ricecake
@ricecake@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on 1 day ago:
Well, first off he wasn’t actually doing it after Celsius existed as a temperature scale. He made it a solid 18 years beforehand.
Second, there are some issues. Specifically, ice freezes at 0, but it doesn’t stop getting colder. So if you have a bit of ice, that doesn’t tell you the temperature, just that it’s below a threshold. Boiling is more convenient because liquid water can’t get above 100, but you do have to consider side pressure.
Fahrenheit used brine because as it freezes it forces salt out of the ice, making it more resistant to freezing. It self stabilizes its temperature, which is immensely handy.None of the people designing their scales envisioned that using the basic reference points for common calibration would be a thing. Just like how we don’t calibrate them with brine, ice, steam or butts today, instead relying on how we marked down how electrical resistance changes as a function of temperature and then calibrated reference numbers to get the scale right.
It’s important to remember that the people in the past were largely not stupid, they simply hadn’t found out something we take for granted or they had priorities that we don’t.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
So you get in the bathtub with the bike pump and have the hose connected to a nozzle going out. You might need something stronger that shrinkwrap depending on what you get, but your bathtub is invariably able to handle 1 atmosphere of pressure.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
Or, hear me out: a bathtub, some shrinkwrap, a bicycle pump and so e good old fashioned grit and determination.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
I’m one of those people who knows we should standardize, bit also finds Fahrenheit just very convenient.
Like, when people say it’s 50 out, I immediately know that it’s going to feel about halfway between what I know 0 and 100 feel like. No one can even put up the pretext of doing that with Celsius, because not even the most pedantic person ever bothers to tell you when it’s 100 c out.
In seriousness though, the Fahrenheit scale isn’t non-sense, it’s just addressing things we don’t much need help with anymore. The zero point was chosen as a temperature you can create reliably without particularly sophisticated tools, and the range is so freezing and boiling are 180 degrees apart, putting them on the opposite sides of a dial.
- Comment on 6 days ago:
Ugh, I’m one of those people who will defend imperial as not being irrational, just built ad-hoc for purposes that aren’t in alignment with modern ones and … No, that’s not what Fahrenheit is.
Fahrenheit was trying to make a temperature scale that was easy to recreate to ease the calibration of thermometers. Zero is a temperature that can be created in your garage with some ice, salt and water. 100 was his best, ultimately inaccurate, attempt to measure human body temperature, since it’s another easy calibration point, and from there water was defined as 32 and 212 so that they were 180 degrees apart, which would fit will on a temperature dial.
Not irrational, not a comfort scale, and not in alignment with current needs.It’s pure coincidence that it kinda lines up with comfortable outdoor temperatures in the opinion of a good chunk of a population living in the northern part of the western hemisphere.
- Comment on He took it literally 3 weeks ago:
I agree with you. It’s just that the “right to remain silent” is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it’s very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn’t be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
You don’t have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.It’s not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.
- Comment on He took it literally 3 weeks ago:
And that’s exactly what I explained. There isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution and what judges had to say about things.
considering the police are legally allowed to lie to you, the Miranda warning using the name for a legal concept instead of a more accurate description of the right is about the least abusive thing they can do.It’s not particularly weird for rights to need to be explicitly actioned in general, as an aside. You have to actively get the arms to bare them, write a letter to petition the government, ask for a lawyer and ask them to stop interrogation. Invoking a right isn’t weird, but in this case the actual right is freedom from being coerced into self incrimination. They shouldn’t be able to start interrogation until you unambiguously waive your rights.
- Comment on He took it literally 3 weeks ago:
Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.
The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights? - Comment on He took it literally 3 weeks ago:
Those are explicitly derived from the bit of the constitution I was referring to. That’s what defines what they have to tell you and what it means.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. You asked why you would need to invoke a right, and why it would be this way. There’s simply isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution or judges. The authority figure is using words that judges outlined the basic gist of in 1965 and different judges have dialed back the protections of in the 2000s and earlier.
- Comment on He took it literally 3 weeks ago:
To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.
Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.
- Comment on He took it literally 4 weeks ago:
Fun fact: if you haven’t been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don’t have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don’t need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
But it’s not, so… - Comment on He took it literally 4 weeks ago:
The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it’s the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don’t just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.
