According to OP, there is substantial evidence indicating about 50% of the daycares are scams. I've seen Nick Shirley's video, I don't think he demonstrated any concrete about any of the sites he visited (he's not a very good investigator), but if the 50% number is correct... well, the broken clock was probably right at least a couple of times that day.
>> From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
Right, that was the number I had in my head... and that's for the whole war. This guy apparently believes 300k were killed in the first month, but I have no idea where that's coming from.
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
I find it much easier to take a strong stand on Russia/Ukraine than on Israel/Palestine. The history of Israel/Palestine is much more of a gray area. Palestine has used plenty of aggressive actions and rhetoric that make Israel's actions more understandable (if not justified).
Example of actions: Gaza invaded Israel and killed, raped, and kidnapped civilians on October 7. Ukraine had no such triggering event that caused Russia to invade.
Example of rhetoric: Gaza's political leaders have said they want to destroy Israel. I don't think anyone in power in Ukraine has said they want to destroy the Russian state.
I think "no wars of conquest" is a bright line that was crossed by Russia, that hasn't been crossed by other nations in a long time. And I think it's important for the whole world to take a stand on that, not just the nation that was invaded. It's not a "random stand."
> people who share what the mistakes are and where they themselves have made these very mistakes over the years, to help other people not make them and so that the world continues to remember this hard-learned stuff
But then we have this in your post:
> That tells me that you are writing from ignorance, as for starters that's a truly pathetic test
and
> I had an actual poke around the parser code, in contrast to your superficial experimentation.
Perhaps you really did intend for these lines to be helpful and informative? If so, I encourage you to have a moment of empathy for your interlocutor and ask yourself if talking this way is actually the best way to communicate and pass on this hard-earned knowledge.
> ad hominems, straw men, insults, and vilification
I didn't see this from the other poster. I did see it from you. As a disinterested third party, I'm just telling you, you come off way worse in this exchange. Good luck out there buddy.
You’re misunderstanding the question - he’s asking how Shopify could avoid jurisdiction, not avoid this suit. Jurisdiction is a threshold question before you get to the merits… maybe Shopify did the bad thing, maybe they didn’t, but before we decide that, we need to determine if California law even applies to Shopify.
The author seems to think that there should be some way for Shopify to avoid jurisdiction while still offering services in California, but I don’t really understand why he thinks so.
Other than the one about using only one platform, which you referenced, it seems like he's really just asking for clarity from maintainers about what contributions they would like, and how they would like them to be provided.
What items on the list do you think are just the author's preferences, but other potential contributors wouldn't like? It seems unlikely that contributors would prefer NOT to know if the maintainer doesn't want PRs, or would prefer NOT to have an example of how to contribute, e.g.
Yes, I have one big beancount file tracking everything back to 2014. I use fava for visualization and git for history/backup. I've occasionally gone back and split or moved accounts, based on what metrics I want to track at that moment, it's pretty easy.
However, contrary to the article's automated method, my workflow is to manually input transactions every day (or every couple days, depending on what's going on) and balance my accounts. It's a bit of a ritual, but I like having a really good handle on day-to-day spending. Plus, I find ~10 minutes once a day way easier than (e.g.) ~3 hours once a month, even if it's the same amount of time overall.
Gun control - fair point, this is one where I think an ambitious legislator could really make a name for themselves by pushing for it. I suspect that there would be more pushback from the electorate than is indicated in the polling, but who knows. This is your best point, I'll be really interested to see how public opinion actually breaks if concrete legislation is introduced.
Net Neutrality - maybe? My read on it is that it's just too wonky of any issue for most people to actually care that much about, and polling can't really tell us much about how the electorate would lean if they actually studied it - phrasing of the survey question can probably skew things strongly one way or the other. But, maybe that's just a cop-out.
ACA - doesn't this strengthen my argument? It's popular enough that even when the Republicans had a trifecta they still couldn't repeal it, despite running on "repeal and replace"... Maybe if they had actually had a replacement ready to go, they actually would have succeeded... but they couldn't reach consensus on a replacement, so it didn't happen.
Stock trading by members of Congress - the jury is still out on this one... when did this push start, during Biden's term? If (1) public opinion stays strongly in favor of it during Trump's current term but (2) we still don't see any legislation during the next presidential term... then I would call this a mark in your favor, but not until then.
Overall, I'm still not buying your argument that our government is unresponsive to the will of the people. It's certainly not a perfect reflection of the electorate, but generally when we build consensus, we get things done... it's just that consensus is really hard to come by these days.
Have a good one my friend, thank you for engaging, I think this stuff is really important. :)