OK can be something like "yes" (ita or repeat the finite verb)?
@tony It could very well be an attempt to show the world, "I'm not stupid", or "I have good taste", when done out of insecurity.
I know for a fact that there are enough people who consider a well filled bookcase to be a kind of decoration and status symbol, amongst whom a Dutch right-wing populist leader.
@JoonasIlmavirta That is true: originally, j (without a dot) was just an alternative rendering of i (also without dot), partly in order to distinguish between ii and u/n, which otherwise often looked similar in (mediaeval) manuscript.
The pronoun I began to be 'capitalized' around the middle of the 13th century. But this was not true capitalization. Note that it was long before the printing press: all texts were in manuscript.
Before the 11th century, the letter i was normally just a short vertical line, without a dot, somewha...
@JohhanSantana I could mean "I understand what you're saying", or some other things.
But that may be a good question on the site, with the proper context given!
@Cerberus I do not want to recrowd a thread you took time to manually clean, but he is purposely distorting the matter by posting, editing and deleting comments all round. And he is refusing to engage anywhere else.
He did edit some of his comments from earlier in the day which are now deleted. Anyhow, I am satisfied with your mediation and will not engage any further with him. Thank you.
@SamparkSharma I edited several of them: I don't think he feels the need to temper his own comments.
Yeah, shrugging things off is usually the best approach!
And/or ignoring stuff on the Internet that you don't like, for whatever reason.
Like a video in which someone makes an ugly scrapbook, or an infelicitous political opinion, or...when someone is WRONG on the Internet.
You probably already know this one.
@Adam No, indeed!
And they were usually allowed to disagree with powerful people, even during the Principate (though it depended on the emperor...).
@RetractedAndRetired In all seriousness, I am fundamentally opposed to any kind of copyright or patents. I think they are harmful to humanity.
Now, secrets, I can have some sympathy with, as long as they are not protected by law.
But, in general, the more openness in computer code, the better. It's just that I can understand when some people might not wish to publish their own code under certain circumstances.
@Cerberus You could argue that patents and copyrights, by preventing people from just making exact copies, forces people to innovate instead of duplicate
I do think there is a big difference when it comes to computer code, though
@Adam I have heard that argument, but it fits the interests of big commercial parties awfully well.
And I don't believe in its practical truth: with more freedom comes better culture and science, it is my belief.
But, regardless, I think artificially trying to make information a scare commodity even though it can be infinitely multiplied without cost is the biggest waste of human resources there is.
Humanity has reached greatness through the sharing of information.
And that may be why our brains are so big: I have read that most of our brain's structure and/or power is directed at social skills.
Patents and copyrights in the context of a product you want to sell is very much a capitalist thing to me, and I agree with you that the negatives are more harmful than the positives when not thinking of the individual. I might draw the line with artistic creations like art, music, works of fiction, etc, where you want to copyright your creation. Not really the same thing, though.
I can copyright a song and say "this idea was created by me" but still let everyone hear it and enjoy it for free
@Cerberus A copyright for an artistic creation only prevents someone from trying to say they made it themselves and doesn't prevent others from enjoying it or being inspired by it.
A record label would probably see it just like anything else that makes money, though.
You mean that a copyright would prevent someone from enjoying an artistic work?
I suppose a copyright could do that if an artist forbade their work from being shown or played without being paid. At that point it's just like other product.
I'm letting my own personal feels skew things a bit because all I'd ever want is proper credit and nothing else.
@Adam Yes, that is what is happening all the time, isn't it?
@Adam OK but that is something different from copyright (well, it may be included in various copyright laws around the world, but it is something different).
It is the right to copy information that I believe should be universal (unless it conflicts with certain other fundamental human rights, like privacy).
Ironically, you would think that Republicans here would be champions of those principles, but they sure seem to do the opposite in terms of telling people what they or can't do with their bodies and beliefs (or lack thereof).
