psi's recent activity
-
Comment on Wisconsin lawsuit settlement makes new emails public regarding pro Donald Trump fake electors scheme in 2020 in ~misc
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
psi Link ParentWhenever we consider how we ought to interact with other creatures (whether they be human or non-human), it's useful to have some sort of framework in mind. So let me offer a simple framework, a...Whenever we consider how we ought to interact with other creatures (whether they be human or non-human), it's useful to have some sort of framework in mind. So let me offer a simple framework, a small twist on the golden rule sometimes called the "platinum rule": we should strive to treat others as they want to be treated. If you choose to employ this guiding principle, you will still need to balance other groups's interests (yours included -- the platinum rule can be very greedy!), but I believe this rule to be a much better starting point when considering how we ought to treat animals. @RoyalHenOil made this point well already, so I won't rehash it here.
It's a task easier said than done. We've only ever been humans -- how could we know what an animal wants? In general, we can't. But we can at least know what animals want sometimes. I can tell by my cat's meows whether she wants to play or to eat or to simply be noticed.
But you don't need to be an animal behaviorist to understand that all animals share at least one universal desire, a desire hardwired into their genes since the dawn of life itself: the desire to live.
So let us return to our guiding principle: we want to balance our innate human desire to eat meat with an animal's innate desire to survive and frolic and do animal things. Is there something we can do to balance our wants? I mean, the answer is obviously yes -- we can either choose to eat meat substitutes instead, or if we do continue to eat meat, we can at least make sure that it's worth it.
And if there's one thing I could impress upon you, it's this: it's not worth eating mediocrely prepared meat. A cow has to suffer from birth to become a half-eaten microwave burrito (as I've written about before). I have a hard time understanding any framework under which that could be justified, unless that framework involves animals having infinitesimal intrinsic worth.
I was raised in an environment that nurtured my propensity for all-or-nothing black-and-white thinking regarding what's right and wrong, so I don't think this is necessarily something that would effect most other people who decide to go vegan. But the echoes of that thought process I see in arguments for all-or-nothing veganism make me uncomfortable as a result.
Ironically, I think you're still engaging in some level of black-and-white thinking here. Just because an action is immoral doesn't mean the correction rises to the level of being actionable. For instance, I would consider piracy wrong, but that doesn't prevent me from occasionally making the (selfish) calculation that my gain outweighs their lost. Similarly, I think it's possible to acknowledge that eating meat is selfish without necessarily giving it up entirely.
You seem to be caught-up on the assumption that embracing animal empathy would necessitate veganism, but I'd like to push back on this belief. One of the most empathetic people I ever met was a vegetarian. Her ethical convictions were so strong that she eschewed eating chocolate -- at that time, I didn't even know there could be ethical objections to chocolate. So I asked her rather pointedly: well, why aren't you a vegan then? And her answer was the same as yours: she didn't know whether she'd be able to fully commit, and she feared failing and backsliding on the principles she already held dear.
So I would end this treaties with a platitude: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Veganism is probably better than vegetarianism which is probably better than meat reduction, but all of those are better than doing nothing.
-
Comment on Donald Trump hush money trial: What criminal charges does he face? in ~news
psi (edited )Link ParentI'd like to emphasize that last paragraph. Of the three people involved in the unlawful hush money payments, Michael Cohen, David Pecker (head of the National Enquirer), and Donald Trump, Michael...I'd like to emphasize that last paragraph. Of the three people involved in the unlawful hush money payments, Michael Cohen, David Pecker (head of the National Enquirer), and Donald Trump,
-
Michael Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations for precisely these hush money payments, and
-
David Pecker entered into a non-prosecution agreement for the same underlying crimes.
The only person who didn't face any consequences was Trump, despite being the beneficiary of the scheme. So I don't see this as unjust political persecution; on the contrary, it feels unjust that he managed to avoid facing any charges for so long when the evidence was so public, brazen, and unambiguous.
-
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
psi Link ParentNo worries! It seems I could've worded my comment more clearly.No worries! It seems I could've worded my comment more clearly.
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
psi Link ParentNo, I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I think you're making the mistake of affirming the consequent. Edit: @papasquat explained my point better.No, I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I think you're making the mistake of affirming the consequent.
Edit: @papasquat explained my point better.
