NateNate60
@NateNate60@lemmy.world
- Comment on This oughta work 6 days ago:
It’s from a YouTube video (linked by the other reply) which discusses the mathematics of traffic flow and the optimal way to program AI drivers to reduce congestion.
- Comment on This oughta work 1 week ago:
Yes, electric cars are exempt from the registration games. But with China’s huge population, even if 80% of the city takes public transportation, that 20% who choose to drive still have enough cars to jam up the roads so they come up with these kinds of schemes to reduce traffic.
- Submitted 1 week ago to [deleted] | 24 comments
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 2 weeks ago:
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 2 weeks ago:
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
It’s a great example of how morality is relative.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 2 weeks ago:
I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 2 weeks ago:
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 2 weeks ago:
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
- Comment on Why did/does Oman not raise a stink about Iran also closing their half of the strait? 2 weeks ago:
I guess that makes sense. If Oman can get a cut of the money while Iran takes the heat for tolling the strait then I would see that being an attractive deal for Oman.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 22 comments
- Comment on How come not all people are organ donors? It's not like they will need them where ever they go. 2 weeks ago:
I think few people would object to it if they were told it was an option, but the default is “no” in most countries and many people just don’t think to opt in.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 2 weeks ago:
Contract law is a branch of the civil law and breach of contract gives rise to civil liability.
Let’s talk about legal bribes vs illegal bribes.
A “legal bribe” would be something like offering some crazy incentive to a councillor that is tied to the project being approved, like saying “We’re thinking about donating $100,000 to your re-election campaign” or “Your son should apply for our data analyst position with an annual salary of $100,000”. There is no explicit agreement, just a wink and a nod. But the person being bribed knows that the receipt of the reward is contingent on their acting according to the bribe offerer’s wishes. This form of bribery is legal in the United States and actually constitutionally protected according to the infamously fucked-up Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If the councillor doesn’t do what the data centre company does, they’ll simply not receive the donation or their son won’t get the job.
An “illegal bribe” is just a classic bribe: an agreement that we will pay you X dollars cash if you do Y. That’s illegal in the US and carries strict penalties. But since it’s illegal, if the money has already been paid and the bribe recipient doesn’t do what was agreed, or the bribe offerer doesn’t pay after the bribe recipient does what they’re told, there is absolutely no recourse to the legal system because courts will not enforce contracts for illegal activities.
The NDA is probably a legal bribe. The company invites the councillor to discuss the data centre project at the fanciest restaurant in town, makes them sign an NDA that “all details of the meeting will remain confidential”, then discusses the possibility of the campaign donation or nepo job offer at the meeting. Then the company pays for the meal on the company card. All of that is technically legal, but of course, it’s horribly corrupt so if the locals caught wind of it, they’d run the councillor out of town. Entire municipal councils have been recalled from office before as a result of unpopular data centre projects.
- Comment on Still waiting for a response... 3 weeks ago:
True, true
- Comment on Still waiting for a response... 3 weeks ago:
That’s WAY too much mustard sauce. That hot dog is ruined.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 3 weeks ago:
Michigan Constitution Art. 4 § 11 protects state legislators from liability for speech in the legislature. A similar clause that applies to local councillors would prevent these sorts of contracts because they wouldn’t be binding; the councillors could openly violate the non-disclosure agreement during the council sessions and would be immune from liability for breaching the agreement. That being said, being legally allowed to speak won’t persuade a person who doesn’t want to speak from staying silent. If the company in question offered a huge bribe to not talk, that’s not something that can be solved by the legislature. That’s a problem for the prosecutor’s office.
- Comment on Xbox wanted 77M Game Pass subscribers by 2026 — today it has less than half that 3 weeks ago:
That’s okay, Microsoft can just have Copilot subscribe 40 million times to pad out the numbers.
- Comment on Are there words in reverse order between two languages using the Latin Alphabet? 4 weeks ago:
There’s this related thing in linguistics which is quite fun, relating to the terms loanword and calque, which both mean “words originating from foreign languages”: The word calque is a loanword, and the word loanword is a calque.
A calque is a literal translation of the components of a word. One of the most commonly calqued words across all languages is skyscraper (in Chinese, it’s 摩天大楼, “sky-touching large building”). The word loanword is a calque of German Lehnwort (lehnen, to borrow + Wort, word).
