• 8 Posts
  • 3.82K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • A blanket ban is much more reasonable in the UK where health care is publicly funded than in some place like the US. Someone may think they deserve the right to smoke if they feel like it, but that doesn’t go well with the idea that someone should also get healthcare for free when their bad decision results in the natural health consequences.

    Banning something that’s highly addictive is almost certainly going to lead to a black market. But, maybe that’s better than the alternative? It doesn’t sound like it though. Australia’s cigarette black market has not only resulted in black market cigarettes, it has also resulted in gang wars over territory to sell those illegal cigarettes.

    It seems to me like high taxes are a better idea. If someone wants to kill themselves slowly and inconvenience anybody around them while they indulge their disgusting addiction, make them pay everybody for that privilege. But, if it’s just super high taxes, that’s also going to result in a black market. Apparently in the UK nearly 90% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes already. Maybe they could have an effect with different tax levels for different ways of obtaining cigarettes. For example, a convenience store could have the highest tax rates, serving people who were truly desperate. Or, you could order from a heavily regulated delivery retailer that would deliver a monthly supply. Maybe a low-ish tax rate if you were ordering only 20 cigarettes per month through this site, and a high rate if you were ordering 60+, but not as high as the corner store rate. That would encourage people to keep their consumption low, and discourage them from buying extra cigarettes on top of their regular monthly supply.

    A ban doesn’t sound like it will work. In particular a ban that only affects some people based on a lottery on when they were born. Especially if that lottery means they’ll never legally be able to do something that someone born days earlier who might be part of their friend group can legally do. I don’t think that’s ever going to work out. If they wanted to ramp up the age, it would make sense to either make it slower or faster. If it were slower, (like, people born in 2008 could legally start smoking at 20, 2010 -> 21, 2011 -> 22, etc.) then people might decide to follow the law and then realize that they don’t actually want to smoke when their year comes up. Or make it faster so at first it’s people born in 2008 and after who can’t legally smoke, then people born in 2005 or earlier, then 2000 or earlier. If you’re a smoker and you want to avoid that ban, you’ll know it’s coming and have time to try to quit before your year rolls around. Then it’s not just generation 2008 that has fewer rights, it’s just that their year came up first.



  • Are they though? Stocks are up at the moment, and Trump tends to chicken out of policies that hurt the stock market numbers. But, in the long term a lot of this chaos will probably hurt rich people. For example, the best students are now choosing not to study at schools in the US because of the ICE crackdowns, when they graduate they’re much less likely to work for an American company. And then there’s the long-term economic damage due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. That will probably result in years of higher prices and inflation that will hurt businesses.

    Rich people tend to mostly like stability. It allows them to make long-term investments knowing that the rules won’t change before those investments pay off. Trump’s administration is anything but stable. Backing off of terrible policies when the markets react isn’t as good as not risking those stupid policies in the first place.

    Yes, they’re getting some temporary wins, because Trump has gutted parts of the government that oversee or enforce rules. But, if I were a rich person I’d be very worried about the long-term damage he’s doing.



  • Easy rule, don’t put anything in the oven that doesn’t belong in the oven

    Who’s to say what belongs in the oven?

    For example, bread recipes sometimes tell you to proof the bread by putting it in the oven with the heat off but the light on. There are similar recipes for making yogourt. Or it can be a good place to dry seeds.

    Those things “belong” in the oven. But if you turn on the oven without taking them out you might be very sad. That can happen if you’re turning on the oven in person, but it’s easier to verify the oven is empty when you’re doing that.









  • IMO the Qatar one was safer. Qatar is a country that wants to be seen as a tourist destination. I’m sure there was a concerted effort to look as good as possible during the world cup. I imagine that during the World Cup the police were instructed to be even more lenient towards tourists breaking the rules because they knew that there was a ton of media in the country, and they wanted that media to tell a story that Qatar was a great place to visit, to live, or to set up a company.

    The Trump admin cares a lot more about satisfying their base when it comes to cracking down on “immigrants” than it cares about tourism. Tourists are definitely still a valid target.


  • White, straight-presenting, not obviously something other than christian, and are doing a very standard business trip or holiday trip: you’re probably ok.

    Anything else and the risk goes up. Even something like taking a trip that starts in Seattle, goes up to Vancouver and then comes back via Canadian flights might be suspicious enough to cause problems.

    Probably 99% of the people who go to the World Cup will be fine. Even the ones who are non-white, or are obviously muslim or something. But, I’m positive that with the thousands of people making the trip, there will be tens, maybe hundreds who the Palantir AI and/or racist ICE identify as suspicious, and they will be hit with real trouble.


  • Everybody has an accent. But, do you mean that you can still tell that English isn’t her first language or something?

    A friend of mine is a champion unconscious code switcher. I lived in Australia for a bit and I don’t think my accent drifted much. It was enough of a problem that when I went to restaurants and asked for water they’d look at me confused, so I had to learn to say “whoa-tah”. This friend came to visit me in Australia and within a week he was using Australian terms and drifting into an Australian accent, even when talking to me, and it was completely unconscious.


  • No, neither are diphthongs. I guess the two examples I chose can be pronounced as diphthongs.

    “é” the “acute” accent is pronounced like day, fiancé / fiancée. English has a tendency to make those into diphthongs, especially if you’re speaking slowly. But if you’re speaking quickly and it’s between consonants like say “mandate” you don’t really hear the second vowel sound in that supposed diphthong. But, it’s just the /e/ vowel sound in IPA. In any case, it’s a sound that English speakers make and can hear.

    “è” the “grave” accent is pronounced like pet, jet, etc. It’s /ɛ/ in IPA.



  • The people who side with the so-called “trucker convoy” that was mostly non-truckers defend it as simply being “free speech”, and “being critical”.

    But, what actually happened is that the so-called “truckers” occupied downtown Ottawa for weeks, including areas with high-rise residential buildings. They prevented any traffic from moving, and harassed anybody who came nearby that weren’t part of the occupation. They also leaned on their horns at night keeping people nearby from being able to sleep. Eventually two of the organizers of the occupation were tried and convicted for “mischief”, a crime that can lead to up to 10 years in prison. They got off extremely light with home detention for 1 year and another 6 months of a 10 pm curfew.