Now that he’s convicted, an interesting question might be “is there enough evidence to convict him in other countries who have extradition treaties with South Korea?”…

I have limited sympathy for people who make their living by bothering people.

Logistics at a certain point does not care what economic model you follow. Someone has to plant the crops and do all the other work that leads to people being fed, clothed, and housed under any system.

If your demographics are such that there are not enough people of working age to take care of those too old to work, you’re going to have the kind of problems that led other human societies to kill their elders.

It’d be great if we could automate our way out of this, but I don’t see that happening soon enough.

NATO is pushing a commitment to a minimum of 5% of GDP on defense.

Which, admittedly even the USA does not do. But in the 60s it was north of 9%.

Most of the cost of things is the embedded cost of labor. Even minerals in a lot of cases. There are a lot of deposits of pretty much everything we could be mining but aren’t because of the cost.

One business may only have 25% labor costs, but the suppliers also have labor costs, and their suppliers, all the way down the line. And 25% is on the low side. Even rent has labor costs embedded.

You may just be having trouble with the idea that people can reasonably and seriously see the world from a point of view other than your own.

Or it’s all a bit!

Who can say? No matter how I answer it’s not really evidence, you can draw a 2x2 decision matrix here for both answers and both possibilities. All four outcomes are plausible. Choose the answer that makes you happiest.

My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?

People make real friends online. Who they don’t know in person. You’d be telling your child to toughen up and get new friends.

I dunno, that depends on how you look at it. From a certain point of view it provides at least one point of evidence to the idea we may be close to our carrying capacity of under-educated people.

If I included a self destruct button beside the AC controls and claimed that it was driver error that was the problem, how credible would that be?

Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.

This was only ever a long shot at best.

Bad drivers and shitty “self driving” are how the cars are unsafe.

No matter how it happens if they crash more often or have worse outcomes when they do, then they’re less safe.

… Why would I care if they miss me?

Why would I care about their opinions at all? I’m pretty sure we care about each other’s opinions about equally as is.

It might make more sense to just not elect judges.

It’s not tone, it’s absence of content. Once you need to make it about me, it means you’ve given up on discussing what I said. What’s true is true no matter who says it, even if you were right about everything you said it wouldn’t change a single thing.

Though if you could be polite too that’d be stellar. Manners and consideration are not weakness.

Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.

When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.

I’m honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.

Thanks.

If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.

If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?

Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.

A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.

But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.

I just don’t think that being right makes you more moral or compassionate. Those are separate vectors, there’s no useful kind/religious axis we can map here.

If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.

Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.