nacho's recent activity
-
Comment on Getting permission from your significant other in ~life
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
nacho Link ParentI would argue, with strength, that the US supreme court rulings are indeed arbitrary. Especially held to the standards of the rulings of other courts of similar stature. Rulings are not internally...I would argue, with strength, that the US supreme court rulings are indeed arbitrary. Especially held to the standards of the rulings of other courts of similar stature.
Rulings are not internally consistent. Not regarding scope, outcome, principles, past rulings, any of the underlying principles that underpin modern systems of jurisprudence.
In my opinion, Supreme court rulings often undermine the very rule of law.
Looking at rulings from other courts and the standards which they follow strongly supports that notion.
Take a famous European ruling, like Costa v. ENEL that establishes that EU law stands above national law of the member states, for example.
The [ruling Full text pdf is clear, unambiguous, and as Judge Robert Lecourt noted, the decision didn't change the law of the land, it simply interpreted and outlined the necessary effects that follow from the international treaties that led to the establishment of the EU.
Rulings like these follow standards. This is how high courts and international courts routinely function: The form and scope of rulings are predictable, while the balancing of different arguments might not be, at least everyone knows that arguments are coming and that there's a predictable consistency from one ruling to the next.
Lawmakers make laws. Courts interpret them. In the US, the most active body for legislation the last decades has been the Supreme court. That is not natural.
Many Americans cannot envision a different state of affairs. They're used to legislators not doing their job, the Supreme court grossly overreaching and never being held to reasonable standards of high courts in the rest of the developed world.
This systematically lets the unelected members of the Supreme court rule in line with their political opinions.
Here in ~lgbt I would note that this makes it way, way easier for the court to discriminate against all sorts of minorities and to impose and maintain conservative views that hurt minorities more than majorities. The outright badness of the Supreme court, both in terms of harm and low quality, enables the discrimination and stymies progress.
That's the very intent of the minority groups clinging to power to avoid a more inclusive, loving society. Their primary vehicle is trying to lull us into accepting the crazy state of affairs of the courts and lack of political gumption as a necessary state of affairs.
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
nacho Link ParentIn direct opposition to you, I abhor they way US legal opinions are written. Being hackish is the norm. Cherry-picking and arguing possibly potential theoreticals that do not apply to the case...the tl;dr is that the Court found that while there might be basis to prohibit physical conversion therapy, Colorado's law [also] applies to speech and speech alone, and is therefore unconstitutional because it permits speech in one direction but not the other. The court specifically noted that a state also could not ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.
In direct opposition to you, I abhor they way US legal opinions are written. Being hackish is the norm. Cherry-picking and arguing possibly potential theoreticals that do not apply to the case atually before the court is the norm.
The court sometimes judges narrowly (when it wants) and other times goes way, way beyond the scope of the case at hand. This sometimes leaves clearly unconstitutional laws on the books, and in other cases immediately invalidates them for no reason.
For dealing with precedents, the Supreme court itself follows no standards of consistency.
That's precisely what this opinion does, and which you accurately summarize some main points of.
The distinction between "speech" and "conduct" the court makes doesn't have any practical merit Any normal, sensible person intuitively, a priori, understands that we all perceive any speech as part of someone's conduct.
The whole tortured, wide interpretations of Free Speech meaning unlimited spending, and that words somehow
Further in this opinion, more nonsense happens. Things that your average US resident, average in comprehension, reasoning, social understanding and so on, will never, ever consider in their daily lives. The laws and judgements are wholly unintelligible to them. It is impossible for them to understand and therefore follow regulations if law works this way.
A couple brief more nonsense examples: The court doesn't get into the so-called
voluntary counseling conversations” with her clients.
Voluntary for who? The parents of the LGBT+ child? The child itself?
Should a self-claimed "therapist" have to follow medical safety standards when treating children if that goes against their freedom of speech? Obviously, for the sake of patients.
If the First Amendment is "no word game", as this opinion mockingly, dangerously inaccurately states, free speech in the US should have no restrictions. The framers and no-one else sane has ever argued as much. The US has never allowed divulging state secrets, disallowed patents, found that you can slander people freely, and so on. But arbitrarily, the courts somehow find that hate speech isn't part of these obvious non-mentioned, disallowed types of speech, even though practically all other developed countries have understood this.
