Yeah, what’s wrong with GNOME’s calendar? It’s basic and it works… fine. I use it for my daily tasks.

Window’s default calendar is similarly mediocre.

Laws aren’t, by themselves, an effective way to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals, because it is really easy to (illegally) import guns from a place with lax gun laws into a place with strict gun laws. There’s also a problem with existing gun laws encountering enforcement problems from law enforcement agencies who refuse to enforce them or who don’t care enough about it.

On top of that, there is a cultural problem where guns are associated with masculinity and being “cool”. That leads to way more people acquiring them than there really should be, and many of those people really shouldn’t be having them. That’s not something the law can fix.

You can’t really trust the orange tip anyway, since criminals have been known to paint that on real guns to trick cops, with mixed success.

Regardless, from a police officer’s perspective, you only have half a second to tell whether an object that someone is getting out of their pocket is a gun or something less harmful, like a cell phone. So it’s understandable why they chose to shoot in this situation.

Of course, if it were harder for the general public to get guns, then police wouldn’t be put in these situations where they have to make life-and-death decisions in under a second, but we have to live with the consequences of which rights we chose to value.

That definition (“all voters are equal”) is a good starting point, but it’s also less watertight than it seems. I will show you an obviously unfair system that exploits that definition:

All voters vote for one candidate. The candidate with the second-most votes wins.

I had an argument with someone who said they opposed instant runoff voting because letting people move their votes around is tantamount to giving them extra votes

Or the boxes are pre-made and they ran out

In a normal context, I would agree with you but when louder singing is enforced by the State then I take issue with that.

Believe it or not, it happening in one country doesn’t mean it’s okay to happen in another country

Don’t forget—this is a nuke threat. Israel has nukes.

You don’t seem to know the meaning of the word “spend”.

How much have I bought in crypto to hold myself? I don’t hold any crypto. The answer is zero.

The figure that appears in column E of Form 8949? Over a million USD.

You answers seethe of jealousy. You keep trying to pin the label “crypto bro” on me because you want to dismiss me as someone not worth listening to, and the money I earned as illegitimate and fake. You argue not because you think you’re right, but because you can’t bear to be wrong. To you, crypto is a scam with no use and everything it touches turns to shit, and everyone who says otherwise must therefore hold the opposite opinion and think everything it touches turns to gold. Binary thinking at its worst.

Your thinking is simplistic and devoid of nuance. You’re right about one thing though. I am condescending. Because you deserve it.

Reply if you desperately need to put in the last word with a feigned aura of coolness, and laugh it off, because there are no more arguments to be made. Only insults left. You won’t receive a response, and I won’t even read whatever you write, because this conversation is over.

Go buy a Cybertruck or something.

Nothing

Read carefully, because it seems that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Wiktionary defines “crypto bro” as “an enthusiastic cryptocurrency supporter, usually male, especially a dogmatic and condescending one”.

You may notice I do not fit any of those categories, besides perhaps being male.

For the adoption of cryptocurrency by businesses and states, I am apathetic, even mildly in opposition. As for being dogmatic, I entirely am not, because I don’t give a shit.

But I will admit, you have successfully tempted me into being condescending towards you.

Why would I make up the number 1 most common interaction between a Cybertruck owner and a normal person?

But here’s a picture I took of his car while he was attending church (across the street from the grocery store):

And yes, you can tell it is new because it doesn’t have a number plate yet.

The picture was taken on 30 March, the interaction happened a few days earlier

(past tense)

But how do you define “crypto bro”? Sure not “any person who’s ever held cryptocurrency”, right? Because that would make 25% of the US population crypto bros.

I absolutely reject this categorisation. I don’t give a shit about crypto or any of the ideas behind it. It’s interesting from a technical perspective as a person who holds a computer science degree, but I’m in it for the money. Holding crypto is gambling, and nothing more.

The only crypto I hold now is for online poker sites and for buying precious metals on r/pmsforsale on Reddit.

What makes you think I’m a crypto bro?

Average German game title

I was walking to the grocery store when I saw a neighbour polishing his in front of his house. I said “Wow, a Cybertruck,” and he replied, “Cool, isn’t it?”

I said, “No, it’s a $120,000 go-kart made of scrap metal that will rust in a month.”

Edit: sounds fake but I do have a picture of the car in question, but I took it on a different day—

What motivation would the mongoose have to prevent the basilisk’s creation?

A more complete argument would be that an AI that seeks to maximise happiness would also want to prevent the creation of AIs like Roko’s basilisk.

That doesn’t do the same thing, I guess the goal is really how to draw the outline of a circle

The reason is because it supposedly creates a moral hazard. This is the logic behind pricing for all sorts of medical resources (such as co-pays and deductibles). If there is a nominal cost involved to obtain the resource, then you will be incentivised not to use more than you need. But if it is free or costs too little, then you (and others) may choose to use a lot of the resource, far more than you actually need.

For example, suppose there is a $50 co-pay (a co-pay is essentially a fee) to see the doctor, and you figure you should go once a year for a check-up. In this case, you will not schedule an excessive number of appointments because you know it is not necessary and it will cost you money each time you do. If scheduling doctor’s appointments were free or costs very little, like $1, you may instead choose to schedule two or three appointments per year, because why not? Or maybe you will go see the doctor for every minor cold or stuffy nose. It’s not like it will cost you a significant amount of money. Or so their thinking goes, anyway.

Remember, the $50 you pay isn’t all that it costs. For every $50 you pay, the insurance company is probably paying the doctor $150.

Similarly, suppose a drug costs $100, but the insurance company pays $90, and you have to pay a $10 co-pay. You buy one vial, which is good for one month. The fear is that if the insurance company pays for all $100, since the drug is now free for you, you might decide to get two vials instead, just in case. After all, they’re free for you, right? This means the insurance company has to pay $200 for two vials of the drug but the benefit to you is actually pretty small. Again, this is how insurance companies think.

Now, whether this logic is sound or not, I leave that part up to you.