Considering the right isn’t the “right to remain silent” we nickname it, but No person shall be … compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it’s a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said “stop”, you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.
- Comment on He took it literally 4 weeks ago:
You’re not wrong.
There is a rationale, it just fails to be consistent with the reason the right is explicitly enumerated.
Some rights are more about restraining the governments actions towards you. The right to legal counsel prohibits the government from putting you on trial totally lost and oblivious. The right to remain silent is a nickname we give to the prohibition on someone being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
Rights that prohibit government actions are usually automatic: free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, and so on all prohibit the government from doing something.
The right to counsel requires the government to provide you with a lawyer if you need one, and to stop asking you questions if you ask for one until they show up.The conservative supreme Court majority held that the “right to remain silent” was a right to make the government stop, just like asking for a lawyer, and that it didn’t follow that the two rights needed to be invoked in different manners: no one has argued that their behavior should have implied they wanted a lawyer even if they didn’t say so. Further, they said that if “not speaking” is what constitutes invoking the fifth, then it opens more questions about what manner of not speaking counts as an invocation. If someone doesn’t answer, can the cop repeat themselves?
Invoking the right however is unambiguous, making it a better legal standard.This falls apart not because of the nickname we give the right, but because of what it says and the intent behind it: “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The key word is “compelled”. The phrasing and intent are clear that it’s about compulsion , not invoking an entitlement. Any statement you make you should be able to refuse to allow to be used against you, otherwise it’s compulsion even if given willingly at the time.
- Comment on He took it literally 4 weeks ago:
That’s not entirely accurate:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Your fifth amendment rights haven’t been invoked until you say so. The Miranda warning isn’t a guide for how to invoke the rights, just a notification that you have them.
Now, it’s ridiculous that we’ve ended up here and it was a terrible ruling, both of them, but if you’re just quiet you haven’t invoked your right to silence anymore than you’ve invoked your right to legal counsel.
Which is a hell of a position for the court to take on coerced confessions. - Comment on He took it literally 4 weeks ago:
Yes, but the case being referenced involved what it means to invoke your fifth amendment rights.
Is remaining silent invoking the right, or do you have to state “I am invoking the right to remain silent”, or some other statement?Per the supreme Court, you can’t passively invoke the right and can only do so actively. So simply not answering a question isn’t invoking the fifth amendment and could be used against you.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
I’m pretty sure they see everything, but the way it’s chunked up can create artifacts. Balances are tabulated monthly, but they also see your payments. A higher balance means higher utilization which lowers your score. Paying early counts as a history of on time payment and lower utilization, which is good for your score.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
I mean, the rule is to not carry a balance, make payments on time, and don’t borrow more than you can pay back. They aren’t very cagey about those rules. The exact ways particular actions impact your score isn’t relevant to the best practices.
There’s a lot wrong with the credit industry, but being upfront about payment practices really isn’t a problem.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
Why on earth do you think that’s the case? They’re selling something, they’re not in one of the limited industries where you have limited rights to refuse, and method of payment isn’t one of the reasons you can’t refuse to do business with someone. A handful of places prohibit not accepting cash, but it’s not enough that I would assume that’s where they were, particularly if a business opted to just casually refuse.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
They can easily refuse cash. It’s not a debit until you owe them money. If they decide not to sell you a car then there’s no debt. You aren’t obligated to see someone a car if the manner of the sale isn’t to your liking.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
You are entirely incorrect. The credit card company makes most of their money from the fees paid by the merchant. They make money when you, the customer, spend money because the merchant gives a chunk of it to them, usually with an additional flat fee. (Different merchants and card processors have different payment structures. A grocery store is more likely to pay a much higher fixed daily fee to avoid unpredictable transaction fees on small purchases)
They don’t lower your score if you pay back early. People get confused because they see their score drop after going from $10k credit card limit with $800 in monthly usage paid on time every time and a $500 balance on a $25k car loan that’s been paid on time every month to just the credit card. The reason it went down is that the number of regular timely payments went down, which means fewer trust signals, and credit utilization went up. (3% to 8%). It doesn’t however snap down as though you hadn’t just made a bunch of good payments, it just doesn’t boost when you’re done.
The credit card company makes the most money when you make a huge number of modest purchases and then immediately pay them back. When you have credit card debt their money is sitting in the merchants account. They want to minimize the time they don’t have their money so they charge you based on the risk that you never pay them back, after a grace period. (You have usually a month before any interest acrues).
