Those who keep blaming gas prices on Biden, why do you keep doing this despite gas prices raising worldwide?

Abaral · 2022-07-01T23:23:33+00:00

Yup. And we don’t have any rare earth metals for electronics or manufactured goods.

Not saying it can’t be done, but it would be at great expense. Can’t be contained economically as easily as it once could. Or are you suggesting that there wouldn’t be massive shortages and inflation if the western powers chose to try to isolate China?

But as far as I can tell from your top response is that Biden’s administration is weak because America isn’t just pushing everyone around like in the past.

Of course, your response didn’t have a response. It just laughed at me for suggesting that China contributes substantially to world supply chains and therefore everyone’s economy.

Thanks for trolling.

Abaral · 2022-07-01T23:10:25+00:00

You appear to be suggesting that the problem is that America isn’t just pushing everyone around to do what we want.

That kind of strength works for a while, but eventually comes back to bite you. America is still the biggest power, but it’s not as one-sided as it once was. Can’t push around the whole world anymore.

This is largely due to the transfer of industrial and manufacturing power to China. Sanctioning the bad actors to the point of making them bend would have huge costs at home as well. With respect to China, this is a road we’ve been on since the Nixon administration. And Russia has been sanctioned to hell. Do you want the US military to retake Kharkiv?

Abaral · 2022-07-01T21:51:53+00:00

It depends what you’re trying to do.

Lightning kills buildings, often just before the Ravage. Raging Storm is too expensive to do much with.

Shadows stops the Explore/Build/Ravage cycle at the front end. If you’re failing to use it that way, you’re going to have a bad time.

Abaral · 2022-07-01T21:31:19+00:00

I thought Atticus was credibly a different perspective than what we saw through the eyes of a child. But then, I didn’t see it as justifying the racism. Just saying that in an unjust society even the good ones can still be bad.

Abaral · 2022-07-01T18:51:54+00:00

I agree, but fortunately I have the two arms I was born with. The access of Chicago’s infrastructure for those with mobility challenges is sorely lacking, though.

… that’s what they were talking about, right?

Abaral · 2022-07-01T14:14:05+00:00

Well, the other option is to hope that the whole organization just runs like a well-oiled machine. Which seems unrealistic once you get past about 20 people.

Abaral · 2022-07-01T12:10:21+00:00

A good manager keeps the shit from other managers from bogging down the work of their team. Because the executive team has all sorts of things which are completely unrealistic and unhelpful that would hurt productivity and morale.

Abaral · 2022-07-01T01:43:00+00:00

And none of these people are going to face any consequences for blatant disregard for the safety of the folks on the trail. Of course, if it were pedestrians on the expressway I’m sure they’d get the same response.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/5/28/22458064/protesters-arrested-after-blocking-traffic-on-dan-ryan-expressway?_amp=true

https://sports.yahoo.com/chicago-activist-aiming-shut-down-expressway-near-ohare-140539513.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/protester-takes-to-dan-ryan-expressway-on-horseback-traffic-jam-ensues/

Abaral · 2022-06-30T23:14:58+00:00

I’m fine with it as long as it doesn’t bleed the existing moderately affordable options out of existence. Of course, the plan is to subsidize until the alternative goes away and they can charge whatever they want.

Abaral · 2022-06-30T19:44:46+00:00

The Republicans have similar ideological purity tests. If a Republican isn’t strongly opposed to abortion or restrictions of guns, they’re dead in the water. Same, apparently, for loyalty to Trump.

I think you’re talking about character purity tests…

Abaral · 2022-06-30T01:01:05+00:00

There’s at least one Supreme Court Justice who’s likely to disagree with you…

Abaral · 2022-06-30T01:00:05+00:00

Feline Slumbers Atop the Island.

It’s like Snake, but instead of Snake-Quake it’s Kitty-Smash!

Abaral · 2022-06-29T14:28:32+00:00

There are a lot of right answers here.

Big questions… are you feeling like you want to up the difficulty? If the answer is no (or maybe), stick with the balanced side of the board. Thematic is pretty and satisfying, but makes things far swingier.

If you want things more difficult with more stability in that difficulty, consider adding Brandenburg-Prussia Level 0 (add a Town when you see one of the little castle Escalations on Explore).

If you want to add depth to the game, add Branch and Claw. Once you’re used to it, you won’t regret having started on it early.

If you’re having trouble keeping track of everything but still want to add depth, consider adding Branch and Claw without Events. There are rules from Jagged Earth for play without Events (but with tokens), though that’s not strictly necessary.

