org” was doing that already, and I’m betting you drew your conclusion from the public description of the place too (and aren’t in the modlog or anything for challenging their ideas).
And what would a non-vegan want to do in there?
What’s wrong with minority views and practices creating their own spaces?
On which, is there any non-vegan/anti-vegan thought or idea that a vegan is likely to have not heard already? How many haven’t they heard relative to the amount of decent “pro-vegan” ideas they also haven’t heard of?
Maybe a specialised space, echo chamber even, makes sense in order to balance against the gravity of the mainstream?
I suspect the basilisk reveals more about how the human mind is inclined to think up of heaven and hell scenarios.
Some combination of consciousness leading to more imagination than we know what to do with and more awareness than we’re ready to grapple with. And so there are these meme “attractors” where imagination, idealism, dread and motivation all converge to make some basic vibe of a thought irresistible.
Otherwise, just because I’m not on top of this … the whole thing is premised on the idea that we’re likely to be consciousnesses in a simulation? And then there’s the fear that our consciousnesses, now, will be extracted in the future somehow?
At this point, doesn’t the whole collapse completely into a scary fairy tale you’d tell tech-bro children? Seriously, I don’t get it?
The internet cannot fit so much awesomeness … JFC that was awesome!
It’s our generation’s cigarettes.
“I don’t know, everyone was just doing it” is what we’ll say and what prior generations have said about smoking everywhere all of the time.
The stimulation from and addiction to nicotine or social dopamine … it’s the same shit. The weird marketing, branding and business capture big tech has now could look just like the marketing and wealth of cigarettes in the past.
Seems like they will … they first demonstrated it a while ago now, so they’re definitely keen.
Yea, that light diffusion technique they were using (I can’t remember the name) is definitely interesting!
Yea interesting. I have no numbers and I’m not really “plugged in” at all … but I’ve certainly heard of smaller places doing layoffs after Google etc. No idea how widespread that is though.
Oh I hear you. I’m in no way celebrating any of these dynamics or the white collar focus of “how to run your career advice”.
AFAICT, lay-offs are pretty widespread. Sometimes the bigger employers just give the smaller ones “permission” first.
Don’t know! AFAIK, some stock options do partially vest before two years. But this isn’t just salary, it’s career advancement, which means seniority and arguably experience, all of which tend to stay locked in for the rest of your career and lead to more stock options should you arrive somewhere you’re willing to stay longer at.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. The size of the labour force and the way salary “growth” relates to employer movement rate seem to me relatively independent dynamics. Moreover, I’d imagine increased layoffs positively correlate with the advantage that regularly moving employers can provide.
Am I missing something?
Backing up “word is” by an article that says “word is” is kinda meager though.
Well I’m relaying what is basically common knowledge in the industry shared by people in the industry. The thing about promotion/hiring budgets is something I know directly or through people at their companies.
Sure, it may not be industry wide, of course, but I’ve not seen any hint of a countervailing trend or pattern. What’s more, in the tech industry, it makes sense. There’s a fair amount of pivoting which is often deemed to be done best by hiring (at least some) new staff with the required expertise/experience. And maintaining existing/legacy systems is often de-prioritised such that those who’ve been at the company for a while who understand the existing systems well are not as valued as those who may help the company “grow”. Which is why I bring up the possibility that these patterns may spread to other industries.
Yea I dunno … why not just have no immunity? It’s not like the whole idea of the separation of powers is to ensure power is freely exercised … it’s the opposite.
If a president has to pause for a moment before doing something to ask their lawyer if it would be a crime … maybe that’s the point of having fucking legal system and constitution?
Sotomayer’s dissent provided pretty good evidence (AFAICT) that the framers would have put criminal immunity into the constitution if they thought it wise … because it was a known idea at the time that had been done by some states regarding their governors. They didn’t. Cuz that’s the whole point … “no man is above the law”.
And as for Congressional impeachment being paramount … I’m not sure that’s either necessary or even consistent with the Constitution (again, as Sotomayer’s dissent addresses).
For example … Article 1, section 3 (emphasis mine):
In short (AFAICT) … impeachment and general legal liability are not the same thing … and the latter totally still applies.
Beyond all of that, the general law probably achieves everything that the majority’s decision was worried about (while they were conspicuously not worried about all of the other things that one should be when crowning a king). Civil immunity is a well established doctrine (government’s just too big and complex a thing for civil responsibility to make sense). And while I don’t know anything about it, there are similar-ish ideas around criminal responsibilities that just don’t make sense for the very nature of a governmental responsibility, war, I think, being a classic example. Sotomayer again speaks about these things.
Overall, once you start to squint at it, the whole decision is kinda weird. To elevate the separation of powers to the point of creating literal lawlessness seems like plain “not seeing the forest for the trees”.
The bit I wonder about, without knowing US Constitutional law/theory well at all … is whether a democratic factor has any bearing. A criminal law is created by the legislature, a democratic body. And also caries requirements for judgment by jury. So couldn’t an argument be made that the centrality of democratic power in the constitution cuts through any concerns about the separation of powers that the SCOTUS had, and enables democratically ordained law to quash concerns about whatever interference the judiciary (or legislature?) might exercise with the executive.
I know there’s the whole “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic” thing … but the constitution dedicates so much text to establishing the mechanisms of democracy (including the means by which the constitution itself can be altered) that it seems ridiculous to conclude that democratic power is anything but central.