Paxton is almost certainly the more beatable of the two, though
05.03.2026 21:39
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Paxton is almost certainly the more beatable of the two, though
I feel like they'll probably just need to spend the money to staff all the residential buildings with 24-hour security
You're right. This is a bit of a personal pet peeve of mine that automatically gets my hackles up. I do stand by the substance of what I said, but you're right that me being flippant about it was not constructive, so if it's worth anything, I'm sorry about my tone.
Personally I think it's reasonable to expect people making factual claims to put in at least a modicum of effort to determine whether those claims are true before declaring them publicly, and for other people to call them out if they fail to do so.
Of course not, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to find it suspicious if you are unfamiliar with this publication! But you finding it suspicious does not obligate you to post, essentially, "this is an article written by a bot as engagement bait," which is a false claim.
The account is run by the Verge and posts its articles and podcast episodes. Nilay Patel is the editor and chief of the Verge. Hank has both appeared on and guest-hosted his podcast multiple times. All of this would be trivially discoverable with like ten seconds of Googling.
It would maybe be worth your while to actually check an assumption like that, rather than uncritically stating it as fact?
... what are you talking about? This is a link to an hour-long video interview between Hank and Nilay Patel, and a transcript of that interview.
Like, Congress resisting (or not resisting) the president, in the abstract, seems morally neutral. It seems like it should have to depend on what the president is doing that Congress is or isn't resisting.
Surely the morality of the president's actions enters into it though? Like, to the extent that Congress is supposed to check the president's ability to do bad things, if the president does try to do bad things, Congress would ideally intervene, and the president would fail (which is good), right?
The latter is *also* an electability argument! And in hindsight, might have been correct. But it doesn't hinge on a defense of the people who might have (or did) stay home. It's just saying "the most rational thing to do might not be to pick the candidate you personally like best."
That needn't have any particular ideological bent. Like, there were people saying to vote for Hillary in 2016 because moderates wouldn't support Bernie, but there were also people saying to vote for Bernie because if Hillary won, some Bernie primary voters would stay home in the general.
I think there's a conflation happening here between people participating in the debate and people who aren't. Like, the core argument is: I'm trying to convince you to vote differently in the primary by predicting the behavior of some third voter in the general who I don't think I can persuade.
I don't think that's what people making electability arguments are doing, as a general matter. Some doubtless are, and that should rightly be called out as bad faith, but I don't think electability arguments need be that.
FWIW, my personal sense is that there are many fewer such people than there used to be, enough so that it doesn't make sense to over-index on them in primary strategizing. But this is an empirical question, not a moral one.
Yes, the electability argument does posit that these people exist, but not that they're morally good. They're not! If they exist, they're bad! The argument doesn't defend them, it just posits that their existence might need to be reckoned with if one is to maximize one's chances of winning.
I think now, many of the people most irritated by ads have self-selected out of ever seeing them (by not watching live TV, paying for ad-free tiers, using ad blockers, etc.), which means those still seeing ads are on average more shitty-ad-tolerant than they used to be, which advertisers must know.
Sure, but this is a moment of opportunity, and at least he's rising to the occasion. Would I prefer someone with a spine all the time? Of course. But I'll take someone with a spine occasionally over never (like most of Dem leadership), given those choices.
I initially read that as "moral deflection" and thought "wow, the rare candid jab from NYT opinion," but no, turns out they're about as mealy-mouthed as usual.
These were never rational arguments made in good faith, advocating for a general right to be broadly exercised. They were always about a right for a certain kind of person, to protect themselves against a different kind of person. This victim was the wrong kind of person, so he doesn't count.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Doubly so because Ukraine used to have nukes but gave them up under the Budapest memorandum of 1994 in return for our commitment to protect their sovereignty if attacked, which we of course failed to uphold. Again, in hindsight, denuclearization was a clear blunder
I think this was already the case due to Ukraine. Compare the tepid international response to Russia's invasion to, say, the response to Iraq invading Kuwait, and the obvious conclusion is that nuclear states can do whatever they want to non-nuclear ones and everybody else just sits on their hands.
I don't think this was the moment of ambiguity; I think at this moment they definitely lived, and the perception that they had been shot was part of the illusion (along with agent orange etc.) to motivate the breaking of the tank. The maybe-death was later.
Oh for sure, they've been around for almost 30 years without really producing anything or earning real revenue, so everyone under the sun has invested in them. Seems like a scam. I'm just not sure I see a sanctions angle in particular -- there's nothing they'd need to import.
The main Russian involvement in nuclear energy relates to production of fuel for fission reactors, which a fusion reactor doesn't require.
Perhaps there are transmitters embedded in the speed limit signs or other street furniture that tell the car what the local speed limit is, and it honors the locally broadcast limit if present or isn't limited otherwise.
If we're imagining a universe where the political will exists to modify every car in the country to have a speed governor in it, we can imagine that the will similarly exists to implement a solution that doesn't have this requirement.
Totally. I assume these were rental priorities because it would be stupid to do otherwise.