Or just keep playing like you are now. If you’ve got a Blight Card and ditched the power progressions (so “Gain a Power” means draw 4 and pick 1), you’re playing the whole game and it should be satisfying for quite a while.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T05:30:20+00:00

First, look at the stickied comment now at the top. It has a link to the actual article.

And no, this is a study to prove or disprove what we think of as common sense. That people will respond more generously to embellishments from their own side. Especially when the embellishments are aligning with our preconceived ideas.

They made up a politician and the politician’s tweets. Then fabricated a news story fact-checking. And asked for reactions. Along the lines of, Republican says “Immigrants are always bad.” Democrat says “Immigrants are always good.” Here are some experts who say that’s not true. Answer three questions:

1) Do you trust the fact-check?

2) Do you think the politician thought the statement was true?

3) What do you think about the politician tweeting this?

The headline is, people answer question 3 more kindly about those who are aligned with their politics.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T03:21:38+00:00

As written in the summary, it’s not even testing whether someone believes the lie (after being shown a fact-check). It’s testing how the respondent’s opinion of the speaker of the falsehood is affected.

There are two ways to get flagged as “accepting” the speaker. Either call out the fact-check as lies or say that it’s forgivable, speaker was mistaken but still is trusted. These are very different responses, but both get lumped together as “accepting” the speaker of falsehood.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T00:46:32+00:00

It’s about assuming good faith after someone has been demonstrated to speak falsehoods. Which could mean blindly believing or could mean quickly forgiving.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T00:45:23+00:00

It doesn’t even strictly say that people believe falsehoods. It says that when presented with an article that shows a politician said something untrue, people are more likely to let it go for those they agree with. Whether because they reject the fact-check or assume it’s not a big deal.

By conflating these two categories (at least in the summary; I don’t see the abstract nor the full paper) this paper is equating a hill to a mountain. I hope the full paper goes into more detail rather than focusing on the “both sides” aspect of it.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T00:39:36+00:00

Without knowing which falsehoods they’re calling out, it’s hard to say. But the summary states that there are two categories of seeing the falsehood as acceptable. Either “this is true, and the report that it’s false is the lie” or “yeah, this was false… but I get where they’re coming from so I won’t condemn the politician for making an error.”

I will agree, I’m more likely to forgive an error in good faith, which I am more likely to believe of people that I agree with. But conflating the two types of “accepting” the falsehood is itself problematic. One allows people to stay in the in-group despite playing fast and loose with the facts. The other accepts the falsehood itself.

Abaral · 2022-06-29T00:29:09+00:00

“Every little bit helps” is based on the idea that 500 ppm CO2 is better than 600 ppm CO2, though either one would be catastrophic.

Also, taking 100 years to hit 500 ppm would be better than taking 50 years, though it would still be bad.

I don’t see anyone seriously saying we can “solve” climate change without drastic action. That may have been the message 20 years ago, but it’s not the message today.

Edit: Also, as stated by the other reply to you, our individual impact doesn’t move the needle. So while collective action is important (if everyone changes behavior, it matters), the “carbon footprint” is still an exercise in distracting from the bigger picture.

Abaral · 2022-06-28T16:38:01+00:00

And what’s more, his job as he understands it. I think that’s more personally damning than to say that he understands the Constitution that way than to say that he’s a political shill… though both are true.

Abaral · 2022-06-28T12:28:18+00:00

Any good deception campaign has some facts. Just enough to season the lies.

Abaral · 2022-06-27T17:58:50+00:00

Is it clear what the Florida bill actually disallows? I believe the concern was that it wasn’t clear what it outlaws.

And if it’s that common, you’ll surely be able to find more examples… and examples where the district was supportive (to show that laws and outrage are needed to regulate it).

The coach continued prayers on midfield after the game, which is why it’s at the Supreme Court.

Abaral · 2022-06-27T16:53:16+00:00

Ok, so a teacher tried such things and is being investigated by the district. So the result is likely to be exactly what the district tried to do, was rejected by the coach, and fired him for refusing to take his “private” religious practice off center stage.

Abaral · 2022-06-27T15:48:42+00:00

Are they inviting students to take part in an LGBT pledge? If not, your situation seems analogous to a teacher mentioning they’re Christian. Not leading a prayer of students.

Abaral · 2022-06-27T15:17:40+00:00

Looking for a citation where “so many people” say that wasn’t coercion to try to get people vaccinated. It wasn’t forced vaccination, but it was introducing consequences which people would not like.

Expectation of consequences creates coercion regardless of whether those consequences are ever realized. And even if that expectation isn’t caused by explicit threat.

Abaral

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,