Reply to: Note 39742 posted by Redryn Oh, right, people could just rebuild at 200. But what if rebuild only makes trains available for instinct at SH? That way, any rebuild trains obtained before SH would have to be put back into stats, so you can only really benefit if you take that hit at the next SH sit. Of course, someone planning to do 30 morts without sitting would still benefit, like redoers... unless you made the first 2k trains non-intinct-able or something. Since early stats are cheaper for redoers, they might not be able to bank as many extra trains that they weren't already going to under the current system, while lower tiers might actually get to bank quite a bit more than they do under the current system... So it could be made to favour lower tiers over redoers, unless I'm missing something else.
showing 50 most recent notes by Sonshi
Re: "Rebuild Trains". +++++++
Saturday, May 19, 2018 @ 21:31
Re: "Rebuild Trains". ++++
Thursday, May 17, 2018 @ 22:16
Reply to: Note 39734 posted by Koala I'd probably rebuild and dump into instinct... but it'd cripple me at next sh for a while, as has been said, so it might even be a disadvantage to do that. That part probably is a reasonable trade off. The other part is that I (and others) will probably use all trains instead of saving them for instinct, so tiers in particular will be a bit stronger towards the end of their morts. It probably makes the low to mid tiers stronger though, since the marginal stat cost for high tiers at the end of their morts would be pretty high. Also, for some people, the last 15 levels are pretty irrelevant anyway. I'm not sure when people start putting trains into instinct instead of stats, but I suspect this doesn't affect a wide range of levels, expecially if you discount the last 15. In any case, if everyone is doing it, it probably doesn't make a significant difference over the long run anyway. Any unused trains might as well be auto-deposited for those who forget...
Re: Manor teleport?? ++
Tuesday, May 8, 2018 @ 22:54
Reply to: Note 17947 posted by Abelinc Also, when the exit from the old area to the porch isn't deleted, as is (was?) the case here, it creates a kind of one-way wormhole from one manor area to another, via the moved porch.
Thursday, April 19, 2018 @ 22:31
Reply to: Note 39597 posted by DjVoltron The name and helpfile seems to fit revenge more though. Interference or unprovoked attacks are exactly what are supposed to trigger revenge. If you want it to apply to cases where you have no revenge, you'd have to change the name and helpfile to fit.
Re: XIV and market risk: a warning. +++++
Wednesday, February 14, 2018 @ 21:27
Reply to: Note 385 posted by Impurifan If there was enough arb capital behind it it would've converged faster, and people would have actually lost less. Sadly the arbs either dropped the ball or did not have enough to cover margin, or everyone had problems locating the shares if what you say about ibkr is true. Perhaps the tide of bids was simply too great. Pre-hedging doesn't matter to XIV. Wrong NAV published could only be true if VIX futures settlements were incorrect. Technically it's closing IV. (Can calculate it yourself!) Should thoroughly understand product you are trading, especially if you want to arb it! Especially dangerous to arb something without full knowledge of contract specs. Other risks exist, of course. Certainly one would need experience, but the best academics can acquire it fairly quickly, judging from Simons (of Chern-Simons in topology) and Shaw. Of course, it would require more time than a side project. If there were more of them interested, markets might well become more efficient. That is not likely to happen though, given that the smartest people tend to be interested in other pursuits, with a few notable exceptions. ALSO A WARNING FOR ANYONE TEMPTED TO GET INTO SVXY The more money piling into short vol bets, the smaller the crash you need to make the whole thing blow up. This is because of the massive short covering involved. Money is already pouring back in, and will keep doing so as long as it keeps working, until the strategy blows up again. While it isn't a certainty, the risk will only increase as time passes...
Re: XIV and market risk: a warning. +
Monday, February 12, 2018 @ 22:34
Reply to: Note 381 posted by Impurifan Anyone who noticed before it was too late and could have shorted it made a lot. Few economics professors really teach market efficiency. Any real (Keynesian) economist is well aware of the inefficiencies of the market! It is almost unbelievable how many tens of millions were given away by unfortunate people who were willing to bet large sums but unwilling to do the simplest of calculations or research to figure out what their bets are worth. Looks like it may be time to apply for a margin account so I don't miss the next chance, if it ever comes again while I'm not working. It was basically a riskless short. My version of the saying is that those who teach, do. Those who can't, wind up moving into industry and making multiples of what they would otherwise. It's really easy for a good academic to make lots of money, since the market is so inefficient. This is limited by their general lack of capital, and general lack of attentiveness when something this crazy happens. Until you see it a few times you wouldn't believe that something so incredibly stupid (and profitable for the other side) could happen. I would note that it didn't trade down to 5 the next day, so you couldn't have covered it at 5. One would think you'd remember your trade prices on a day like that... Tsk, the arbitrageurs must have run out of risk to give that day. If only I had a margin account and wasn't at work... Every extra bit of capital short would've caused more convergence and actually saved those poor clueless bidders some money. It was basically like the time the market got bond CTDs wrong except for one firm which had the right calculation, except this is way more obvious.
