Woah wtf?

In many ways he’s a unique figure. When he entered the political scene in his first campaign. The establishment republicans and conservatives didn’t appear to think he’d really become a serious force. They were wrong. His ideological opponents also seemed to think he was too silly, and too extreme to be taken seriously and his domination of the right, albeit surprising, was anomalous and would never translate to electoral victory. They were also wrong. He seemed not to know how to play the game properly and was too foolish even to realise it. He probably wouldn’t have been the first whack job to fail to heed his advisors and PR team and would surely fail like all of them. Viewed in that light his somehow successful manoeuvres could seem only baffling than inspired, like watching someone win at roulette by just always betting one colour. This gives his rising successes a spooky and uncanny air and not something his rivals or opponents could simply emulate themselves because when a normal person does this they just lose.

If he’d had that final Big Mac attack in 2015 or maybe even as late as 2016, his brand of politics and the movement it seems to have inspired might have died with him but sadly it looks like now, plenty of proteges will be there to pick up the reigns. For all that can be said of the man, it appears he tapped in to and unleashed something that was waiting for its time and it’s unlikely even his death will put that genie back in its bottle. The next in line might be a shrewd and clever cynic, who’s studied the MAGA playbook and will exploit it to the hilt to grasp power for their own ends with no belief in the irrational or fantastical elements of this new orthodoxy. It might be an actual true believer, straight from the ranks of the deranged and mentally disturbed that Trump previously manipulated, now believing they’re seeing the many real and imagined prophecies Trump used to rile them coming true. Maybe it’ll be something in between, someone more like Trump himself with what seems to be more of an instinctive knack for playing these emboldened fanatics rather than a geniusly thought out strategy, they’ll sometimes believe what they’re saying sometimes not, a value system infinitely malleable, but reliably selfish. Either way Trump being dead will be a relief for little more than a day and after that you can either look forward to an heir apparent who’ll keep it all going or a dangerous power struggle between dangerous people happy to expend lives and treasure to pick up the mantle.

Do you know that they didn’t?

Usually how it goes for me:

1. Make post

2. See typo

3. Edit the post to fix it

4. Introduce new mistake

5. See another typo

6. GOTO 3

This has been a lifelong habit for me and something I respect and appreciate and think virtuous in others, but I’m starting to think I should train myself out of it. Saying “I think”, or “to the best of my knowledge” frequently seems to broadcast “I’m just guessing at random without thought” or with some people it seems to convey “I’m wrong about…”. It also very often seems to encode “it’s best not to listen to the remaining words of this sentence in case my wrongness is contagious”.

As frustrated as I sound by this, I kind of get it I suppose. I thought I was indicating humility and a willingness to change the opinions or ideas I express if the conversation partner has reason to challenge them, however it seems in many cases it just indicates a lack of confidence in my statements. They perhaps might argue that they never thought I was arrogant or lacking in humility to begin with and of course I could be wrong, but everyone could so specifically bringing it up or alluding to it unnecessarily like that just suggests you’re trying to mask that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I suppose one might also say that the willingness to change your opinion in light of a challenge to it is supposed to be a given so there’s no point trying to show that either. I don’t know if anyone really thinks any of this, but there’s probably something like that operating subconsciously.

Well I mean I probably would have traded it for a PS2 as well admittedly.

I don’t know man, I mean, it would have been a pretty crappy gift for you personally but I think all the rest of us might have appreciated it if you hadn’t taken back world peace.

Is it actually non-deterministic or just too many variables and too much sensitivity to initial conditions influencing the scheduler’s decisions for the programmer to reasonably be able to predict?

I actually had similar theories though in the end I concluded that a person definitely couldn’t be doing it, but I did used to rack my brains how the machine did it so fast. I had to do a project on how TV worked and was invented when I was in the 6th grade and it didn’t help at all, the whole electron gun thing didn’t explain it to me at all because I was imagining the gun like, drawing objects like trees and buildings and people and none of the boring confusing stuff I read helped me understand how this gun knew what to draw and could do it so quickly.

I am presumably a lot less qualified to speak on matters of economics than an economics teacher (assuming they became one through a background or qualification in economics), I’m also not even from the US. That disclosure aside, given you put this question to the masses and to the world here’s my take.

I can’t figure out how your teacher could have come to this conclusion with intellectual honesty. If my amateur’s understanding is correct, this forgiveness program is achieved by the US government paying for the loans, so it’s difficult to say on a basic level how any theft can have occurred. This is especially plain given the program is limited specifically to loans issued by US government in the first place as Federal student loans. If I loan you money and then tell you not to worry about paying it back after all because I’ve decided to forgive the loan I can’t find a way to frame that as theft. Who’s been stolen from?

If I really stretch I could see people who paid their own loans in full before this happened feeling like it was pretty unfair, but they weren’t stolen from, just unlucky in timing. Some people will say of taxes generally, that they feel like the money taken from them by the government in taxes is theft, but in that case this specific instance of government expenditure is no more theft then the latest batch of F35 fighter jets bought by the military or the wages paid to the local garbage collector to take out your garbage or any government spending at all, since that money all comes from taxes. Maybe your teacher is trying to tie the potential economic costs of the policy in to a narrative of stealing from US taxpayers. Maybe the costs of the program could theoretically mean taxes have to be raised at some point, but again though, you already have to pay taxes and how much, more taxes or less, is up to the administration in charge at any given time based on what they think is necessary. This is how the US or any country has a government at all which is generally considered necessary by most. When the government operates and uses taxes to do so, the citizens essentially pay for a service, that service involves the government making decisions on your behalf on what to do with the taxes you paid them. If most of the taxpayers don’t like the decisions and think they were bad choices they change their government and lobby representatives, it doesn’t make the decisions themselves theft if you just don’t like them.

