🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@bonifartius yes we have two now, whichever works as we monitor both

@bonifartius please submit a ticket if you want us to considerit for development, it will be discussed in next meeting

My job isnt so bad. Afterall i could be the guy who has to put all those tiny rubber bands on the claws of lobsters.

@fo

Its likely a mix of things. Eating different healthier foods, moving into ketosis, etc.

I think I'm just starting to enter ketosis, I noticed my thirst levels just started to bottom out.

What is this witchcraft... ive eaten 2 meals, not super hungry, and somehow still have 900 calories left in my diet for the day (and thats not my break even point, thats my loose 2 lbs a week point).

What the hell is going on....

#Keto #Diet

@georgetakei

I accuse you of being devilishly handsome!

@admitsWrongIfProven

If there is one thing i can say is we rarely have solutions that even remotely resemble reality. What we get are absolutist/purist solutions that satisfy one side or the other and is completely inane because even considering valid points of the other side is a betrayal. So you jsut wind up with a bunch of laws that are absurdly skewed to one side or the other and rarely get reasonable laws that consider all issues.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

> If there are gun deaths, you could fight that directly by taking away the guns.

Kinda like how you can prevent vaccine deaths by outlawing vaccines? I mean yea that will objectively reduce deaths from X by outlawing X.. but like with guns that also prevents "lives saved indirectly by X by outlawing X". Which as you point out is exactly like guns, sure outlawing them will reduce deaths directly from guns, but then causes a much larger increase int he deaths from all the things guns help prevent (like rape).

> Or you could look at consequences and make it undesirable, not naming and faming mass shooters in the media is one puzzle piece.

I mean, yea having consequences for bad acts and not rewarding it is certainly one good take if applied correctly. But these are hardly your only two options. Take guns for example, we dont have a gun problem we have a murder problem (of which guns are used a small fraction of the time). So there are plenty of preventative measures one could take that doesnt have the consequence of causing people to die en masse like restricting gun access is known to do. For example providing better mental health and societal dynamics so fewer people become murderers to begin with.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

> The most important part here is that infringing on peoples reproductive freedom is the core problem.

A very valid concern. If thise wasnt a valid concern then I would have just sided withthe bodily autonomy and right to life of the child and said abortions should be banned outright. but since there is a conflicting right of the mother at play any solution could not completely outlaw abortion. But by the same logic since the bodily autonomy and right to life of the child is also a consideration I cant in good conscious also allow abortion to be unrestricted.

My solution minimizes the overall infringement on both parties by 1) ensuring women always know about their pregnancy early with plenty of time to decide and 2) have an adequate window of 2 months to execute on their decision and 3) since both abortions and pregnancy tests are free there is no excuse for delaying

> I merely meant to add to that that a natural market value determined by decisions of few people makes this the problem of the poor majority.

Societies are big, the decisions arent on a "few people" especially when everyone int he very complex network of society who makes decisions themselves are under pressures from the consequences of those decisions. Which means their choices are not at their own whim, since people generally look after their best interest and thus decisions are made by the forces present in society that shape that self interest.

> Improved social services would negate this, making the strategy i strongly suspect the perpetrators have impossible.

providing the right sorts of social services would fix most problems... too few or the wrong kind causes problems, and too much also causes problems. But yes the right sort of social services is critical.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Well, the abortion stuff touches upon a thing that i am uncomfortable with with your stance.

As with most of my views it considers the concerns from both sides of the issue, tries to integrate the legitimate ones (according to me) and find a solution that address all the legitimate concerns from both sides. I feel my solution successfully does this, so naturally, it pisses off everyone on both sides of the aisle.

> After all, the more unemployed people there are, the bigger the pressure to take unfair jobs.

No you have it backwards. The more unemployed people there are, the less you have to pay a person and still be fair. Afterall if the population is largely unhiarable due to no one bothering to get marketable skills, then that means most people's labour has very little value and therefore it is fair to pay them a less-than-living wage.

It is the governments responsibility to ensure the proper welfare programs are in place to support the unmarketable laborers, particularly if they bother to issue a minimum wage that is responsible for so many unskilled laborers to be unhirable. And also the governments responsibility to offer the right frameworks to ensure people have the oppertunity to gains kills and rise above the line of marketability.

It is not a companies responsibility to pay anyone a penny more than their natural market value.

> You are free of this suspicion, only your stance of "if someone takes a job, then the offer was ok" is posing the problem i am talking about.

It was perfectly ok... but there are many possible places to fix the problem, not the least of which could be that the person accepting the job refused to make the right decisions (took a bad offer, he could have maybe gotten a better one if he shopped around). So yes it is always fair but only so far as that it is fair to the choices both parties made, if people had acted more skillfully then there may have been a better outcome

@Hyolobrika

@hammerhead Hi, if youd be willing to tell me more about your situation and whats going on, and what your needs are I'd be happy to consider if I could (or would be willing) to help.

If you arent willing to go into more discussion (as is your right) then I'd like to just say i wish you the best of luck and hope things work out.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Yup. I am this weird mix of generally fisically conservative (not republican conservative but in the sense of being stingy)... I really want to see the overwhelming majority of govt programs abolished or at least significantly reduced

Yet at the same time I see things like education, public transit, and even pregnancy tests and abortions (as long as abortions are illegal after the first 2 months) as all free and tax paid. Which is very much out of line with most people who are fisically conservative.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

My general metrix for "what should we make tax paid (free)" is anything that will benefit all of society more than it costs us.

The benefit of people moving to public transit alone, and the benefits to our health, I think that alone makes the argument well enough. Add to that the reduction in drunk drivers, the fact that homeless and poor people will have transport accessiblity for interviews and anything else they need... it just makes sense as a ROI on every level. Even the people who wont directly use it benefit by having a cleaner environment and fewer poor people or people on welfare.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

The IRS used to have a policy where they only pursued large debts (when taxes owed were above 500K). From what people have told me they now persue people at all levels of income.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

I actually probably wouldnt mind if all public transit were free.

@Hyolobrika

@admitsWrongIfProven

In practice if you dont pay your taxes you will probably wind up paying thema t something like 5x what you owed.

@Hyolobrika

@Hyolobrika

Yea I would hope debtors prison would be a thing of the past... i really dont know much about it outside of the scope of the USA.. ive paid taxes and worked in most major countries. But im not one to skip on my taxes :)

@admitsWrongIfProven

@admitsWrongIfProven

I am not sure, but they probably can take you to the bring of homelessness but would have to leave you with enough pay in your paycheck for your most basic needs.

@Hyolobrika