Research and development of things that require a lot of money need not be funded in the extremely inefficient and indirect way that is patents, but rather directly by governments and semi-governmental organisations.
Governments can just fund companies directly to do the research and development, exactly as it is being done with the current vaccines.
That will be the incentive.
And, once the research and development are done, the companies have received plenty of money, and then everyone can copy and use the technology.
Those big companies should be paid for work done, not some amount that is completely unrelated to how much work they do or to how important their work is.
@Cerberus Research is already funded this way. Patents are just an added bonus to the universities and corporations which take federal money and then charge the public again by licensing.
Autohotkey, Strokes Plus, a certain Dutch-English-Dutch dictionary, games, and probably a ton of other stuff.
@RetractedAndRetired Butter, really?
I can do without butter! But cheese...
I don't eat a ton of meat. I think I would miss bacon the most.
I think cheese is about as bad as certain kinds of meat.
But e.g. beef from Argentina is I believe many hundreds percent more harmful than beef from Holland.
(Although, in Dutch supermarkets, you will probably find little Dutch beef: it's shipped all over the world and back, so we probably eat bad beef most of the time like everyone else.)
@Cerberus Maybe. But I don't drink milk anymore, either. I can eat cheese, just don't eat too much of it. Plus the calories. But if I wouldn't be all that bad if I split a wheel of honey-baked brie cheese for dinner.
My wife and I recently started using hellofresh.com several weeks back. It's really convenient because you get just what you need for a meal. No wasted leftovers, some variety, and better portion sizes (not huge, in other words).
@Joonas: I'm delighted that books are still highly-valued. Some seem to have entire libraries, in their homes--ceiling-to-floor; all the walls--they cannot possibly have read them all? At Uni, I recall students who collected books like talismans. The thinking may have been--the more of these I buy, the better I'll do...Even though I never look at them!
@Adam I find it weird that the US still has what I might find most descriptive to call colonies. A problem with this nomenclature is that I shouldn't perhaps call DC a colony...
@JoonasIlmavirta You're not wrong. I dislike that we have people who are considered US citizens but don't get the same representation in government as the rest of us.
@tony Some people read a lot. If you read a hundred books a year, they will quickly fill up your trophy shelf.
@Adam Do you know what the main reason against making DC and Puerto Rico states is? I hope it's not gerrymanderous; I imagine they would both vote democrat.
@JoonasIlmavirta It's presented in different ways by those on the main continent, but a spade is a spade. They don't want statehood for DC and PR because it would mean more democratic senators and representatives for the most part.
PR does have its own say in that, though, unlike DC, and I think they have voted against it so far. If they choose to vote for it then it will likely happen. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, @JohhanSantana!
@Adam How do you feel about the smaller ones like Samoa or Guam? They would make awfully small states, so should they be collected into a state of Pacific islands or something?
@Adam Round numbers are a horrible argument.
I think I've seen quite a few videos about John Oliver being angry about the state of territories and DC when it comes to equal citizenship and representation.
@JoonasIlmavirta Great questions. I lean towards them becoming a single state so they collectively have more oomph, but I don't really know if that makes sense or not.
This might put me at odds with some folks, but I wish Puerto Rico became independent and not join the US. I think the US skills have fewer states, not more.
@RetractedAndRetired That would sound like a fair solution to me, an outsider. I doubt many of the inhabitants of the Pacific islands are happy about what the federal government spends their money on.
@RetractedAndRetired I wouldn't disagree with this; for me, it's being half-in that I don't like. If PR wanted to be an independent country then they should do that, too.
@JoonasIlmavirta Yea. I'm not sure what is best for DC. If you were to merge them into a state, then which one would you merge them into? They have more people living there than they do in Wyoming or Vermont, albeit in a much smaller space.
@JoonasIlmavirta DC could just revert back to the states. It was carved out of Virginia and Maryland, so that land could just go back. There really isn't a reason for it to become a state. And I say all this knowing that statehood for the two would bolster the Democrats, and that is something I would want.