That’s about all I can think of in the absence of your teacher’s justification, for how the loan forgiveness can be called theft, trying to be as fair as possible to those potential reasons, I still can’t find a way to make the statement true.

What happened there? I followed the link but it looks mods removed whatever the offending poster had done.

Yeh if it was just another colour this keyboard made entirely with duck shaped key caps that plays a ‘quack’ sound effect everytime a key is pressed would be fine.

My parents have a well worn story of the time they were students and very poor and they saw a homeless guy outside the kebab shop and asked if he’d like a kebab to which he agreed. They brought it out to him and he examined it and threw it on the ground and yelled at them about something they now don’t remember exactly but they think was something to do with not wanting chilli sauce. Guessing that guy wasn’t in the best state of mind at the time, bit of a bummer for them though because they scraped together the last of their cash to pay for that and it would have been better if they could at least have eaten it themselves.

I really can’t see a downside. If they seem to be obviously homeless or they’re actively asking for help, they probably need it. Though it’s extremely unlikely that your meager contribution will be the change that suddenly allows them to magically overcome poverty and become middle class home owners with well paying jobs, that doesn’t really make them need it any less. Whatever they use the money on, it’s going to be what they need in the immediate term, be it drugs or food or anything really and unlike others this is the only way they can really get that money so they do need people to occasionally part with it. You’d only give it to them because you had it spare anyway and it’s not going to make them more homeless than they already were. If the concern is that it’s not addressing the root personal problems that put them individually on the street or the root social problems that put many on the streets, that’s completely true but if you’re serious about doing that you’re going to need more than the couple of bucks in your pocket anyway. That’s going to be concerted massive political will and financial effort and several people’s lifetimes worth of work all at the same time, besides you can always involve yourself in some way in such efforts and hand over spare change. The only times I can really think of where it makes sense not to give directly are: you can’t afford to do it, the physical circumstances of handing it over are dangerous/impractical, you don’t care about homeless people or other people in general or you subscribe to some nasty Malthusian ideas and think yourself somehow benevolent for condemning people to destitution as some kind of “cruel to be kind” doctrine in which case you’re unlikely to have given this a lot of thought anyway and don’t really face much of a dilemma.

Good old klapaucius:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:! I wish there was some use to me still remembering that word today.

NES is a good one, it was juuust about part of my time in that a couple of people I rarely saw had one and I loved playing it with them when I did seem them, but really that’s because I didn’t at the time have a games machine or a computer so anything would have been good. I’ve played a few of the games and they were alright, pretty good. I got an original NES console with several games as an adult and was super excited because it’s so classic and retro and I found that much as I love owning it, I really couldn’t stand playing it for more than a few minutes. The games are just, kinda boring and they feel very, incomplete. They suffy some of the same problems as the Atari games I played just to see what the time period was like, those Atari ones in particular feel very unfinished, like someone thought it’d be interesting to try making a game, had one attempt, made something like a sort of prototype and then got bored and just shoved it on the market and moved on to a different hobby. The NES games weren’t as bad as that, but there was a similar feel of lack of consideration for the actual player. To me, it the NES kind of represents when games were starting to get good, which I think would annoy a lot of people that were gamers for a long time before that, because it’s always annoying when younger people make these proclamations totally ignorant of the time they’re speaking about, but in my head at least that’s what the NES generation represents. It’s the starting point of what was to come, with some flashes of brilliance and a lot of meh and even the really good bits aren’t as good as their later more refined iterations.

Do you ever find that sometimes when you intervene in to other people’s conversations to pull out some of your best absolute cracker lines like “why don’t you google that?” that people just don’t react properly at all? Like you’d expect an appropriate response like some light cheering and maybe lifting you up on their shoulders and handing you a medal and at least a couple of trophies. You know, something befitting of your incisive and insightful contributions, and instead they just kinda stop talking to you? That’s so weird huh?

Is it true they can hold on to a charge for decades? I was told that but it seemed unlikely.

You deadly seriously didn’t know if they were talking about the Pacific Ocean? In a post about someone who has trouble speaking clearly, in a reply clearly establishing you were aware there were writing errors, zeroing in on a word well known to be accidentally substituted for the word “specifically” by some speakers. You deadly seriously didn’t know?

Unfortunately you just cannot simply take English as it’s spoken in your country and assume it will apply universally and without change across all English speaking countries even as you and I now mostly successfully converse in English. The roots of words can be interesting and sometimes informative to know but it’s not the whole story and ignoring actual usage will never garner a true understanding. It sounds like it’s pretty important avoid the word in the US, but not so in Australia. It’s not totally neutral here, it’s still swearing and you won’t hear a school teacher saying it to children, but it’s also not coming from the same place in terms of meaning as in the US or UK for example. Sometimes it’s an insult, essentially meaning a bad or objectionable person, sometimes it’s used in much the same way as “mate”, other times it can simply mean “person/people”. Much like English itself, context is important and you have to know the background and contextual cues to understand which meaning to take.

You should come over here some time, you might like it, the weather is nice, we share a lot in common with the US, so you’d feel right at home but there’s just enough interesting differences to be exotic and provide opportunities to learn something about the world you didn’t know before. I can tell you’re well meaning and I think people will probably appreciate that too.