The First Amendment still reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But it IS a word game, and a shitty one at that.
The mess of current US supreme court rulings and impact is precisely what the Ninth amendment was meant to protect against.
The whole concept on almost unlimited rights (but also with important exceptions, mostly not present in the constitution or laws stemming from its principles, randomly showing up and being changed in successive court judgements, was left behind, even in the constitutions of the late 1800s.
This old mumbo-jumbo in the US system is failing LGBT+ youth in this particular ruling.
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
nacho Link ParentThe Ninth Amendment specifically codifies this principle (although it is worded differently): I.e. the listed rights in the Bill of Rights do not invalidate other "natural" rights. If we're...The Ninth Amendment specifically codifies this principle (although it is worded differently):
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I.e. the listed rights in the Bill of Rights do not invalidate other "natural" rights.
If we're playing the game of US constitutional law, that means a whole host of "common sense" rights that all free white men would have at the time of the framers.
I'd guess we're then talking things like:
- Right to privacy
- Right to marital privacy
- Right to property
- Right to freedom of thought
- Right to family
- Right to enslavement
- Right to enforce private contracts
- Right to exploit natural resources
- All sorts of other rights. This list is not in any way exhaustive.
There would be obvious, obvious exceptions to the other rights in the Bill of Rights that any sane person in the late 1700s would agree to, like laws against libel, slander and attacking someone's honor, not having free speech to say/do grossly obscene things.
People like Madison and Hamilton explicitly wrote/argued that the Constitution would have way, way too much power in all sorts of areas if the rights in the Bill of Rights were absolute and that such rights would be a really bad idea.
It wasn't until around the mid 20th century that the Supreme court essentially said the Ninth Amendment doesn't count, although for some strange reason it's still on the books.
This principle of having a "Common law" of some form is prevalent in many countries, not the least in the US, where most laws or limits of laws are determined by courts and not by legislators.
To many other countries, it's crazy that unelected judges are more equal than the other two Estates in the separation of powers.
-
Comment on US Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids in ~lgbt
nacho LinkThis is so surreal, but expected. The view that some US constitutional amendments are more important than the whole essence of the Constitution itself and all the other things written in it has...This is so surreal, but expected.
The view that some US constitutional amendments are more important than the whole essence of the Constitution itself and all the other things written in it has infiltrated and permeated the thinking of the US courts.
It's crazy that rights of US parents supposedly means the right to destroy the lives of their kids without impunity and potentially against the will of their kids too. "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is no more. Crazy shift.
-
Comment on Denmark's Social Democrats have won the most votes in the country's general election, but have failed to secure a majority, after the party's weakest showing in more than a century in ~society
nacho Link ParentFredriksen essentially called a snap election in an attempt to bolster the Social Democrats' representation on the back on her positioning as anti-Trump. This (mostly) expectedly backfired for all...Fredriksen essentially called a snap election in an attempt to bolster the Social Democrats' representation on the back on her positioning as anti-Trump.
This (mostly) expectedly backfired for all the government parties. In a world of uncertainty, the voters rejected the center and move to either side of the political spectrum.
As the process is in Denmark: The King now aks all the party leaders who they want as prime minister. The result will likely be that Fredriksen again has to find a majority, this time that'll be harder than the government that handed in its resignation this week.
That's because they simply need a larger coalition to get votes.
The process of getting a new government can take a couple weeks or it could take months.
All the ministries have effectively not done that much during the election campaign and will become even more impotent now until a new government is first established and then have time to get into the swing of things.
Thus, the Danish position and place in the EU and otherwise on the international stage has predictably been diminished by Fredriksen's attempt to strengthen her grip from that outset.
-
Comment on Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has advocated for reinstating a tax on the country's largest fortunes – proposal has faced strong criticism from business leaders and the right before upcoming elections in ~society
nacho LinkInheritance tax is a much better solution than wealth taxes: Less friction more revenue easier to argue for on principle (you quite literally didn't earn this; you inherited) harder for pro-rich...Inheritance tax is a much better solution than wealth taxes:
- Less friction
- more revenue
- easier to argue for on principle (you quite literally didn't earn this; you inherited)
- harder for pro-rich "bad for business"-groups to argue against
This is a weird hill to die on, Fredriksen knowing very well how this situation has unfolded in neighboring Norway the last decade.