XIV and market risk: a warning.
Sunday, February 11, 2018 @ 00:00
The recent crash and loss of life savings by many wannabe traders and "investors" is a lesson for anyone dreaming of get rich quick schemes. There's a saying that if you don't know who the sucker is in the room, it's you. The problem is that too many suckers think they know who the sucker is (not them). Trading on margin is a particularly bad idea if you don't know what you are doing. If you are trading on margin on Robinhood, you don't know what you are doing. If you are trading on margin on most well-known online brokers, you probably don't know what you are doing. If you are trading on Interactive Brokers, you likely don't know what you are doing, but at least they've the best risk controls and most reasonable fees, so you are far less likely to owe 20k to your broker if your positions blow up in your face. (If you have to be stupid, at least be stupid on IBKR.) Generally if you have a cash account and no margin, at least you can't lose more than you put in. If you stick with index tracking ETFs, you won't lose more than the index (plus fees, MM spread, and slippage, which is small for liquid products)... As long as it's an index like stocks or bonds, you can't really do too badly in the long run, unless that country collapses. Just don't get into an "investment" which operates with huge leverage and does a lot of selling low and buying high. Make sure you understand what you are doing... I hope no one here lost too much. If you didn't, these are exciting times for anyone with an interest in economics and/or markets! (This record blowout in short term VIX futures is by far the largest. It may stand as the largest for decades in percentage terms, as such a major short squeeze prompted by billions invested in short vol having to close out in a matter of minutes just days after their usual pattern of selling at close to historical lows might warn people off from such stupidity again. But who knows. Never bet against stupidity happening. The funny thing is that Credit Suisse's product was working exactly as designed, and really... a lot of people saw this coming from a mile off. Just not the timing.)
Shithole black humour
Monday, January 15, 2018 @ 13:29
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Re: math help / odds. ++
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 @ 21:31
Reply to: Note 27361 posted by Lasher Yeah, this sounds like the straightforward case. Every time you are allowed to start making rolls, the chance of winning at least k rolls in a row is just p^k. The chance of getting exactly k rolls and then terminating is just p^k * (1-p). Each time you are allowed to start making rolls again is a separate, independent "game", which terminates as soon as you make a losing roll, so there isn't any complication.
Re: math help / odds.
Monday, November 20, 2017 @ 22:26
Reply to: Note 27353 posted by Lasher Well... this is corect if you want to figure out the odds for something happening all k times out of k tries. The phrasing "k times in a row" kind of implies you're thinking about the odds in a string of n>k attempts though... and it's not entirely clear what sort of outcome you want, from how the question is posed. For example, suppose n=k=3, and it's a fair coin flip. Then the odds are 1/8. But if k=3 and n=4, notice that the odds are not 2*(1/8), but rather 3/16. On the other hand, if you count a sequence of HHHH as two HHH events, and in general a row of j heads as j-2 separate "3 heads in a row" events, then indeed the expected value of the number of such events increases by 1/8 with each additional increase in n beyond k=3... But that may or may not be what you're trying to achieve... a good part of math is rephrasing the question so that the answer is what you really need to know.
Re: US constitution / gun laws ++
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 @ 17:23
Reply to: Note 301 posted by Virion Didn't these gunmen get the memo that it's too soon since the last mass shooting to start killing more people? So frustrating.
DONT sell anything to Mcgregor +++++
Tuesday, October 31, 2017 @ 17:08
Reply to: Note 48057 posted by Gravy I'm sure he'll make good next time you remort... You can tell the world again if he doesn't.
Re: DONT sell anything to Mcgregor ++++
Tuesday, October 31, 2017 @ 17:05
Reply to: Note 48055 posted by Gravy Maybe you can work out an equivalent amount of tps instead, to either settle the transaction, or hold as collateral until the transfer can be made?
Re: why does usa gave elected DAs?
