Oof, man. You alright?

Like, I don’t feel like I was being that condescending. Maybe a bit sarcastic at worst. Feels like you’re projecting some past stuff into this pretty hard.

Genuine beat, you’re worth something man. You have value and people care about you. I hope you’re having a good day.

They did say generally. They also said “no matter how small their business is.”

Okay, so if they employ someone part time to help with the bookkeeping, then I’m supposed to hate them, but not before? Just trying to understand.

So running a craft studio and selling your art direct to people in your area makes you a class traitor now?

Man, I’m having trouble keeping up with who we’re supposed to hate guys.

Is your definition of neoliberal “anyone who doesn’t agree with me on 100% of issues?”

If not, can you give examples of issues that someone could disagree with you on which would not get them branded as a “neoliberal”?

I stopped taking this review super seriously with:

But this, sadly, is closer to his notorious fey-Hitler fantasy Jojo Rabbit – misjudged and self-admiring.

Jojo Rabbit is an absolute masterpiece. It was nominated for best picture for a reason, lol. I’ve yet to meet a single person who’s seen it and not absolutely loved it.

I was flipping through old comments looking for something else and I saw this and got curious.

Now that Mitch McConnell is back in the Senate actively working, do you agree with me that it was just conspiracy theory nonsense all along?

There’s a very rational reason for caring about one’s own home, and that’s the fact that you live there.

As opposed to your country, where you clearly don’t live?

But there is no un-hated group. Heck, there’s still a not insignificant portion of the population who hate the Irish/Catholics still. There is no group that isn’t hated by someone.

Hell, there are a not insignificant number of people who hate white people. Does that make it okay for them to be “proud of being white” just because some people hate them for it?

I don’t disagree that there will always be people who hate gay people. But I do think there are plenty of countries though where the percentage of the population that do is low. At least as low as those who hate whites/Catholics/etc.

That makes sense, but I do have follow-on questions. Genuinely asking, not trying to be antagonistic.

Would you then say that gay pride is ridiculous in a nation that doesn’t have issues with hating gay people? Like, in a well run country where homophobia/transphobia is marginalized out, should gay pride be viewed the same as having Irish pride?

The argument against that in my mind would be that it’s honoring the work of the people who came before who had to deal with historical bigotry. But I feel like the counter to that would be the Irish, in that they also had to deal with systematic bigotry in this country. We’re not so far gone from “No Irish Need Apply,” and people having to change their names to hide their Irish ancestry to find jobs.

Depends on where you drop the oxytocin, to be fair. Drop it near a playground and you might.

It does feel like if you switched the nouns to be black/Mexican/gay/trans this would read as hate speech.

I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but this feels like the kind of railing against “identity politics,” that your crazy uncle spouts off at Thanksgiving.

No problem.

Looking through the full act, I think it was just a boolean logic issue when writing it.

Every other list in the thing says “and”, but the query at the top of every other list is positively phrased. Like, the guy must do x, y, and z. But when they went to do that one they added a “not” to the beginning, but didn’t realize that that requires you to change the ands to ors.

!(A && B) -> !A || !B

Easy mistake to overlook.

Those were random examples, not the actual examples from the law.

The ones from the law ere just more abstract about the number of points associated with the offense, so I was trying to make it plainer.

I didn’t validate the examples matched the point values. But I imagine there are a range of valid offenses for each point value.

I think it’s more that most big things are giant money pits for years when starting out. Youtube was just lighting cash on fire for over a decade, but they never went away. I’m unconvinced a bad earnings report means anything for something with this much user engagement. Someone’s always going to be willing to pump more money into it.

If people stop using it, then they should be worried.

Okay, that took some finding, but I did find the original language in the act. I agree that the “does and mean or” snippet reads bad, but I think it probably does actually mean or. The snippet reads like (not the actual language, just the form)

In order to qualify, the candidate must have never:

• killed a man,
• stolen a car, and
• beaten his wife.

It does say “and,” which means technically a candidate who just killed a man is fine, since he didn’t also steal a car and beat his wife. The “and” side is saying that unless you’re guilty of all three things, you’re an eligible candidate. The “or” side is saying any one is disqualifying by intent of the law.

Here’s the actual text, for clarity:

(1) the defendant does not have— ‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; ‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and ‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

My read is that saying “must have a 3pt offense and a 2pt offense” is a pretty clear signal of intent for “or.” It’s tough to imagine a scenario where lawmakers intentionally decided to only block people with both types of offense, but not with just one or the other.

But RAW says and, which is probably why the courts ruled that way.

It’s in the article. It’s not that he wanted to save anyone. When he was a kid his dad spent some time in federal prison, so he’s got strong feelings on mandatory sentencing requirements.

And the original law that let him get out early in the first place was passed under Trump #1 and championed by Jared Kushner. It turns out there’s not a clear partisan line on this one.

I ctrl+f’d the article and can’t find that quote in it. Can you point me to it? Or is it from another source?

Somehow I don’t think that this is actually gonna move the needle at all.