-
Comment on Voyager Technologies CEO says space data center cooling problem still needs to be solved in ~space
nacho Link ParentIt means laws can be enforced, if there were laws.It means laws can be enforced, if there were laws.
-
Comment on US to stop processing visa applications from seventy-five nations in ~society
nacho LinkFor many of the countries I can sort of understand that there's some form of argument that I disagree with that could potentially be made for not allowing visas from the countries. But for many...For many of the countries I can sort of understand that there's some form of argument that I disagree with that could potentially be made for not allowing visas from the countries.
But for many others, just don't get it. I can't seem to find any country-by-country argumentation either
Then again, with this administration, it probably just doesn't make sense and is nonsensical to try to make sense of.
-
Comment on Texas becomes first state to end American Bar Association oversight of law schools in ~society
nacho Link ParentThe idea with professional tests/bodies for doctors, engineers, lawyers etc. is that in some capacities, society wants those groups not to be beholden to other interests. It's always a balance...The idea with professional tests/bodies for doctors, engineers, lawyers etc. is that in some capacities, society wants those groups not to be beholden to other interests.
It's always a balance though: The group itself has the interests of its members/profession at heart. That leads regulation to be important, but to have to strike a good balance.
I think an important part of it is that the real issues deep inside a profession isn't something others will have detailed expertise on, and can't be expected to. That's also true for regional government, politicians etc.
We want experts to use their expertise where relevant in good ways. This is part of trying to strike that balance. I'm no lawyer, and don't know how well it's working in practice, much less in Texas.
-
Comment on Advice on avoiding the hedonic treadmill of endless content? in ~life
nacho LinkFor kids: The Montessorri-inspired Lovevery toy kits with analog toys is a great way to start. With a subscription it's a ton of toys, but realistically, I thin swapping out screens with toys in a...For kids:
The Montessorri-inspired Lovevery toy kits with analog toys is a great way to start. With a subscription it's a ton of toys, but realistically, I thin swapping out screens with toys in a competitive way demands a lot of toy selection. Wooden Brio trains, dolls, building blocks of various kinds (just wooden ones, Magna-Tiles, K'Nex, Lego, Duplo - there's good selection.
I think playing with, reading with (and for) kids, listening to music with them, dancing with them and so on is imperative for avoiding the screen.
Of course that's way, way more demanding on the parent than just putting a black screen in front of a little face. Kids playing on their own is extremely demanding, the younger they are, the harder it is. It takes a lot of teaching and interaction from parents, and peers where that's possible.
I also just want to agree so much with what's being said about the attention-cycle being a huge change that really is not healthy. Being bored, being alone with your thoughts, just looking out the window and so on is important for development.
How in the world are we meant to function in the adult world if we don't know how to be bored?
-
Comment on Moving back to the US (after 7+ years living in Germany) in ~life
nacho Link ParentThis is great advice. I'd go further too (as I've moved quite a lot): What items do I physically need? What items can I take a picture of, and that's enough to keep the memories? When moving, it's...Get rid of large stuff unless it has a lot of sentimental value. Allow yourself to keep the small useless stuff. Make tradeoffs between them to cut down on the total amount of stuff.
This is great advice. I'd go further too (as I've moved quite a lot):
- What items do I physically need?
- What items can I take a picture of, and that's enough to keep the memories?
When moving, it's less really is more. Often it's also more expensive to move many things than to just buy new ones on arrival in your new area. I recognize the time cost of having to sort out all sorts of things.
Whenever I get to a new house, I don't buy stuff until I see a clear need for it. This cuts down on number of odds and ends quite a bit. Needs include things like well-being in one's own home.
-
Comment on The truth about AI (specifically LLM powered AI) in ~tech
nacho Link ParentI don't think the edge of early adopters is going to be short-lived. With trivial tasks and automation, obvious use cases, sure, but not where it'll matter with time. The limiting factor is and...I don't think the edge of early adopters is going to be short-lived. With trivial tasks and automation, obvious use cases, sure, but not where it'll matter with time.
The limiting factor is and will always be that to prompt AI, you need to use precise language to say unambiguously what you want it to say. In my experience, people are notoriously bad at exactly that, especially doing so in concise ways (so it doesn't take a lot of time).