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 @ 14:52
Reply to: Note 293 posted by Impurifan The US has so many elected offices that people joke about electing dogcatchers. At least, I think it's a joke... With so many elected offices, the ordinary voter surely can't keep track of them all. This leads to a bunch of offices that are effectively decided by a few people in an opaque process, where any eventual incompetence and/or corruption by the official can be disclaimed by other elected representatives on the grounds that it is an elected office and they can't really fix it. Ironically, this means that the system becomes less democratic. At least in other systems the people can hold elected executives responsible for their poor choices of appointees. (And if the voters don't hold the executive responsible... one might say the country reaps what it sows...)
Re: OPK Restrictions for New Players +++++
Sunday, October 22, 2017 @ 11:29
Reply to: Note 38035 posted by Fiendish >Dying doesn't actually hurt. Doesn't grace cut down exp? Dying also takes time from levelling. It should not be too annoying even for new players, under the assumption that they don't get killed too often by just about every passing opk player... but given how long new players can wander around an area while on campaign, I'm not sure we can make that assumption. I'm not sure how often a new player toggles opk, but I can see that it could get really annoying for those who do, and they most likely aren't going to wait around for 3 days to turn it off. When growing opk fodder, we should not eat the young...
Re: OPK Restrictions for New Players +++++
Sunday, October 22, 2017 @ 10:56
Reply to: Note 38033 posted by Zengo Perhaps below T1 (or whatever) the command needs to be entered twice, and the first time it warns the player that it's a terrible idea.
Re: US constitution / gun laws ++++
Saturday, October 7, 2017 @ 23:44
Reply to: Note 284 posted by Taeryn Also, the sordid history of humanity, and indeed much of the third world, shows that the average civilian has much to fear from armed groups (government or otherwise)... and can't really do anything much against them individually. When the government isn't too oppressive, arms make the country less safe. When the government is too oppressive, arms quickly become easily available, whether or not the government tries to limit them, unless the country is so thoroughly impoverished that no one can afford to resist. Initial availability of arms is a trivial factor in resistance to tyranny, compared to awareness and the ability to coordinate (free press, privacy, etc.)
Remove Myth from T0 GQ range ++++++
Monday, June 26, 2017 @ 21:25
Reply to: Note 27152 posted by Myth Well, I don't know if gqs have gotten longer or Myth has slowed down lately, but I could've sworn the times I can see from gq h aren't anything unusual at that range... Why, I think I might've been faster by T1, which isn't too far off from a T0 sitter, and without a mapper too (initially). It was a long time ago though, so maybe my exploits grow greater in my memory with each passing year. "Gather round, children, and let me tell you how I did a gq in five pulses." "But that's impossible, grandpa!" "Shush, you." Give it a while and he'll eventually get tired of winning (or build a bot and get impea... nuked.)
Re: What kind of trouble can I get into if ... ? +
Sunday, June 18, 2017 @ 20:25
Reply to: Note 212 posted by Samsung Too many people get suckered into making bad decisions for someone else's profit... I'm not sure what can be done about it, but beating up on the victims probably isn't going to deter too many people from getting suckered. Better information might help people make better decisions... But then maybe not. As an aside, look at all the rich and supposedly smart people putting their money into random "2 and 20" funds. Human stupidity is fairly common...
Vlad-Shamir - Valkur's demon navy seal ++++
Friday, June 16, 2017 @ 21:05
Reply to: Note 16219 posted by Arcidayne Replying to thread... Given that Valkur is a demon lord of (allegedly) some repute, "even Valkur has..." doesn't make sense, unless you delete the "demon" bit. Even then, it doesn't make too much sense, since Valkur is supposed to be some sort of powerful demon leader. It's just out of place with the area. Consider: "Even Tim, the village gang leader, has demon navy seals. Everyone has them!" "Even the USA has nuclear weapons." "Even China has mountains." "Even Russia has harsh winters." "Even T* says dumb stuff on Twitter."
Re: US gun laws +++
Wednesday, June 14, 2017 @ 19:27
Reply to: Note 42 posted by Turie As long as the Reichstag isn't on fire, it's another unfortunate but forgettable incident.
Re: a madman in Afterglow +
Monday, June 5, 2017 @ 21:04
Reply to: Note 16195 posted by Mendaloth Given the context "Given the order..." "with extreme prejudice" makes more sense and was probably what was meant.
tax inequality in america ++++++
Tuesday, March 28, 2017 @ 22:03
Reply to: Note 165 posted by Redryn What I don't understand fully is why "married filing separately" can't be something like "married filing as if single". I assume there must be some drawback to allowing that that isn't immediately obvious. Or something even simpler, like having all returns be individual, and allowing one spouse to be claimed as a dependent and any income added to the income of the one claiming the dependent.
