admiralteal

Good answers here, but ignoring probably the most realistic and practical truth of the matter in my opinion.

You won’t immediately be sent to the stocks for saying “I don’t want to answer”, the worst case scenario is that some officer of the court informs you that you must answer the question even if you don’t want to. And even that is only going to happen if the attorney asking the question insists. And I struggle to imagine a situation where a competent attorney would do so.

Being hostile towards your prospective jurors, making them feel exposed and uncomfortable, is not a way to march to victory in a trial. They want to ensure you aren’t prejudiced against their client/case. Making you dislike them personally IS prejudice. Causing prejudice is a bad way to eliminate prejudice.

They will ask questions, mostly yes/no ones, that you need to answer honestly. They may ask for clarification. If you don’t want to answer and say so, it’s unlikely anyone will press you because that unnwillingness to answer is just as clear an indication of who you are as anything else.

deleted by creator

I’ll never argue with someone who wants that true, rural/countryside/homestead life. The appeal is there for me too, even if my own calculus says the cons wildly outweigh the pros.

I’m pretty skeptical you’re going to find it 5 miles from a healthy town, though.

Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.

You should read the horror stories from so many of those NYC co-ops. Some would make even the most jackbooted HOA presidents blush.

I don’t really think this is unique to cities of some specific size. I definitely agree that it’s going to be harder to find a perfect fit in a smaller town. But it’s also harder to meet people at all in an anonymous metropolis where you have to work 75 hours a week just to make rent.

If you take away anything from what I have written, it’s that I think this dichotomy is bad. We need a compromise. The lowrise old-world city is what worked for our species for at least 5 millenia – it’s only in the past couple of decades we decided to rethink it and force a schism between the fake rural aesthetic of the suburbs and the productive, efficient downtown – and in so doing we destroyed both city life (by making it ungodly expensive thanks to the immense financial drain the suburbs and lack of continuing infill development represent) and the peaceful countryside life (by putting to death small towns in favor of the interstate highway big box store commercial strip). The only lifestyle that has weathered and still works pretty well in this day and age is the homesteader life, and to say that way of living is not for everyone is definitely an understatement.

If you put a TV in a Faraday cage that blocked the relevant radio spectrum, would there be no static on it? I expected the answer to be a quick Google, but it wasn’t.

This entire question is completely distorted by the poor-qualtiy postwar urbanism that is rampant everywhere.

The reality is, there shouldn’t be much difference. Lowrise cities – 2-4 story buildings/townhomes, small apartments, walkable neighborhoods/mass transit, corner groceries, all that stuff that people think can ONLY exist in big cities should be the norm for nearly all towns.

I don’t think many people would describe a place like, say, Bordeaux as a “big city”. 250kish people in 50 square kilometers is hardly Paris. It’s a small city, or maybe a big town. And it has everything you can want from a city and more. Shows, museums, beautiful multimodal neighborhoods, a robust tram system, restaurants and cafes and bars. All this kind of stuff.

The problem is we’ve all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC. Or else we’ve been trained to think of a “city” like the bullshit they have in Texas, where it combines all the worst features of those island suburbs/car dependence with all the worst parts of city (crazy prices, noise, exposure to nearby-feeling crime, etc).

While a lot of the US big cities are trying to sort out the knots they’ve tied themselves in, your best bet to find beautiful, livable urban-ism is in those much smaller <500k cities that don’t even show up on the typical lists of cities. Especially if they are historic, since the more historic a place is the less likely it got bulldozed in the 60s to make room for more highways (destroying local neighborhoods in the process) Some kind of a big university also tends to be a plus, though it’s a mixed bag. Check for places that do not have an interstate carving through the middle of the city.

We can only get the amenities of modern urbanism in the biggest metropolises these days because of how badly the “suburban experiment” has distorted and destroyed our community life. And there can only be so many metropolises, so they’ve naturally turned absurdly expensive. People can’t afford to live in them because of how much people want to live in them. So they settle for suburbia, since financial poverty feels way worse than poverty of community.

This is literally a “random people too unnoteworthy to even name on social media are saying X” article.

This is tripe. It’s not journalism. I don’t care what the overall message is, the publisher and reporter should be embarrassed to release it.

US conservatives will ALWAYS find an angle to say something is related to how much they hate the imaginary and undefinable threat of “wokeness”. PRC goons will ALWAYS find a way to say something western-produced is anti-China. Neither deserve platforming for their every nonsense claim.

It’s a decent albeit brief write-up of the scene and the story if you take all this social media horseshit out of it. But instead they led with it.