Getting that experience will let you build on the experience now to take next steps. Once ahead, you get more ahead. LLM's aren't the end all. Getting the experience to see where the train stops and their use stops first lets one build experience in that environment.
I notice in my field (networking) that some of us are already doing the tasks of multiple colleagues, where we used to work at the same speed. The quality of work is audited after being meticulously self-controlled.
Good LLM use is hard. Once you figure out what tasks to use it with, there are compounding effects of those who've always been the "best" at their roles getting significantly better. Others aren't getting the same increases in efficiency. The gap is widening. Especially with tasks where collaboration is difficult.
The workplace is a competitive environment, where there are limited positions that get ahead. Being viewed as slightly better will get you that first position, that position gets you the next one in competition with others. And so the ball keeps rolling folks who've got the edge upwards.
There are ways of thinking that are transformative.
When a kid learns to read, suddenly a new world emerges due to the transformative nature of reading.
When a kid learns a second language reasonably well, a new world with entirely new cultures emerge.
When a student learns the scientific method in school, a new world with entirely new ways of knowledge emerges.
When in high school /university, an entirely new way of seeing the world emerges after engaging with philosophy/ethics.The same goes for having a basic knowledge of statistics: Suddenly you can evaluate the world in new was.
With coding, suddenly applied logic becomes a real tool for evaluating concepts.
The whole point of this list: AI-use has some of that same transformative nature. For me, the transformation this way is how we think about the most limited resource in our lives: time. AI is all about reimaging time-management and what to spend my time on.
That won't go away either.
-
Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech
nacho Link ParentHahaha this is often true. I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person. Faking...Hahaha this is often true.
I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person.
Faking confidence is the name of the game!
-
Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech
nacho Link ParentI find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's...I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's automatic settings after setting the camera up well. (same experience with similar Sony and Nikon models).
All auto settings work fine, or if I just set one thing and the rest is auto, like setting just shutter speed, or just just aperture if I have something in mind, (or if it's really dark just limiting ISO beyond what I've set the limit for normally).
It's a compromise for sure and not the experience and joy you mention (but that takes time and breaks the moment).
-
Comment on Leave the phone, take a camera in ~tech
nacho LinkGreat piece! I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories: The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact...Great piece!
I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories:
- The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact camera is that they capture those memories in difficult conditions exceptionally well. Like when Grandma has the light in the wrong place, or it's very dark.
When wielding a camera, you also get to do things you can't get away with when using a phone. You get to more things around to rid the scene of mess. You can tell people to smile, you can walk crab-like from side to side, bend your knees and do all the other things that get you those good shots and memories easily.
I have to say, more often than not, I'm also willing to lug a professional camera around because that's worth it too.
-
Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech
nacho Link ParentNo-one is arguing the straw-man of wanting a crime-free society. I can't see anyone in this thread arguing to throw all of society's good values and systems out the window. If you're getting at...No-one is arguing the straw-man of wanting a crime-free society.
I can't see anyone in this thread arguing to throw all of society's good values and systems out the window.
If you're getting at civil disobedience, the whole idea of getting laws changed based on breaking them responsibly hinges on people willing to accept the consequences of being punished for breaking an immoral law. That's the whole idea where civil disobedience is meant as a tool for changing the system.
If we think people are participating in good faith in this thread, that is.
As an aside, I also don't see anyone in this thread who're against enforcing laws presenting an argument for why it's healthy for society to have unenforced or unenforceable laws.
Why do we think those who fight crime for a living feel they need more tools? Are these law enforcement folks, politicians, organizations just lazy? Could it be that those who work on these issues every day just can't find alternatives? Unless we're lazily vilifying them, why do we think all these people believe, in good faith, that their solutions are the least bad solutions? Is everyone just stupid or evil?
Or maybe the simplest explanation is that all these experts genuinely believe they're trying to better the world.
-
Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech
nacho Link ParentI'm sure you understand why I'm not going to waste my time doing this for someone who's accusing me of regurgitating talking points for a government body, rather than recognizing that others may...I'm sure you understand why I'm not going to waste my time doing this for someone who's accusing me of regurgitating talking points for a government body, rather than recognizing that others may not share their personal views on an issue.