It’s why as you get better credit scores the credit card company starts offering you increasing incentives to buy things. Bonus cash back on purchases at places that tend to be frequent, smaller purchases without bulk processing rates and so one. They’ll refund you on purchases in a dispute with the merchant and then figure out the merchant dispute independently (usually by just dropping it because they don’t care about $124.99 in potentially substandard curtains or whatever they just want the customer to keep buying curtains and the merchant to keep thinking it’s a net positive). You’re a walking $0.25 + 3.0% per purchase. Making you regret spending money is the last thing they want. - Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 weeks ago:
There are ways it can make sense, but it’s often a sign of using a card to stay afloat, maxing it out, and then using a new one to try to stay afloat, now with bonus debt.
It works in my family that we are basically financially independent from each other and have a shared account for shared expenses. As a result we technically have multiple credit cards, but in practice it’s mostly the shared card, and occasionally the “me” card. Automatic payments, no fees and cash back makes it pretty easy.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
For Pete’s sake, it’s not a redirection to say something I’ve been saying the entire time:
The existence of a lower price for some people in some circumstances in some parts of the country doesn’t do much to address actual measurable statistics on us internet costs: Monthly Internet Cost: www.forbes.com/…/internet-cost-per-month/
I may as well call you fixating on the promotional pricing nit a redirection from you being unable to admit you were wrong about what the average cost of cellular and Internet in the US is.
If we’re being crystal clear, you also called it a promotion, their website called it a promotion and made it explicit that they were discounting the Internet plan and that the introductory rate expired.
Yes, their promotion is to discount their introductory rate by the cost of a phone line when you sign up for a phone line too.
It still has no bearing on what typical Internet prices are, which was what the person was asking in the first place. - Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
You’re getting really hung up on mints pricing and ignoring the main thrust of what’s being said: the average price is significantly higher than the low tier your referenced. Mobile hotspot Internet is not an even comparison to most other broadband options.
Repeatedly stating their price doesn’t change that it’s not reflective of the actual average prices people are charged for Internet and cell service in the US, and that $115 isn’t “on the pricier side”.
Do you think the majority of the people in the country are looking at their diverse options of equal and viable options for cellular and Internet service and then picking things that are more expensive for no reason?
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
You said $115 is on the pricier side and linked to promotional offers to show that a cheaper option exists in some contexts.
Actual statistics on what people pay show that it’s basically average, so calling it pricy isn’t correct.
As for subsidization, you’re missing my point: we don’t really have the programs you referenced in the way they existed last year anymore. “Our Internet isn’t that expensive because you can go on food stamps” is both an odd claim and also increasingly untrue as they try to end those programs.
If you’re addressing the average range of Internet and phone costs, then $115 is not on the pricier side.
That you can bring your bill down by pestering the company into lowering it every few months or repeatedly transferring the plan between different people also isn’t an indicator that it’s not as bad as people think.the average, non-promotional rate of $60 is still cheaper than what this post implies.
Did you know that if your Internet bill is $60, and your phone bill is $55, that you now have monthly costs for phone and Internet of … $115?
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
It’s directly applicable when you say cheaper options are available and then link to a promotional offer where the pricing expires.
Government subsidized free Internet is currently not a thing in the US because the government is actively hostile to most of the citizenry. We still have the program to get up to $9.25 off if you make less than $25k a year though. It also requires enrollment in a program whose funding is being cut, is kicking people off , and doing everything possible to reduce enrollment.
Please read the rest of the comment I previously made where I linked to some actual averages for cost, because again: a lower cost existing isn’t the same as the average cost being low.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
My “gotcha” was the bit I said right after the fine print: not as cheap as advertised in the long run and not a good value.
