- 10 Posts
- 76 Comments
Do you ever use librivox? There are a few specific readers I found there that are great for me to fall asleep to.
Utilizing the library is a good idea, I should really do they more. I know in the US they need our support too.
Lately I have been trying to notice my doom scrolling actually using it as a cue to convert that energy into reading something I’m interested in.
I’m trying to quit scrolling like I quit smoking decades ago: with intentional anger for being controlled and then redirection.
I have, on a few occasions, rebooted my reading habit from traveling by airplane.
I have found that if I do everything I can to feel as good as possible before a flight, and bring a book in my carry on, it’s one of the rare situations that there is nothing pulling me away from reading. I went somewhere for work last month and I finished 2 books on that trip. That made me really happy and motivated to keep it alive.
3·1 day agoYeah, I think asymmetric warfare is they key word I was grasping for.
I guess I wonder what other games, besides geopolitical competitions (or conflicts specifically) represent similar asymmetry
56·1 day agoChatbots can’t “admit” things. They regurgitate text that just happens to be information a lot of the time.
That said, the irony is iron clad.
This is probably true of a lot of covert operations. Thanks for the history, I did not know that!
But those are just different debuffs!
I didn’t downvote you, I think you offered a thoughtful critique of the question.
Even if parties have wildly different objectives or winning conditions, if they didn’t have to compete for the same resources then they could cooperate or at least ignore each other. That wouldn’t be true if it were a race to finish first, but in that case they’ve started competing for the resource of time.
Maybe some folks thought it was a cop out answer, since I was seeking new perspectives rather than a reason to not ask for them? But, I think your response can help guide responses to even more extreme examples than some potentially topical ones by taking you up on your challenge.
Oh thanks for the tip! I’m going to try out the baldurs gate one
Seriously though this piqued a lot of interest for me. Thank you for this compact packet of fascinating info!
8·5 days agoThe dynamics of the game are way different with a Republican Senate and president. I bet they’ll fall in line in a heartbeat if they keep the house.
2·7 days agoIt’s easy to worry about it, when the change wasn’t even necessary and has no effect if we’re to believe it was written in good faith.
Case in point, this amendment pretended to close a loophole which didn’t even exist. Wisconsin law already prohibited non citizens from voting. It does not pass the smell test, being as haphazardly written as it is now.
In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.
Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.
To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.
If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.
But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).
For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.
“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.
“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.
What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.
The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.
The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?
Moira Fogarty and Ruth Golding