There's no reason for me to believe you're willing to engage in good faith.
-
Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech
nacho Link ParentMy country has every single print paper published since we got a national library full text searchable and accessible online. I can explicitly "share, copy, distribute and spread this work" as...Fix the wanton destruction of our culture by the companies that own it, and then we can argue about the peanuts that they're trying to claw from the people who are doing the work that the companies should have been doing from the start.
My country has every single print paper published since we got a national library full text searchable and accessible online.
I can explicitly "share, copy, distribute and spread this work" as long as I credit the creator correctly and don't use the work commercially. The creators of print papers are compensated for this forced "private copying" that is a limitation in local copyright law.
It's similar for novels/books. Practically all published works in the native language are required to be sent to the national library for digitization and archival.
The issue isn't the companies. The legislators are the issue. Society needs to invest in the area. There's no reason not to require sensible archival of loads of content for posterity and making it available for all (while compensating creators for use) after a reasonable amount of time.
-
Comment on Proposed amendments to Denmark's laws on copyright and broadcasting would see VPNs limited for common uses under changes to combat access to illegal streaming services in ~tech
nacho Link ParentThat's not how it works at all. There are regulations and procedures that need to be followed to block or seize a website. We're talking court orders or seizure warrants in all countries it's...It means that whatever government declares an illegal site gets to force every ISP, DNS provider, and web host to shutdown whatver they want without due process.
That's not how it works at all. There are regulations and procedures that need to be followed to block or seize a website. We're talking court orders or seizure warrants in all countries it's reasonable to compare ourselves to in a Danish context (that's mostly true for a generally Western context too).
Is the Great Firewall of China a good thing? Becuase that is, in essence, what you are arguing.
Where have I stated that I'm for totalitarian states and dictatorships having free reign to manipulate and suppress their populations?
Is that ever a reasonable view to ascribe to someone on tildes without that user explicitly stating they're pro-dictators?
What my argument in actuality means is that governments, following due process, need to have the ability to disallow access to a website and ban services that allow circumvention of those bans, then yes that's precisely what I'm arguing is paramount to have in well-regulated democracies.
I'm not prescribing that to be the standard to be followed in non-democracies. Is this something that should be the case in Turkey or Egypt? Probably not, if you're forcing me to draw a line somewhere.
What's the implication of governments not being able in practicality to stop people from accessing the most terrible stuff online?
What're the consequences of not banning access to the very worst humanity can display online?
I urge everyone who doesn't think they share my views on this issue to think long and well on those issues. Think terrorism, making poisons, guides to defrauding others, revenge porn, child porn,, think rigged online gambling sites, think phishing sites, sites pretending to be real services, fake company websites and other IP and copyright infringement, think all the way down to the for-pay services that sell access to illegal content (streaming, entertainment, live sports, book sand on and on).
I understand there are many that have knee-jerk reactions against a regulated internet. They're wrong. Every person I've ever talked to about this topic in person has had to acknowledge that they actually want their government to be able to ban access to online things.
The only real issue at hand is where they want to draw the line. I'm all for the courts being able to ban illegal services and circumvention tools in line with the rest of all the sensible laws that are on the books.
Again, what's the workable alternative in real life? Why can no-one ever present this alternative if there is one? (hint: there isn't one, even in theory).
My life comes down to planning and logistics.
Time is the constraint, so who does what when is a team decision. What has to be done then? What different things do we want to do? When?
It's all a big compromise.
I connote a certain "this isn't on the top of my list of priorities, so the partner can say no" to saying something has to be cleared with the boss.
"Getting permission" can also be about planning something in every moment squeezing out some of that precious family time. Not having something planned, but getting an affirmative to there being enough together-time.
Getting permission can also be about whether or not the partner has something to do that requires someone else to pay extra attention to the kids,
Checking can also be about ensuring there are no other plans they don't know of. Has someone promised the kid a movie or playdate with a friend I don't know about?
There are also certain things I decide unilaterally because that's "my domain" and things someone else decides because that's their domain.
I don't know if others split things in different ways, but I imagine there are as many arrangements as there are families. For instance; whoever cooks decides what's for dinner, wouldn't fly everywhere, but it's a lot of fun for me.