Starting with only autopaid non-flexible spending is a good bet, and there are credit cars that will de facto get you an ~3% discount on those categories just for using them.

Remember, all cash rewards / points systems exist to make you spend more money, though. Like the cards, they’re designed to increase your spending. So it’s the same advice – only think hard about it for fixed costs.

It’s real-time chat. That’s fundamentally different, philosophically, from the way a forum/wiki works.

You can cludge forum-like features into it with stickies and bots and yada yada yada… or you could just use a platform that is designed from the ground up to be a permanent knowledge store instead of extended, glorified AOL chatrooms.

The children do not yet know how much they yearn for the mines of listservs.

A new, novel solution to an already-solved problem that is worse in pretty much every way. But at least it is anathema to retention of institutional knowledge.

In short: just do a fucking PHPBB forum, it’s better than this shit.

And please, if you use consent-o-matic, report the pages it doesn’t work on. It’s very easy to do and results in shit getting fixed.

I’d also bet that a huge portion of those offices rely on at least some kind of proprietary software that doesn’t play nice/officially support Linux. MS Office, for example, or Autodesk’s stuff. When I saw what a headache it would be to get these working on Linux, I just shrugged and decided I’d keep my dual boot available for when I inevitably have need.

You’re turning up the cost dial for every additional workaround or adjustment you ask of people. Just to save what is fundamentally seen as $50-200 up front cost on a system for a new Windows 11 Pro license.

A bunch of people making money jerking one another off and you think any one of them’d be in a rush to rock the boat?

In case you edit it away later. Very good, bye now.

You’ve literally just described your own view as believing in a grand conspiracy where all players have sworn themselves to secrecy in a scheme any one of them could undermine in a moment, so I guess that’s that.

All the industry analysis of the ROI on advertising would’ve had to come to the same spurious conclusions about that effectiveness, too. With the largest, richest, and most profitable firms being the ones MOST fooled.

No, I don’t think anything that strange has ever happened. This is basically a conspiracy theory.

This argument presumes that the entire many-billion and maybe even multiple-trillion dollar global ad industry is ALL based on complete, ineffective nonsense. That everyone has just been bamboozled. That’s a naive view, I think.

The best argument for why we must be vigilant against ads and data collection by advertisers is because the shit does work. It influences people to make purchases, sometimes against their better judgement or reason. Because subverting someone’s agency over their own body and mind is heinous at a very high level.

I’m certain you are wrong. You’ve absolutely purchased products that were advertised to you. You just didn’t make the connection between your decision and the advertisements. You THINK seeing an ad makes you unlikely to buy a product, but you likely only really notice and have an emotional response to the ads for products you weren’t likely to buy in the first place.

Intuit and H&R Block are the reason we have this depraved, inhumane, anti-consumer tax system. They’ve created the laws that make it necessary to use tax prep software. They should not be rewarded for this by getting business for that very tax prep software. Everyone should say no to TurboTax.

irs.gov/freefile

There are always a bunch of perfectly good competitors to them listed. Use those competitors. For most people it’s totally free.

…what do you think is going on here, in this thread?

It’s talking about taking peoples’ money based on your (fraudulent) ability to predict the outcome. There will be victims in the form of the people whose money was taken. Some of those people will see that the result didn’t match. The fraud will be evident to the defrauded victims.

Are the people who run Miss Italy an elected body?

“Free markets” do not exist nor work. Period. Even Wealth Of Nations says so.

Without regulatory control, they become rapidly captured by capital interests that push anticompetitive practices to tie up the market.

To prevent this, all societies, to some degree or another, impose regulations on the markets. They do so in a variety of ways for a variety of philosophical reasons and to varying degrees of success, but there exists no free market anywhere and never could. A truly “free” market would immediately be captured and exploited.

All modern countries but for a few theocracies and authoritarian states function on fundamental principles from socialism, not “capitalism”. Even the ones that claim to be fundamentally Liberal or capitalist are still perfectly happy removing property from a person for the public good – proving there is no fundamental belief in private property – and will follow policies that may harm individuals but benefit the overall social good. And this is good and proper, because these truly “capitalist” principles cannot work in practice.

Let me just repeat for emphasis: free markets do not, have never, and could never actually exist. They just can’t and don’t. It’s preposterous to pursue them. But it IS possible for a socialist to make use of property leases – which look and feel the same as private property but aren’t – and markets to exchange them to give you something that “feels” like a free market but is actually just socialism.