@RetractedAndRetired I fully agree that Brexit was chosen for the wrong reasons, but I agree that the event itself shouldn't judged only on that. I think this builds an unnecessary wall between Britain and the rest of Europe, benefiting nobody.
@RetractedAndRetired Same. Maybe the answer is to legislate a way for the people of DC to have the same level of representation in Congress without being a state. It's already unique, anyway.
@RetractedAndRetired Having it rejoin the existing states would make sense to me. What I'd prefer to see is that all US citizens are citizens of a state, but I have no strong opinions about drawing the actual state lines.
@RetractedAndRetired How do you feel about each state, no matter how big or small, having two senators? As long as that is in effect, it makes a huge difference whether DC becomes a state or joins another one (or two).
@JoonasIlmavirta That will likely not change soon. It's minority protection, and I get that that is important. I haven't come across a good solution for the Senate, but it would be a better body if it got rid of some of its unconstitutional rules.
Not just filibustering, but also Senate Majority Leader.
@RetractedAndRetired That would be interesting to see. The last 10 years alone would have been radically different if there wasn't a majority leader dictating what did or didn't happen (Merrick Gardland's SCOTUS nomination, for example).
A major source of trouble, as far as I can tell, is the winner taking it all in most elections. Getting rid of that would give a more accurate representation.
@RetractedAndRetired The way parliamentary elections work in Finland is that each electoral region is appointed a number of seats based on a census, and then those seats within each region are divided according to the local ballot. No region has only one party, with one exception that has only one seat.
I can't see why that wouldn't work for the US House as well.
@RetractedAndRetired I meant the votes within the region. So the seats of each region are divided independently, and most importantly the seats of all regions are divided.
@RetractedAndRetired There's been discussion in Finland whether we should somehow adjust it. If one party has 1 % support everywhere, they will not gain a seat in any region but they should be entitled to a national 1 % share of the seats.
@RetractedAndRetired Is there a movement to going back to it?
@JoonasIlmavirta Not that I'm aware of. Nothing big, at least. There will always be fringe groups, though.
@JoonasIlmavirta I'm not 100% sure about that flag, but my first instinct is to make that a comment, though I guess it does attempt to answer the question.
So feel free to ignore the flag based on your judgment.
@RetractedAndRetired As it's not urgent, I think we'll discuss it in the mod room. We usually talk through these things, so that everyone doesn't end up unknowingly pulling things in their own direction with their mod hammering.
@RetractedAndRetired Yeah, that's the way we've been running things behind the scenes since we were appointed. Having more than two voices in that discussion was actually a key reason for asking for the election in the first place.
Sure, there are cases where we need to shoot first and ask questions later, but most things work better slowly. And over time we build a consensus, and we can later act more quickly, knowing what the common principles are.
It's a crazy long time, and we've indeed found a good consensus.
I don't mind acting quickly if there's a need for it, but there rarely is. Nasty comment wars are a typical case where one has to step in and hammer around.
One benefit of the discussions is that everyone is updated. We know how things are going in general and with some specific users.
@RetractedAndRetired Even the low priority ones are good. Without those it's hard to tell what the users dislike. I feel our users have too high a threshold for flagging, but fortunately there isn't all that much to flag.
@Cerberus I see no problems in multiple parties either.
@Cerberus The problem is that regional and partisan representation are different goals here. If we make adjustments, then perhaps a party gets more fair representation nationally but one region gets a slightly skewed representation of itself. Not a big deal if you ask me, but it is a concern.
But I think many small parties is good, in that it allows people to vote for a party that really aligns with their views, and because it enforces more actual discussions in parliament (because you will need the support of more parties for anything). Less party discipline and more voting for what you actually believe.
@Cerberus I find it important to have small parties, at least for one reason: It allows for movements to grow and fade out. If the options are big party and no party, it's hard to develop from small beginnings into something important.
@Cerberus It's good that movements with public support enter parliament. If they collapse when faced with government reality, it happens early and without much damage.
