It looks like the naming was likely intentional, allegations about Cosby go back to 2004. Although Hannibal Buress didn't start talking about it in his routine until 2014.
There was a bit in 30 Rock about Cosby in 2009, too, written by Tina Fey -- who also took a shot at Cosby on SNL in 2005. Hannibal's routine was just the first to catch the public's attention.
Radiolab has a great episode about how this more broad application of the first amendment sort of came about due to Oliver Wendell Holmes changing his mind about what actually constitutes a "clear and present danger" between two Supreme Court cases in 1919.
I appreciate that you broke apart the users into two groups. I imagine Group B is much larger than Group A, and that the Haskell maintainers want to emphasize "if you use accursedUnutterablePerformIO, make sure you are in Group A!".
Most Group A people didn't get there fixing surface level stuff. They got there because there was an insidious defect buried deep that required that deep knowledge to understand or fix.
This article (https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/chick-fil...) says it is because they include milk and eggs, which doesn't make sense, because while vegans avoid those, vegetarians eat milk and eggs. However, the article also says they don't have any designated area for prep, so your cauliflower may touch chicken or may share a fryer with chicken.
As an aside, I can kinda understand vegetarians eating eggs because chickens will just lay them and you either eat them or they rot, but vegetarians who eat milk have no moral ground to stand on.
I have a friend who won't eat any animal which has died for religious reasons.
She eats plenty of dairy, as nothing died, and considers herself vegetarian. She has in fact never eaten meat once in her life yet you have entirely discounted her moral standing.
I just think that the condemnation of others who one considers less pure than is ideal is extremely counterproductive.
For example, I often imagine what our carbon budget (and theoretical karma budget) would look like if we could get more people who are pro-animal welfare (and people who are concerned with climate change,) to accept the idea that getting a few billion people to eat less beef might be more beneficial than getting a few million to eat no beef.
There is a really interesting paper on this topic which often comes to mind titled "The seductions of clarity." [0]
There is also an interview by Sean Carrol with the author of that paper titled "C. Thi Nguyen on Games, Art, Values, and Agency" [1]
Not technically true, although the reality of how the industry works means that the offspring of dairy cows are often used to make veal.
A cow must get pregnant to begin producing milk, but because we breed dairy cows for milk they produce much more than the calf needs anyway. Male calves are doomed either way to be slaughtered by the realities of how the industry works, but there is no requirement that things be this way.
Eggs are similar in that they don't technically require any particular cruelty, but the realities of how the industry functions means that male chicks are killed shortly after birth. Again, it need not be this way.
One view of how this informs our diet is that eating eggs and dairy are not necessarily cruel, they are just cruel in practice. Whereas meat consumption necessitates the killing of animals.
I don't drink milk (I don't like it), but I do eat meat. But I totally agree that the dairy industry is pretty grim, even here in the UK where we have pretty good animal rights.
Loads of calves die to supply milk, and cows are kept in a near permanent state of either being in milk (and missing their calves) or pregnant.
I really don't mind what anyone eats or drinks - but anyone who claims to be vegetarian 'because of the animals' - but then consumes dairy, is on pretty weak ground.
It’s possible to do something for moral reasons and have some measure of hypocrisy in how consistently we apply those moral principles. That doesn’t mean the effort in doing so was a waste, or that it would be better to not have tried! Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Eggs aren't a good choice either by that reasoning unless you go way out of your way to ensure they come from a source that treats their chickens well. Chickens in general are very poorly treated.
Hypothetically, let's say I owned a modest home. Then, what if a very wealthy person who grew up in that home wanted to buy it for a grand sum of money? In that case, I'd be torn between revaluing my house to a huge amount (that no one except this one person would be willing to pay) and being forced to sell. It's an interesting scenario, because that wealthy person could lower their valuation almost immediately after the sale, since no one else would pay what they paid.
C'mon, even setting aside the fact that the victim here walks away with a giant pile of money, there are countless ways to address this extremely unusual special-case scenario. For instance, you could be free to decline to sell as long as your declared valuation was >= the local neighborhood average.
> C'mon, even setting aside the fact that the victim here walks away with a giant pile of money
Money is a medium of exchange. There are items that are literally not for sale, and the excuse of "but they got money!!!!" is completely unacceptable as a replacement.
How are you going to value the writing on the walls of the home my neighbor from her now-deceased son?
How are you going to value the 6 (six!) graves of the dogs she's buried in her back yard, Each with a custom stone statue.
How are you going to value that she's memorized her current home layout, so that large cataract in her right eye doesn't bug her as much when she's in the familiar layout?
How do you value the extra time and expense it would take her to find a new home, given she's wheelchair bound?