A loanword is a word which is taken directly from another language and, with exceptions to fit the receiving language’s grammar and pronunciation, is not translated. An example of an English word which has been calqued into many languages is “okay”. The word calque is a loanword from French, where it means “copy”.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
No, I don’t think you’d follow through. I also think you knew you were going to lose that wager.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
If you think you’re right, you’re more than welcome to take me up on my wager and win $20 for the charity of your choice.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
You’re free to propose alternative charities. Maybe even a local food bank or some organisation. The point is: I’m happy to put my money where my mouth is, and I don’t think you are. In fact, even if you lose the bet, I don’t think you’d do it anyway. After all, I’m just some guy on the Internet.
I don’t have “faith” in the US legal system. I just know more than you about how it works and how it doesn’t.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
I’ll be willing to make a wager with you. If David Hearn is sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment, I will donate $20 to an international human rights charity of your choice. If their case is dismissed, he is acquitted, or he is sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, you have to donate $20 to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Do you agree?
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
Unlike what most people seem to think, the US criminal court system in a manner that would allow someone to go to prison for years for this. Trump prosecutors have a reputation for poor performance in court. Grand juries refuse to indict these defendants for obviously trivial crimes, and trial juries will acquit.
They tried to charge someone with assaulting a federal agent for lobbing a sandwich at a Border Patrol goon during a protest. The Trump-appointed chief prosecutor in Washington made a TikTok about how they were coming down hard on protestors. It went to trial. The jury acquitted.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 4 weeks ago:
Regardless of whether any beatings occurred, when someone is imprisoned in your country, they are under your care, and you are responsible for them. It doesn’t matter whether it’s malnutrition, beatings, or if he just smacked his head against the wall on his own accord really hard: it is the responsibility of the custodian to ensure the good and proper health of those in their custody. That is the position of international human rights law. It doesn’t even matter if a prisoner decides to kill themselves, a death in custody is always the responsibility of the custodian and in that case it’d still be the custodian’s fault for allowing the creation of circumstances that allows prisoners to kill themselves.
It is not usual for a person to suddenly become comatose while in custody. And even if that did happen, it was North Korea’s positive responsibility to notify consular officials and the family of that, and deliver proper medical care to them.
- Comment on I will... 1 month ago:
Old investing adage: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
- Comment on I will... 1 month ago:
and sactions evasion
- Comment on I will... 1 month ago:
Thank you for repeating the same thing that I said
- Comment on I will... 1 month ago:
I like to compare the Bitcoin price chart to the stats on a roulette wheel. You can’t really predict what causes it to go one way or the other, but you do know that it will eventually go back.
I mean, Bitcoin is the one thing that just won’t die. Every time its price collapses, people declare it dead, but a few years later it somehow comes roaring back. If you think Bitcoin is worthless just because it has no utility and no person smarter than a chimpanzee would invest in it, by God you are overestimating the intelligence of finance and crypto bros.
- Comment on dog 2 months ago:
I hate fire department robots. Those bitches can get fucked.
- Comment on dog 2 months ago:
I hate police robots. Those bitches can get fucked.
- Comment on Why do airports place a cap on 10,000 USD for undeclared cash? 3 months ago:
This is to combat money laundering and tax fraud. I’ll give three examples.
I saw an episode of Border Security Australia where a woman has previously claimed a VAT refund on a pair of earrings worth tens of thousands of dollars. As you may know, many countries allow you to claim a refund of VAT on products intended for export, as VAT is intended to be a tax on consumption. But customs agents caught her wearing the earrings, meaning she had not actually exported them and essentially cheated the tax authority out of thousands of dollars in VAT.
Last year, during a trip to Hong Kong, my mother withdrew 20,000 USD in cash from her American bank and took it with her in person, and then deposited it in her Hong Kong bank account. It was just easier to do it this way since an international wire transfer would have been expensive and slow. She declared it to both US customs and Hong Kong customs, and in both cases they just checked her passport, noted down the transaction, and let her through with minimal questions. It’s intended to be an anti-money-laundering check. If that money has been obtained through crimes, most criminals would not willingly disclose that to customs, and it’s such a large amount of cash that anyone doing so must be trying to move money internationally and not just pay for a holiday. There is literally no penalty or tax and minimal hassle to declare it, so pretty much whoever is trying to sneak large amounts of cash or gold or whatever through customs is either (1) very ignorant or (2) up to no good. Further questioning usually allows customs agents to separate the first category from the second.
On the topic of China, there are strict capital controls in place to prevent wealthier Mainland Chinese individuals from moving all their money abroad. This policy is to encourage domestic spending and investment and it also has the effect of drastically lowering borrowing costs for the Chinese government. Moving large amounts of cash or gold in person is the most obvious way to evade these limits so Chinese customs has to take a strict stance against such behaviour in order to prevent China’s airports from becoming a massive hole in their capital controls.