The existence of a lower price for some people in some circumstances in some parts of the country doesn’t do much to address actual measurable statistics on us internet costs: Monthly Internet Cost: www.forbes.com/…/internet-cost-per-month/
My Internet is about $80 a month, and my phone is roughly $30 per line per month, $120 total because of regulatory fees and such. Looking at what mint typically delivers for internet they wouldn’t work for my requirements, purely for work and not considering I like my streaming to be good quality.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 month ago:
Limited-time offer available to new MINTernet customers who purchase the 3- or 12-month MINTernet plan with any Mint Premium voice plan. MINTernet plan requires upfront payment of $75 for 3-month or $300 for 12-month plans (each equiv. to $25/mo) & AutoRenewal enrollment. Mint Premium voice plan requires upfront payment of $45 for 3-month, $90 for 6-month or $180 for 12-month plan (each equiv. to $15/mo). Combined equivalent is $40/mo. After introductory rate, standard rates apply. Taxes & fees extra. Fixed wireless gateway provided on loan; return of equipment required upon cancellation or subject to fee. Service delivered via cellular network; speeds vary & may be reduced during congestion after 1TB/mo for MINTernet. MINTernet service limited to registered address at time of enrollment & cannot be relocated. Premium “Unlimited” data may be slowed during congestion after 50GB/mo; video streams at 480p. Includes 20GB/mo. mobile hotspot. Not combinable with certain other offers. Terms subject to change; additional terms & conditions apply. See terms for details.
It’s not actually as cheap as they say, and what you’re getting isn’t really worth the price.
Regardless, when the thing being said is “wages are crap, things are expensive, people are trapped and can’t afford a future” it sorta misses the point to say that they could get substantially worse service for roughly half the price.
- Comment on Anon has a wholesome thought 1 month ago:
Well, you would be wrong. The house belonged to the Lord, as did the land, the surrounding lands and so on. The very well could have said “no pets”, if they had cared. They had veto power on marriage, changing labors, and everything.
The Lord owned the serf in the same way that a homeowner owns the sidewalk. They had to provide basic protections or someone higher would eventually maybe get upset. They could do basically whatever they wanted to them, but the serf could only be sold as part of the estate. - Comment on Hey look, a giant sign telling you to find a different job 1 month ago:
Contrary to popular belief, the US isn’t actually unusually litigious. European countries are just as litigious and Germany, Sweden and Austria all have higher numbers.
The reason we have more “nonsense” lawsuits is because we have a culture that says caveat emptor is a sound defense and negligence on one parties side is equally the fault of the injured party.
“Why didn’t you look at your food before biting the metal fillings? It’s your responsibility to make sure what you eat is safe” and “you walked on my icy sidewalk, you slipped, and now you want me to pay for your ambulance? I should have put down salt, but you should have known better than to walk there” are both reasonable statements to a lot of Americans. Hell, we have special derogatory terms for lawyers that work with individuals who have been non-criminally injured by someone else.On paper, paying the other parties legal fees if you lose sounds good, but what it does it keep individuals who can’t afford to pay legal someone else’s fees to withold valid legal complaints. In an ideal world they would proceed because they were right, but we live in a world where sometimes the person in the right looses, or they reasonably thought they were and were wrong. Due diligence or actual correctness is no assurance of justice, so a lawsuit is a gamble and a more expensive one if you also have to pay the other parties costs, and if they’re a business which has lawyers on staff they might not even view a crippling legal cost as an increased expense.
On the other side that business just tells their lawyer to file the paperwork, they’re already paying for the legal consult so they’re advised going in if it’s a good idea, and if they lose they’re out a few weeks of lawyer salary.Lawsuits are a mark of people using societies tools to resolve disputes. There being more in places with higher trust in social institutions makes sense. People are willing to use the system and they trust it’ll deliver justice.
The US is up there because people need to use lawsuits to make up for our lack in social safety nets, and our preposterous number of businesses are constantly using them to settle disputes.We should eliminate the court fees entirely and provide the trial lawyer equivalent of a public defender.
A bolt in your oatmeal is a good reason to sue, and if you can’t afford a lawyer to help you pay to get your tooth put back in it doesn’t seem unreasonable for society to give you access to someone to help you find a path to remunerations. - Comment on Hey look, a giant sign telling you to find a different job 1 month ago:
99% agreed, but I’d increase the number a bit. With inflation and rising costs $10 million in net worth isn’t always an obscenity.
It’s unquestionably wealthy, but still in the realm of attainable by an individual without being a bastard. Owning a single family home and a gas station in the San Francisco region and planning for retirement could put you in that realm.I don’t begrudge someone who worked hard having nice things. I don’t even begrudge luck, inheritance, or nepotism getting luxury. It’s when it’s beyond luxury and no one could get it with any amount of work.
Tie it to the consumer price index or some such.