Stack Exchange
log in

PoloHoleSet

 Discussion on question by rougon: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jun 17, 2023 01:31
@Oddthinking - I'd think you'd have a stronger point if you were talking about 4-8. Yes, teenagers do stupid things. Yes, people hopefully mature. Yes, people often change viewpoints based on life experience. But the baseline values and opinions as fed to them in their home lives are often established and set by time they reach that age. People caring those values forward is probably more common that people rejecting them. Having said that, I'm pretty skeptical that any school would allow an actual club with a title like that to be sanctioned.
 

 Discussion on answer by JJJ: As of Ja…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Feb 11, 2023 00:59
@JJJ - I did kind of get that from your answer, which is why I asked for clarification. The problem is the question didn't ask what they could do that might be considered justified, or righteous, the question asked, "short of overt war" - and that, absolutely, would be overt war.
PoloHoleSet
Feb 11, 2023 00:59
This makes sense only if they are transported by Ukrainian vessels/trains/planes etc. If the USA is shipping military hardware in a military transport plane, vehicle or vessel, attacking the shipment would entail also attacking the USA. I don't think the USA calls an Uber to get their stuff to where it is going.
 

 Discussion on question by Kevin Kostl…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jan 28, 2023 08:37
While a car might be low-density because it has open space, by design, for passengers and their stuff, along with room for comfort, the same can't be said for trucks. If you have a trailer filled with cargo, or a tanker filled with liquid, the overall density of the truck pulling and the trailer with cargo is going to be pretty high, isn't it?
 

 Discussion on answer by alphabet: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jan 26, 2023 23:47
No, it's not easy to accidentally keep them in with other stuff, because if they are classified, they bear markings denoting their status. That's how it gets discovered that they have them in the first place.
PoloHoleSet
Jan 26, 2023 23:47
I was pondering just this thing. The problem is, the fact that we overclassify is not an excuse or justification for violating the laws about handling of classified documents. If there's one that's TOP SECRET that shouldn't be, and one that legitimately is, it's not up the discretion of anyone to make that determination and ignore the status of the information. The fact that it served no legitimate security purpose to classify it in the first place is only relevant to whether it should have been classified in the first place. Once it is, it has to be treated as legit.
 

 Discussion on answer by cjs: Does a U…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Sep 2, 2022 08:18
@computercarguy - Yes, but having a staff-lackey do it for him is, de facto, the president doing it. The guy in the Atlantic was essentially saying they don't have to say that to anyone. However, that might be self-serving on his part, since he was the guy in charge of that office when Cheney and Bush outed Valerie Plame, and no one was held accountable for it. Perhaps asking someone who held that office in an administration where there wasn't a scandal on their watch might have been a better source.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 2, 2022 08:18
.... But, if that's the case, I guess I can post an answer with the relevant sourcing. This is more a comment about the claim in the Atlantic. Not a criticism of your answer, per se.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 2, 2022 08:18
From what I've read from others, the "no additional paperwork" party is almost certainly not accurate, because how everyone else in the world treats that information is impacted by the status. Usually, the "on a whim" declassifications revolves around someone needing to see that material, on the spot, but not being cleared for it. Imagine the legal nightmare if we prosecute and incarcerate a Chelsea Manning for decades, and it winds up a president "secretly declassified" materials and never bothered telling anyone else. So, no a secret, retroactive "declassification" is probably not right.
 

 Discussion on answer by David A. Crav…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:18
"Money is spent already" - completely irrelevant and tortured logic - that's true if the customer was spending from their own pocket. Does that mean the customer shouldn't accept a rebate or credit? And any rebates is money reclaimed, which would make it money retroactively UNSPENT, that they are owed. It's THEIR money being refunded.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:18
Except the company is reimbursing for ACTUAL expenses. A reduction of expenses means the company should have less to reimburse. Pocketing/stealing a travel reimbursement would be no different than submitting phony receipts for reimbursement by some odd belief that a hypothetical scenario entitles you to that money. Claiming phony expenses would get you fired. Not telling the company that the travel they reimbursed wound up being a lesser amount is making a phony claim about the expenses.
 