----
and your "new plan" is devolving into trying to add all sort of extra conditions and rules around this - which gets us right back to: implement this and people will literally try to kill you.
Huh? In the scenario you describe, someone is paying below the neighborhood average in property tax, so someone makes an offer on their property, and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average. Then they stay in their house and pay their fair share of property tax.
You've never lived in a transitional neighborhood, pretty clearly.
> and they decline by raising their declared valuation to match the neighborhood average.
First - this is not in line with the previous posts. What stops me from simply declaring my value is 0 until someone makes an offer and then suddenly it's the right value. Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away. If I only have to declare at time of potential sale, the declaration is useless.
Second - having lived in a transitional neighborhood, if your house is valued at the neighborhood average, it will be bought in 30 seconds, sight unseen, usually by a corporation that plans to rehab it (because it was last updated in the 70s) and then rent it forever.
Basically - money isn't everything, and maximizing utility in a purely capitalistic sense is not a set of values shared by enough people to make this work.
If you limited this to only commercially zoned land, then maybe - but you have a social contract with all those people who bought their houses, and violating that social contract, especially in a way like this, is a recipe for disaster.
I've lived in transitional neighborhoods at several points in my life.
> Until next year when it's 0 again because that buyer has gone away.
Why would the buyer go away? The state itself could maintain offers on any properties lowballing their property taxes. But that wouldn't be necessary, because at any time, there would always be ample interest in purchasing real estate for discount prices. You say this yourself:
> if your house is valued at the neighborhood average, it will be bought in 30 seconds
...but again, it sounds like you misunderstand my proposal. In 30 seconds, someone would offer to buy, and then the current property owner would have the choice of either selling, or keeping their property but raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower.
Ah - now I'm fairly convinced you haven't actually bought real estate.
There is no such thing as a "standing offer" to buy a house. They're a contract with very clear start and end dates (most offers are good for between 72 hours and two weeks).
This is because both parties have to agree at time of exchange on the value of the good, and the person making the offer usually needs to have financing lined up - They literally cannot make an offer that will be good for long periods, because the financier won't agree to that.
As for this...
> ...but again, it sounds like you misunderstand my proposal. In 30 seconds, someone would offer to buy, and then the current property owner would have the choice of either selling, or keeping their property but raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower.
Ok - follow along... now the next offer comes in 2 days later at the current value. The owner STILL has zero desire to sell. What now? Do they get to raise again?
Dude - this whole thing is ending up with more rules and regulations that the current market, which is exactly why pushing this kind of thing simply doesn't work.
In theory you're optimizing land efficiency, but you're fucking with other efficiencies ALL along the chain, and the net result is that people hate you.
----
Also - taking you at face value: "raising their property-tax assessment to either that amount, or the local average, whichever is lower."
This is fucking already how taxes work. At least in my area, every house is taxed at the local average (fulton county does average assessed value tax for land). So you're literally gaining nothing for all this additional complexity.
There is a great Radiolab series about this: G. The IQ test is an effort to measure "general intelligence", or "G", but the test has had biases over time with regard to race.
The landmark study by Herb Needleman on the link between lead exposure and IQ only studied white children to reduce any doubts about the validity of its claims [1].
Maybe the Russian Central Bank is buying up rubles to attempt to stabilize it? They probably wouldn't be exchanging them for BTC, but may be the ones holding the rubles at the end.
I've seen this on HN before, but wanted to resurface it. Now that I have been working remotely for quite some time, I am noticing these differing communication styles now more than ever. Especially with phone meetings that remove any body language or visual cues, I find that I am increasingly frustrated with mismatched communication styles involving myself or my team members. Has anyone else experienced this switching to remote work? Any ideas on how to address it or at least make it less frustrating?
I used to be a somewhat cautious interrupter in person, but now have moved toward strong civility over the phone. This has been a frustrating change since at least in the phone meetings I am on, there is almost no lull in the conversation.
At-will employment varies by state, so
CapitalistCartr's comment above is true in many states[1]. For example, in Georgia, your employment can be terminated for no reason at all at any time (as long as it is not for a protected reason, i.e. firing because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality).
edit: changed Florida to Georgia because Florida specifically appears to have at least some exceptions to this[2]. In Georgia it seems even if your employer is doing something illegal and you report it, they can legally fire you in retaliation.
If you build it into all of the exterior facing walls, you can use a cell range extender to tunnel a data connection inside your house, and also similarly with a Wi-Fi AP connected via Ethernet, in the event that you want Wi-Fi signal outside your home as well.
Actually, when I build my next house in 5-10 years I think I might do exactly this
Not gunna lie, i'm looking at building/remodelling a home in the next few years, and i'm seriously considering foiling the walls of some rooms just to build a faraday cage.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bill-cosby-trial-comple...