-
Comment on I gave up meat and gained so much more | A tale of one person's life, culture, and growing up in ~life
psi (edited )Link ParentWe already do hold ourselves to completely separate standards. Animals behave in all sorts of ways that would be considered sociopathic if replicated by a human. Usually we excuse animal behavior...But I also simply am not convinced that it's inherently morally wrong to kill animals for the purpose of eating their meat or using their animal products -- not unless you hold humans to a standard that's utterly disconnected from the rest of the animal kingdom.
We already do hold ourselves to completely separate standards. Animals behave in all sorts of ways that would be considered sociopathic if replicated by a human. Usually we excuse animal behavior by saying that animals lack morals, as most DND players already know. We don't usually excuse our immoral behavior by comparing ourselves to animals.
Not that I'm trying to argue for militant/all-or-nothing veganism (I'm but a mere vegetarian). At its core, veganism is about minimizing harm "as far as is possible and practicable". It's an inherently subjective standard -- maybe what I consider practical is not what you would.
-
Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport
-
Comment on The cycling revolution in Paris continues: Bicycle use now exceeds car use in ~transport
psi Link ParentA bit off topic. When I visited Paris I was generally surprised at how many activities required tickets, but I found the ticket for the Arc de Triomphe to be especially galling (16 € per adult!)....Arc de Triomphe is very unpleasant
A bit off topic. When I visited Paris I was generally surprised at how many activities required tickets, but I found the ticket for the Arc de Triomphe to be especially galling (16 € per adult!). It just seemed like a weird thing to gatekeep access to, considering there's no actual barrier besides the five lanes of traffic on the roundabout. Not that the roundabout seemed to prevent trespassing -- I watched people run across the roundabout to access the Arc after the structure "closed" for the evening.
So, uh, I guess my point is, less cars in Paris would translate to better health for its residents, better health for the environment, and easier trespass to the Arc de Triomphe.
-
Comment on At least thirty protesters arrested during pro-Palestinian protest at UT Austin in ~news
psi (edited )Link ParentIn the case of Texas, this particular response is also extremely hypocritical. As the Washington Post reports, In March Abbott signed an executive order clarifying that this right to protest...In the case of Texas, this particular response is also extremely hypocritical. As the Washington Post reports,
On Thursday, however, Abbott found himself in a storm of broader scrutiny. Critics were quick to note, for example, that Abbott proudly signed a law in 2019 that aimed to protect free speech on college campuses by guaranteeing anyone can protest in common outdoor areas as long as they are not breaking the law or disrupting the regular functioning of the school. That is precisely what those arrested Wednesday were doing, they said.
In March Abbott signed an executive order clarifying that this right to protest didn't apply to criticizing Israel, thereby further proving that Abbott's push for "free speech" was only ever meant to apply one way. Or as one UT student put it, "Don’t have a dissenting opinion from state government or we’ll send in the police."
-
Comment on Key moments from landmark US Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump’s immunity claims in ~news
psi Link ParentGorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the...Gorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the prosecutor 's untidy neighbors -- so why would you carve out a special exception for the President?
If Gorsuch is so concerned about prosecutors misbehaving, he should be trying to regulate that, not proposing extra protections to someone who literally tried to overthrow our democracy. And as the special council argued, if anyone is in a privileged position to understand the law, it would be the President, who has the Attorney General and the rest of the Justice Department for council.
-
Comment on US Federal Trade Commission bans new noncompete agreements in ~life
psi (edited )Link ParentThe main difference is that what a rule-making agency can giveth, a rule-making agency can taketh away. It's not exactly the same as Congress outright banning non-competes via legislation since...I don't know that there is a difference that makes a difference between a rule and a law when you are talking about rule making authority.
The main difference is that what a rule-making agency can giveth, a rule-making agency can taketh away. It's not exactly the same as Congress outright banning non-competes via legislation since
- it's easier to challenge a rule than a law (as has already happened; in their lawsuit, the Chamber of Commerce has argued that this rule "reflects an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the Commission's power");
- it's easier for a new agency head to rewrite a rule than for Congress to pass a new law; and
- Chevon deference is probably doomed, which means we should expect a future in which courts are also in the business of rulemaking (and probably not to our benefit).
But yes, with respect to @DefinitelyNotAFae's question, there is no operational difference.
-
Comment on US Federal Trade Commission bans new noncompete agreements in ~life
psi Link ParentJust to be a little pedantic, this is a rule, not a law. Basically Congress passes legislation that tells a US agency to regulate something (in this case, unfair business practices, 15 U.S.C. 45...Just to be a little pedantic, this is a rule, not a law. Basically Congress passes legislation that tells a US agency to regulate something (in this case, unfair business practices, 15 U.S.C. 45 and 46(g)) and the agency promulgates rules interpreting that law.