 Discussion on answer by gnasher729: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
@coll - it's delay repay compensation that is a percentage of fare paid. Since the person traveling, when it's paid for by the company, did not actually pay any fare, they aren't entitled to a reduction in the fare paid.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
@AndrewLeach - That does not contradict what I said. You see a fare reduction because the disruption makes the service not up to standards. Again, in the form of a FARE REDUCTION. According to OP, it's based on a percentage of the fare paid. Of you paid $0.00, you would see zero compensation, so it's not a straight-up compensation payment for inconvenience, it's a reduction in fare. Since the employee is not the one who paid for the fare, a reduction in fare in the form of a refund goes to whomever is actually paying for it, ethically.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
@AndrewLeach - It's providing compensation for the delay, in the form of a reduction in the fares they are keeping for the services. The services are deemed to not meet the standard, so they are reducing the fares charged, via a refund on fares paid. It's still a reduction in the fares and cost of services offered, so those paying for the fares and cost of services should see the corresponding reduction in what they are paying. This is not a straight compensation for time, it's a reduction in charges for services.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
@coll - What you are talking about is not a reduction or refund on the price of a ticket for substandard service. Apples and oranges. Love the pretzel logic folks will try to apply to justify stealing from their employers. A voucher for future travel isn't a refund of funds paid, and does not represent a reduction in the cost of the services that were paid for.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
@AndrewLeach - the delay-compensation and any considerations are only offered BECAUSE TRAVEL WAS PAID FOR. A refund or credit given is a refund or credit against fares paid. The refund should go to the one who paid the expense. This is sophistry to try and justify stealing. It's no different than filching office supplies. Not the biggest of sins, but, seriously, a travel expense credit should go to the one who pays for the travel expenses. If the apology were handing cash to each and every person, regardless of funds paid or not then your claim would make sense.
PoloHoleSet
May 3, 2022 07:17
The company is reimbursing for TRAVEL EXPENSES. Not hypothetical time spent traveling. A reduction in expenses means there are less expenses to be reimbursed. To pocket the refund is unethical and theft.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kilisi: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
PoloHoleSet
Apr 29, 2022 17:44
@SteveJessop - It's not compensation for time. It's a reduction in amount charged for services because services were not up to their standards. If it's compensation for their time, then they need to report it and pay taxes on it. They don't. It's a refund of fare paid, and, as such, belongs to the one who actually paid the fare - the employer.
 

 Discussion on question by Igor Mytyuk…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
PoloHoleSet
Oct 26, 2021 13:03
Thank you for clarifying that part for me.
PoloHoleSet
Oct 26, 2021 02:32
I do full stack programming - .net, SQL, JavaScript, C#, VB, MySQL, php, HTML, CSS...... nothing has ever required me to use PowerShell, specifically, ever, unless I was using it as I would for a "command prompt." Was that the use you wanted from them? If so, maybe they're used to "command prompt" or "DOS window" - people use a lot of different terms for things. The fact that you find this disqualifying suggest you might not know how to assess this. Perhaps, for novice programmers, the course is not well-suited. You may think it is, but that's through the lens of an expert developer.
 

 Discussion on question by Number File…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Oct 22, 2021 17:12
@markvs - I was going to comment that your evaluation isn't based on whether they are a minority or not, but whether they are an underrepresented minority where you had to try and address that underrepresentation. That's very different than minority or not, and not being under-represented in a university environment doesn't map to general status in society, at large.
 

 Discussion on question by theonlygust…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Aug 12, 2021 17:11
It wouldn't surprise me, though I'd guess there's probably a trend for local producers away from that. +1, since I don't know, and look forward to seeing the answers.
 

 Discussion on answer by 0xDBFB7: Do C…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jul 7, 2021 04:48
Even if we accept the metric, having a single death caused less than deaths prevented validates the use of a vaccine.
 

 Discussion on answer by BobE: Georgia…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 19:45
I will check that stuff out and loop back. In regards to counting, I'm going to make an assumption that they have an official count of "ballots in" that are going to be compared, in total, to the ballot counting outputs.
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 17:36
@BobE - Got you. My perspective is that usually it's the intent of each individual vote that is questioned, and not whether they added them up correctly once that is determined and identified. Not tallying the individual vote when it is cast would be not correctly identifying it.
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 16:09
So human error is accounted for by tons of redundancy checks.
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 16:07
miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/…
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 16:07
From an article on how the Florida process works - "The task of sorting through ballots will fall to counting teams, designated by county canvassing boards. The teams will include at least two people, who should represent different political affiliations, and will be closely watched by lawyers for each candidate. If a counting team cannot agree on a voter’s intention, or if the lawyers object to the team’s decision, the ballot in question will go before the full canvassing board."
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 16:02
@BobE - In every example of a hand-recount that I have seen, there are at least two or three people who examine the ballot at the same time, agree on what it says, then they tally it, with partisan observers and press standing and watching them.
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 14:26
If your argument is "no, human error" keep in mind that on recounts any individual ballot isn't just verified by one individual. And that doesn't include party observers.
PoloHoleSet
Nov 18, 2020 14:24
@BobE - The question isn't "can a rescan be checked or audited enough to make it reliable" it's asking why a hand recount might be better, to which the answer is one can fully verify results on each and every ballot. If you're doing a quality control check, it's generally better to be able to verify using a different method, than the same one, for the most part, isn't it?
PoloHoleSet
Nov 13, 2020 15:30
Since voting machine vendors go out of their way to keep their source code as "trade secrets," I'd probably dispute the notion that, if we agree that a machine might be more consistent, that it is verifiably more accurate. If a particular type of machine rolled off the manufacturing line with a optical sensor flaw or calibration error, it would reliably and consistently miscount votes, that flaw would be across all machines, and no one would know better without visually verifying.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kevin: Why is…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Nov 5, 2020 20:24
Wonder to what degree there are universal standards in other nations, as well, whereas in the USA, each state, and, to a certain degree, each municipality within the states follows their own desires on how to do things.
 