Re: tax inequality in america ++++++
Monday, March 27, 2017 @ 21:55
Reply to: Note 160 posted by Magna So... from a cursory glance at the tax structure, I gather that there may be a disincentive to two high income (80k+ or thereabouts) people marrying, under some circumstances, which increases in likelihood as the lower income of the two increases? I hope that's not why so many rich people have trophy spouses who do nothing of substance.
Re: Data-analyst/Datascientist/Growth Hacker etc +
Saturday, February 11, 2017 @ 20:02
Reply to: Note 7228 posted by Quadrapus For probability, try Durrett. It's probably still available free on his site. Solving problems and figuring out what you need for those problems is likely the best approach if you don't want to (re)do university/get a masters/PhD. And yes, repeat until satisfied, surrender, or death. There are a lot of tools already available in languages like Python, etc. but you still have to understand what they are or it's going to be garbage in, garbage out.
Re: Chasing conversations to debate. +++
Monday, January 9, 2017 @ 20:42
Reply to: Note 36546 posted by Samsung Bullying has no place in any civilised argument. My personal opinion is that spam to passive listeners isn't usually a good enough reason to move a conversation off. However, there are good points about spamming newbies... immt or noble would probably be better? Not my call, of course. It depends heavily on who you're trying to appeal to too, naturally. The interest of interested newbies, uninterested newbies, annoyed third parties, lurkers who want to listen in sometimes and don't want the conversation to go off somewhere and die almost immediately like it usually does after being told to move... coughcough. Anyway, the balance of these interests is ultimately up to the admins... decisions should preferably be clearly supported by helpfiles (and amended accordingly) if it's not too much trouble. This will save on a lot of disagreement.
Re: Nesting Chamber in Unearthly Bonds ++
Friday, December 30, 2016 @ 19:51
Reply to: Note 16060 posted by Arcidayne Compare "some guy painted this stuff" with "some guy-painted this stuff"
Re: incing opks +
Sunday, December 18, 2016 @ 21:16
Reply to: Note 36389 posted by Fiendish How about something like: If a spell would give someone revenge who isn't attackable by the caster, then the spell is disallowed (call it divine protection or whatever). In other words, you prevent hostile acts towards engaged opk players if they aren't attackable by the caster.
Re: winning the lemmings game in birthday is too easy
Friday, December 9, 2016 @ 21:02
Reply to: Note 17132 posted by Fiendish Huh, that's odd. I remember the lemmings dying really quickly when I did the goal, and it was pretty hard. For some reason the bees don't seem to be attacking the lemmings anymore. Something must have broken the code at some point? Maybe some change in how mobs attack each other?
Re: Relative difficulty of hacking +
Sunday, November 27, 2016 @ 19:14
Reply to: Note 86 posted by Mokg Well, neither voting machines nor industrial machinery in secret nuclear complexes usually are... but which is easier, or are both impossible? Both are probably really hard, but what are the relative risks?
Relative difficulty of hacking
Wednesday, November 23, 2016 @ 22:15
In light of recent allegations, I wonder what knowledgeable CS people think... How doable/impossible is, say, hacking into industrial machinery in a military nuclear facility and gaining enough control over it to cause it to undertake certain actions desired by the hackers? How does this compare to the difficulty of hacking into voting machines and gaining enough control to cause it to undertake certain actions? It may be a bit of an apples to oranges thing, or not... but it would be interesting to hear the opinions of actual CS people... Not that anyone would want to do something like that, of course. That'd be crazy.
Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 00:43
Reply to: Note 1 posted by Dolt ... begins and often ends at the ballot box!