But to address your question, the actual rule banning non-competes is here:
I think these are the relevant bits?
Proposed § 910.2(a) would not apply retroactively. An employer would not violate proposed § 910.2(a) where—prior to the compliance date—it entered into or attempted to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; maintained with a worker a non-compete clause; or represented to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause. Instead, proposed § 910.2(a) would require employers to refrain from these practices starting on the compliance date.
and
2(b) Existing Non-Compete Clauses
Proposed § 910.2(b) would clarify employers' obligations, and impose additional requirements, related to non-compete clauses entered into by the employer prior to the compliance date (“existing non-compete clauses”).
2(b)(1) Rescission Requirement
Proposed § 910.2(b)(1) would state that, to comply with proposed § 910.2(a)—which states it is an unfair method of competition for an employer to maintain with a worker a non-compete clause—an employer that entered into a non-compete clause with a worker prior to the compliance date must rescind the non-compete clause no later than the compliance date. The reasons why the Commission is proposing this rescission requirement are described above in the section-by-section analysis for proposed § 910.2(a).
The requirements in § 910.2(b)(1)-(3) do not apply where a worker's obligation not to compete elapsed prior to the compliance date. This is because the requirements in § 910.2(b)(1)-(3) derive from § 910.2(a), which establishes it is an unfair method of competition to maintain with a worker a non-compete clause. An employer does not maintain with a worker a non-compete clause, in violation of the Rule, where the obligation not to compete elapsed prior to the compliance date. For example, if a worker left their job in 2019 and was subject to a two-year obligation not to compete, that obligation would have elapsed in 2021, and the employer would not violate the Rule by failing to rescind the non-compete clause.
So, if I understand these points correctly, all non-competes are invalid starting from 120 days after the publication of the rule, but if your non-compete obligation has already elapsed/will have elapsed before the rule comes into effect, you can't retroactively use this rule to invalidate your old non-compete.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of April 22 in ~news
psi Link"The Circus Trump Wanted Outside His Trial Hasn’t Arrived." The New York Times. There's not much to this article, so no gift link this time. Basically Trump has been (unsuccessfully) calling for...There's not much to this article, so no gift link this time. Basically Trump has been (unsuccessfully) calling for supporters to protest outside the New York courthouse, but he's only managed to draw maybe a couple dozen supporters at most.
But I'm posting this article anyway for this absolutely wacky quote:
“They say Laura Loomer is obsessed with President Trump,” she [Laura Loomer] said on Monday. “Well, everybody should be obsessed with making America great again and obsessed with taking their country back. And sometimes you have to put your personal life on hold and go out and organize for President Trump.
“That’s what I do,” she added. “You think I have a social life? You think I have a dating life? You think I’m married? You think I have kids? Do you think I go out and do fun things? No. Because I’m always putting every extra bit of time that I have into supporting President Trump.”
Yikes!
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of April 15 in ~news
psi Link"Where Jurors in Trump Hush-Money Trial Say They Get Their News." The New York Times. [gift] As one might expect, most of the jurors and alternates gets their news from left-leaning sources (13/18...As one might expect, most of the jurors and alternates gets their news from left-leaning sources (13/18 read The New York Times, for example). There is one notable juror who breaks this trend, however: juror 2, who exclusively gets their news from X/Twitter and Truth Social. It's a reminder that, despite Trump's claim that he can't get a fair trial in New York, it only takes a single juror to prevent a conviction.
(But I write this with a caveat: we shouldn't read too much into their news consumption predilections; if any particular juror displayed clear bias, the judge would've dismissed them for cause.)
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi (edited )Link ParentI should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack...I should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack armaments compared to the US.
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi Link ParentThe US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises. I agree that...How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe that American military interests are shifting to the east. Putin absorbed Crimea in 2014; it's not like there hasn't been any warning.
The US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises.
I agree that Europe will need to increase its military spending -- and in fact, Europe has increased its defense spending following the invasion of Ukraine. But if the US wants to reduce its support to Ukraine, it needs to communicate that intention clearly and give its allies time to adjust, not suddenly and capriciously. Currently Congress is sitting on an aid package because a few right-wing extremists would rather have that aid sent to the southern border. It's total nonsense. Europe can't plan around nonsense. Sure, I guess Europe could raise a US-sized army under the assumption that America will ultimately betray its allies. But that's fundamentally an issue with America, not Europe. No alliance -- not even the EU -- can withstand a lack of trust.