 Discussion on answer by DevSolar: Was…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Oct 11, 2020 18:05
Maybe his layman's attribution is because he's assuming cancer would be in the lungs or throat, instead of something more obscure.
 

 Discussion between Acccumulation and …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - That last paragraph is directly responding to the questions "seems to be premised on the fact that businesses are public accomodations" phrasing, which, regardless of your hyperbole, you have not refuted, at all.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - Mussolini, the first practitioner of fascism disagrees with you and Wikipedia - “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini Furthermore, there's nothing in my final paragraph that says businesses should not be allowed to exist, so your leap to "fascism!" is pure hyperbole. You throw that term around based on an implication that you, yourself, invent. You seem to love dropping rhetorical bombs then complaining that I'm not being civil when I push back.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - Of course Jeff's comments pertain. You are challenging my assertion that there is a fundamental right for any particular business to exist, and I pointed out, and Jeff detailed, how businesses can NOT exist or operate without meeting a number of obligations before being ALLOWED to operate as a business. Businesses can only operate if allowed to by government entities. That is the opposite of having an inherent right to exist.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - The Declaration of Independence doesn't say a single word about any right to establish and run a business. You must have it confused with some other Declaration of Independence. It also doesn't "widely recognize" that not allowing unfettered operation of business is fascism, because the concept of fascism did not exist then. And, while you keep using the word "fascism," it's pretty clear that you don't actually understand what it means, specifically. "Being run by" is not the same as "being."
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - Please see Jeff Lambert's comment, above, which speaks very directly to what I'm talking about, so we don't have to rehash that.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Acccumulation - It's only fascism if you either don't know, or choose to alter, what the definition of fascism is. Fascism is, by definition, very business and corporation friendly. There is no "right" to run a business, at all. That's something you pretty much made up. The idea that the right to run a business in a way that supersedes rights of actual human beings is an even more ridiculous concept.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@BrianR - No, actually I'm arguing that a business, which is allowed to exist and operate by society for the benefit of society, does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service for any reason they choose. They might have legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for refusing service, but they don't get to discriminate. Is that the right to shop where I please, or the right to not be discriminated against for the color of my skin, religion, or whatever? Kind of like what happened with political firings in the DOJ in the 2000s, okay for no reason at all, but not okay for the wrong reason.
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@Barmar - the last paragraph is there because the OP specifically talks about the concept of a business in the USA being a public accommodation as if it was a questionable premise. It's pretty well established. Again, I'm talking about how it is, not how it might be in one person or another's Utopia. In that context, and with my edit to make sure I'm referring to that context, is it still a problem that I clarify that this is the legal status, currently, in the USA?
PoloHoleSet
Sep 9, 2020 20:24
@JeffLambert - That is exactly what I meant by the last paragraph. There is a formal process one goes through and permissions that are granted in order to run a business as a business, even moreso to incorporate. There are limitations and boundaries to how, when and where a business may operate at the local, state and federal levels.
 

 Discussion on question by Keshav Srin…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Aug 18, 2020 16:11
@JCAA - I'm sorry, which organization are you referring to that helped de-segregate Birmingham? Or fought to keep Chicago segregated? Whichever applies. Not snarky, I'm not clear on what that's a reference to, so I'm trying to figure out if maybe you were responding to a comment that was since removed or not.
PoloHoleSet
Aug 18, 2020 16:11
If you are going to characterize them as a neo-Confederate group, then you are calling them a hate group and/or terrorist organization. That's not to say that I'd disagree with that, but I don't think it's completely an honest position to split hairs on language like that.
 

 Discussion on question by Spirit Real…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Aug 5, 2020 14:22
That's more of a financial look at insane group-think.
PoloHoleSet
Aug 5, 2020 14:21
play.google.com/store/books/…
 

 Discussion on answer by Charlie Crown…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jul 8, 2020 18:38
Since when has the media ever refrained from reporting preliminary study results pending peer review and verification? Not that I disagree that they SHOULD wait, or they should be much more circumspect in how they describe the information, but they don't, as a matter of practice and policy. Is there any particular reason why this study, moreso than all the others that get reported on, should be subject to these standards? If the answer is "no," no more elaboration is needed, because I'm not saying that shoddy journalism (true for almost all reporting on medicine or science) is fine in general.
 

 Discussion on question by Zibbobz: Di…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
PoloHoleSet
Jun 11, 2020 15:32
@fredsbend - Then the police would be within their authority to cite and/or arrest the person. Assaulting him still doesn't enter into the picture as a first-choice option for the police.
PoloHoleSet
Jun 11, 2020 15:32
@NoSenseEtAl - I'd agree that the claim of "provocation" would be hard to evaluate, however, we can evaluate the specific items pointed to by Trump as indications or evidence of provocation. I'm also not aware this web site having any kind of animated sentience that would allow it to have independent political or personal opinions.