Re: How Donald Trump win, any hidden agenda? +
Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 00:35
Reply to: Note 44 posted by Lucron When you do something that makes your friends gasp in horror and your enemies literally throw parties, it's usually not the greatest thing. Maybe the whole world is crazy and you're the only sane ones! It does happen! p
Re: Your crazy election conspiracy theory. +
Sunday, October 30, 2016 @ 00:07
Reply to: Note 27 posted by Fiendish This sounds like wishful thinking, possibly brought on by the... hopefully unique circumstances recently. For reasons that made perfect sense and seemed like a great idea at the time, the branches of government were given a great deal of authority to block each other, just in case one of them went rogue. Whether these checks would be effective anyway hasn't really been put to the test, since no one has tried very hard to completely bypass democratic institutions here. At least, that is what I like to think, except for the one time a civil war broke out. Maybe I shouldn't accuse others of wishful thinking... glass houses and all. But I disgress... the executive has a great deal of latitude to act in an emergency, as is usually the case in most countries. It can also "interpret" laws made by the legislature to some degree. That is a significant amount of power, and grows in proportion to how much it is abused... As far as appointments go, both sides have to agree on it. However, the executive has more power there, for at least two reasons. First, it is the one which comes up with the names. Anyone congress wants but the president does not will not even come up for consideration, technically. Secondly, the moment congress goes on holiday (recess) for more than a few days, the president can make a recess appointment. This last until the end of the next session if not confirmed... and the president can always make another appointment the next recess. Of course, the senate can simply keep itself in session perpetually... which is becoming more often than not the usual state of affairs, just to prevent this particular scenario. Most of what we think of as the government has a chain of command that terminates at the president... and to imagine that most people would do what congress wishes rather than what their boss wants (and what his/her lawyers will assure you is perfectly legal) strikes me as a bit too good to be true. In practical terms, it probably derives a lot of power just from this.
Re: Your crazy election conspiracy theory. ++
Sunday, October 2, 2016 @ 21:48
Reply to: Note 6 posted by Lasher So do I. My theory is that moderates don't turn out for primaries because there aren't any clearly good candidates, so good candidates don't bother running because there aren't enough moderate voters in the primaries...
Re: Your crazy election conspiracy theory. +
Saturday, October 1, 2016 @ 20:42
Reply to: Note 2 posted by Redryn We clearly have two of the weakest candidates ever to grace an American presidential election! How dare Clinton catch a bug? How dare Trump suffer from fatigue and a possible cold on stage?! Real presidential candidates -- nay, real men -- would transcend so-called human illness. Germs would not dare even approach such real men! Clinton isn't even a man! Even death itself cannot hope to overcome true presidents! Did the Grim Reaper ever take George Washinton? Never! Not only did he defeat the British and single-handedly founded America, he defeated Death and thus gained immortality! Clearly, we must reject these two pathetically weak candidates, physically unsuited for the task they hope in vain to be given, and draft George Washington for one more term. Only he, or perhaps any of the true presidents after him, has the fortitude and strength to save America once more! Besides, he has at least as good a chance as any third party candidate.
Thursday, September 15, 2016 @ 20:20
(Golden Aura) A merman splashes past you, triton in hand. The imagery is amusing, but...
Additions to famous last words
Monday, June 27, 2016 @ 20:08
"More scaremongering by so-called experts. Why would the pound crash anyway?" "It's not like my vote counts, I'm sure it's all rigged anyway." "When has one little protest vote hurt anyone?" (Hopefully not to be added) "Can't get any worse, right?"
Re: Dying Orchard - Sundered Vale +
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 @ 18:58
Reply to: Note 15873 posted by Lobisomem Is it really necessary to have the copula in such cases? It seems to me that sometimes its omission has a more poetic feel in a limited number of cases... "The more the merrier" "BRITTANIA VICTORIOUS AGAIN" "The call of the wolf a seemingly lonely cry in the wilderness..." "This last push but a forlorn hope against impossible odds, against implacable opposition, against all reason"
Re: a tiger - spyreknow +++++
Sunday, June 19, 2016 @ 21:30
Reply to: Note 15847 posted by Anaristos Noun phrases ought to be alright as sentences. Right? No? Yes? (flees)
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 @ 19:36
"history of war shows that the new weapon, however effective, will eventually lose its power, as the opponent is bound to find methods to nullify its effects." - Domei, via NYT, Aug 8 1945 Still waiting...
Sunday, May 8, 2016 @ 21:33
Shocking new study confirms liberal intellectual establishment in cahoots with terrorists! *Math departments nationwide found to work with Al-Gebra. *Computer Science departments caught working with Al-Gorithm. *These dapartments said to work together with Bin Ary. Please report immediately if you see professors attempting to board your airplane or train!
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 @ 20:01
Candidate A: I'm on a mission from God Himself! Candidate B: I don't remember sending you on any mission...
Re: Here we go! ++++
Friday, March 4, 2016 @ 17:51
Reply to: Note 351 posted by Kryzzler About this thread, would like to point out a couple of things. First, photons have mass... just not rest mass. Second, there is good reason why we say that c is the speed limit. The short version is that if you try to "overtake" light with an object travelling initially below c, you can't do it, which you can "see" from the object's perspective. Then you have people wondering about particales that are always travelling above c... but that's another story for another day.