The US does not have any kind of defensive treaty or obligations to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member or part of any other military obligations
Of course not. But Ukraine does share a border with a NATO country (Poland), and Russia could justify an invasion of Poland under the same twisted logic it used to invade Ukraine. It's in NATO's benefit to ensure that Russian aggression is contained.
NATO's most valuable asset is its unity. Ideally NATO would like to deter adversaries without any shots being fired on NATO territory. If NATO capitulates to Russia due to intra-party US squabbling, Russia will have succeeded in undermining the alliance.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
A Russian invasion of Europe would have devastating consequences on the international economy, America included.
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi Link ParentAs others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support. But it's worth bearing...- Exemplary
As others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. [2] I mean, of the top five largest military air forces in the world, the US Air force ranks first, the US Army ranks second, and the US Navy ranks fourth. [3] Simply put, the US spends a stupid amount of money on defense. That's not Europe's fault; that's America's choice. It's not surprising that America is better capable of arming Ukraine than Europe.
But despite this, Europe still confers military benefits to the US. The US has built a stupidly large military, having deciding to take it upon themselves to be the world's police force. Europe provides room for US military bases and nuclear weapon silos. The US and much of Europe have a joint defense agreement through NATO. And it's not as if NATO's defense clause has only ever been invoked for Europe's benefit; on the contrary, article 5 has only been invoked once and only by the US, which is how Europe managed to get dragged into the 20+ year war in Afghanistan following 9/11. If the war in Ukraine expands to Poland, the US will be duty-bound to respond, assuming the US still intends to make good on its promises as Europe already has. It's in the US's interest to keep the war contained.
The problem here isn't that Europe hasn't provided enough support to Ukraine. As I mentioned at the start, Europe has contributed more financially than anyone else. The problem here is that the US is wavering on its pledges and proving to be an unreliable partner. At worse, if Trump and his allies are further empowered, NATO could collapse altogether. [4]
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
[2] https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/us/politics/trump-2025-nato.html -
Comment on Truong My Lan: Vietnamese billionaire sentenced to death for $44bn fraud in ~finance
psi Link ParentI think at some point criminals either assume they won't get caught or wildly underestimate the penalties (as @Tigress already mentioned). I have a hard time imagining someone balancing the risks...How do we know she didn't risk this because she assumed the death penalty wouldn't be the judgement[?]
I think at some point criminals either assume they won't get caught or wildly underestimate the penalties (as @Tigress already mentioned). I have a hard time imagining someone balancing the risks and deciding, "I don't want to suffer the death penalty, but life imprisonment wouldn't be so bad."
-
Comment on Botswana threatens to send 20,000 elephants to Germany in ~enviro
psi Link ParentI would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out...Not that it's not beneficial, but that it's not as beneficial as some might think. Which is a fair point, but hardly a condemnation of trophy hunting.
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out of poverty, but now I see that the number is almost negligible.
Trophy hunting must be considered on-balance. Your post glossed-over the most important counterargument against trophy hunting: that killing large game for sport -- especially elephants, which live for decades and practice death rituals -- is wrong. Personally I am not particularly fond of arguments in which people attempt to offset a moral harm to an individual of a group by a monetary contribution to the entire group. I mean, imagine if the US attempted to solve homelessness by granting licenses to hunt homeless people. Sure, maybe you could use those proceeds to lift some people out of poverty, but that would still be morally reprehensible!
I would be willing to accept trophy hunting if there were almost literally no alternative. But having read @ChingShih's post, I'm not convinced there's really even a problem that needs to be addressed.
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
psi Link ParentI don't disagree with the value of a liberal education, but it's worth pointing out that in European countries tertiary education tends to be more specialized and they don't seem to be worse off...I don't disagree with the value of a liberal education, but it's worth pointing out that in European countries tertiary education tends to be more specialized and they don't seem to be worse off for it. For instance, in Germany there is a distinction between Universität (basic research, e.g. physics), Fachschule (applied sciences, e.g. engineering), Kunsthochschule (art school, e.g. architecture), and Berufsakademie (vocational school, e.g. social work). A typical university in the US would have all of these programs.
Since the title buries the lede a bit: