This would only be true if ICE cared to obey the law, which they do not. They are not observing even the most basic facsimile of due process or probable cause. Protesting them is being treated as grounds for brutalization or arrest. They are actively flaunting their contempt for the Constitution while "conservatives" cheer from the sidelines.
this is a great way of articulating it; something I've felt for a long time as a transplant from the Bible Belt who occasionally has to listen to New Englanders sweepingly denigrate the South or Midwest.
Yeah. It's the final nail in the coffin of search, which now actively surfaces incorrect results when it isn't serving ads that usually deliberately pretend to be the site you're looking for. The only thing I use it for any more is to find a site I know exists but I don't know the URL of.
>The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
>The Law of Fives is never wrong.
>In the Erisian Archives is an old memo from Omar to Mal-2: "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."
"abusive", really? you can debate their merits without hyperbole. it's not clear to me that you bothered to read past any of the headlines.
1. is explicitly given the caveat "when not immediately helpful".
2. is rude, regardless of whether it is helpful. if you want to help, join in and actually help.
3. is difficult to imagine ever being helpful, and when feigned is obviously not ordinary, but an obnoxious affectation.
4. has nothing whatsoever to do with being helpful.
I'll leave determining what is ordinary or authentic to others, but suffice to say I don't think either of those things is consistent case to case.
one thing the author touches on that I'm curious about--
> academia is nowadays the exact opposite of free speech and the scientific method
I always see this bandied about as axiomatic, but I'm really curious if:
a. this pertains outside of "softer" subjects and and the liberal arts
b. this isn't a case of overblown media coverage of the occasional "how dare you say XYZ".
I'm a little skeptical of it because I know SV types love to pooh pooh academia, but I went to a devotedly conservative college (and a decade ago) so I'm hoping to hear from someone with recent experience and a lack of that implicit contempt for formal education.
obviously the pro-Palestinian protests exposed some serious issues with respect to speech on campus, but I'm more curious about the typical daily experience of students. are the morality police really so widespread, or is it overrepresented and limited to individual overzealous types and colleges like Oberlin with a reputation for such?
Even if colleges are more censorious these days (which I’m skeptical of), I struggle to think of any institution in American life more open minded than colleges.
Mainstream media acts as a hive mind. Businesses do not host speakers critical of their operations. Silicon Valley VCs are among the most fragile minds out there.
> Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people
epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries. corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume they will do literally anything to make a buck.
Fluoride is known to discolour teeth; also, inactive dental caries will turn dark, and most dentists will jump at the opportunity to drill that shit out.
>especially when these opinions enter a feedback loop with an uncanny resemblance to a religion
It honestly amazes me the way that rationalists have reinvented every aspect of religion. They have scripture, a prophet, an apocalypse, and even a god who will torture you for not doing its will. And to cap it all off, of course, their own non-profit dedicated to preventing the apocalypse. Donate now!
"What about, I don’t know, not stepping in front of buses? It certainly has a commandment (thou shalt not step in front of buses). It has notions of sin (stepping in front of buses) and virtue (not doing that). It has its rituals (looking both ways before you cross the street), its priests demanding obedience (crossing-guards), and its holy places (crosswalks). It promises blessings on the virtuous, but also terrible vengeance on the wicked (if you step in front of a bus, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth)."
I rather admire Scott Alexander--but this strikes me as a very weak argument that boils down to "if you are willing to distort anything enough, it appears to be a religion".
Rationalism does not require that kind of distortion. The parallels are strikingly obvious; I don't have to torture Yudkowsky into a prophet, or the Sequences into scripture. Yud literally predicts the future and tells you to give him money to make it better. When rationalists write litanies and gather for solstice celebrations about how great rationality is, I'm not sure comparing them to a religion requires quite that stretch.
Or, to take a more conciliatory tone: Maybe he's right! But either way there's probably a spectrum, and rationalism is way closer to being a religion than, e.g. fans of the New England Patriots--who can only have a minor apocalypse on an annual basis, and lack scripture entirely--and further away from it than Scientologists.
What do you mean by "central booking system"? As far as I know (working on a rental car contract for a couple years), there are just various travel industry standards for bookings and whatnot.
GDS.
A Global Distribution System is a worldwide reservation system that acts as a conduit between travel bookers and suppliers, such as hotels, other accommodation providers and other travel related services.
I mean there is only one pipeline, to which are contributing many actors, like big agencies (booking, expedia), car rental, airlines, etc. Together, they act as one.