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 @ 14:51
Reply to: Note 305 posted by Nuanse Do you think that rules set by agencies do not have the force of law when those powers have been given to those agencies under the law? Just because the rules themselves are not explicitly or "exactly" laid out in the law? Good luck with the EPA, etc. If a govt body bans something they have the power to ban, it is a ban even if the ban itself is not specifically written into law.
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Saturday, December 19, 2015 @ 12:06
Reply to: Note 300 posted by Abelinc | You can get a license for target practice, or you can get a license for | personal protection. It is a much more restricted process, but it is within | the gun control legislation in Singapore. This is only technically true, in the same way that you might say that unicorns exist because it's physically possible for a horse to one day evolve to grow a single horn on it's head. Or something. While the law provides for the possibility of obtaining a license for the purpose of personal protection, in practice it is impossible, since it requires police approval. In short, not everything that is banned is banned by statute. This is not peculiar to Singapore... a lot of authority is delegated to lower bodies in every country, and a lot of approvals are subject to guidelines set by these bodies not specifically written into law. | with plenty of people wanting to "go the way of Singapore". "Plenty" is a bit vague, but even in the comments sections of news sites where the most radical sorts emerge, people wanting to go this far are a tiny minority at best. The idea that there are plenty of people arguing for it might just be a fantasy spread (very effectively!) by certain lobbyists to whip up their base.
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Monday, December 14, 2015 @ 09:09
Reply to: Note 292 posted by Abelinc Only within ranges. A civilian being licensed able to own and use a gun within a tightly controlled compound for the purposes of recreation is a bit different from what Americans usually mean when they say "own and use" guns. Claiming that civilians "ARE able to get a license" for owning/using guns based on that is quite a stretch. Unless you're saying that you can actually get a license to own a gun at home without any direct need for it, which is completely false. The police in Singapore only issues licenses for guns if you need to carry one (for work, basically, although rare exceptions may be made for other critical needs, though I can't imagine what they might be).
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Sunday, December 13, 2015 @ 10:16
Reply to: Note 288 posted by Abelinc | For the record, no country has implemented a "whole gun ban thing". Not even | Singapore. Well, of course the military, police, and a few other services still have guns. But it's a gun ban in the sense that civilian are not permitted to own (lethal) guns unless they are in an occupation that requires it as part of its job description.
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Saturday, December 12, 2015 @ 09:12
Reply to: Note 284 posted by Kryzzler Yes, many other factors reduce crime, much more so than gun control. I haven't mentioned it (much?) because the topic is supposed to be gun control, but since someone already went off topic... *whistles innocently* Countries with lower rates of poverty, better housing, fairer policing and laws, health care, etc. tend to have much lower rates of crime in general. Take Singapore for instance. Gun crime is practically nonexistent, but overall crime is fairly low too. With extremely low homelessness rates, easily available health care, efficient but lighthanded policing coupled with heavyhanded punishments, strong education, etc. there's really far less incentive or inclination to turn criminal. The bottom 20% is better housed, better educated, healthier, more easily employed, and receive much better treatment from the police than in the US. So it's not surprising at all that they'd be less likely to rob/steal/kill/start a gang or whatever. Addressing these issues is well worth the investment. I'd bet that if you stick most of the homeless in free housing built on the outskirts of major cities along with some standard facilities (transport, health, education, etc.) you'd recover the cost in terms of reduced crime and economic gain when some of those people eventually manage to find employment that they couldn't while living on the streets. Then there's improving education, which everyone claims to want but can't agree on anything that works. (Too cheap to increase teacher pay. With education degrees being at or close to the bottom in terms of pay, just what kind of "talent" do they think they're attracting on average?) Improving policing, healthcare, and other service would also really help... but I've rambled on long enough...
"gun control" in US news a lot lately ++++
Saturday, December 12, 2015 @ 09:05
Reply to: Note 283 posted by Fiendish If we want to save people, there's plenty to do in impoverished countries. For the purposes of a specific policy issue, we should be looking at the effectiveness of the policies. | Can someone please provide more philosophical arguments? Well... it's hard to argue the philosophy if we cannot agree on the effects... "blahblahblahphilosophy so tradeoff X is reasonable blahblah" "But tradeoff X doesn't exist!" (No one talks about the philosophy for the next 213 posts)