primarina (Discord ID: 234776510228201474), page 1
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
3,491 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/14 | Next
Is there only one mod on this server
K good ioi, why is there only one online
gotta go to those in person meetings ioi
Actually, it mighty kind of make sense; it forces them to increase electric prices, while giving you the resources needed to pay those increased costs
The summary seems accurate, but it isn't explicit or well explained in the notification
@swiu no, it looks more like you're given free money, which is taken from electric companies, and you can put towards your electric bill
It increases the cost of these bills, without reducing your ability to pay them if willing.
"The credit on the bill is your share of payments from the states program"
I mean, the language is theoretically ambiguous, but it would be seriously misleading if it meant you're being charged further
Honestly, it's a pretty crap description of the program
Possibly as part of an effort to sabotage the program, or just due to incompetence
Yangs policy is more nuanced than taking your money and giving it all back
And this California policy actually sounds like a very smart solution
So, they take $ from electric company, and give it to you.
This forces E company to charge that much more
You now have a more expensive electric bill, but also the ability to pay it
You're thus less likely to but as much E, but still able to afford just as much E as before
It's a way to raise electric bills without putting many people in a position where they can't pay their electric bill
Theoretically, it raises the electric bills for even the poorest californias, but gives them the money to pay for what they were consuming/ would theoretical consume or some such
They can now choose: do I buy the now more expensive electricity, or do I spend this extra money on something else?
People will act as though the electricity costs more, because it does, but will be still be able to afford it, because they're richer
swiu, if you continue to buy electricity as before, depending on the cash they give you and the cost increase, there may be 0 change for you
However, you now have an incentive to buy less electricity
Because the price has been increased
Right, but you get cash to account for that
Exactly, it costs more, but they give you money roughly equal to the difference
It only helps people who choose to buy less electricity, and it actively hurts people who choose to buy more
Though it's not 0 sum in that regard
It could help people who buy less, even if nobody buys more
Here's an example: My bill was 100$ a month for 10electricity units. Now, it is 125$ a month for 10 electricity units, but the government gives me 25$. If I drop down to 8 electricity units, I'm now paying 100$ and getting 25$. so my price per electricity unit is $9.375
It's like how you get charged less per watt hour when you consume less energy
Or get charged less when you consume less water
Definitely, but the principle is sound
The system could definitely get people of diverse economic situations to buy less electricity, without making it less affordable
They basically charge the companies for their use of the shared environment as a dumping ground, but then give that money to consumers to ensure people can still afford electricity.
Either way, use of the atmosphere should no longer be free, as is no longer beyond our ability to completely consume / debiltate
Swiu, the plan counts on them increasing prices
Yeah, but we can see that the program follows a sophisticated archetype, and if done right could seriously reduce energy consumption and pollution
I mean, this seems based on the carbon tax related ideas. They charge the electricity company a carbon tax, (via licensing due to need for emission checks), and then give that tax money to electricity consumers, to do with as they please.
...? I'm not seeing the problem here
This sounds like pretty sound modern economic practice
Can you elaborate on your opinion?
I just don't really get what you mean
As far as I can tell this new policy sounds pretty good in the abstract
My bill was 100$ a month for 10electricity units. Now, it is 125$ a month for 10 electricity units, but the government gives me 25$. If I drop down to 8 electricity units, I'm now paying 100$ and getting 25$. so my price per electricity unit is $9.375
It creates a situation in which, electricity costs less for people who buy below the amount the subsidy keeps cost neutral
Then people will just buy less
Keep in mind utilities companies are monopolistic and we already have systems in place to deal with that
It increases the economic incentive for buying less. The long term effects, do obviously depend on how the price reacts beyond accommodating for the carbon tax
As less power is consumed, the economy of scale advantages of power production will decline
The cost you pay doubles, but the cost of your consumption (per unit) to the system remained mostly the same
I'm talking environmental cost
In any case, it's likely that there is some serious bullshit going on in California's electrical system
To be fair, you need to look at the cost achieving of carbon neutrality / tolerability, how much would that increase the cost?
the show Chernobyl makes nuclear power seem simultaneously horrific when it goes wrong, and very unlikely to go wrong
I mean, 4x cost definitely feels stupid unless there are subsidies in texas
I feel like you can achieve carbon neutrality with something more like 2-3x the cost
tbf, when I lived in texas there were a ton of power outages
Oh my god, Fukushima event was ratchet aff
Current nuclear reactors use fission chain reactions, wasn't sure how serious you were being when you talked about calling them fusion reactors
"You deserve to look on the outside, the way you feel on the inside. You deserve this sleeve." Altered Carbon entitlement
||I have the progressive and primitivism roles||
*I'm not saying we should burn it all down, but ||we should burn it all down||*
They didn't have a role for that
So I just picked the ones that sound interesting
Those both sound great. I'll have both.
Self modification privileges are
I only yearn for certain elements of primitive society
Like, billions, trillions, septillions of septillions
Idk, how much can I change without being considered dead?
What does the inability to die really mean?
haven't watched anime in a while, but exaggeration can be hillarious
tell them to watch The Politician on netflix
It's a great mix of realism and exaggeration based absurdist humor
Yeah, I'm only 20 and need another 100,000 hours of reprogramming before I can be a wage slave
The value of time is going to go way up
So requiring a 100,000 hours to reprogram would mean you're doing a lot of processing and making decisions about what to learn, or some likely abnormal circ
Oh, don't worry, we're going to handle technology great
I mean, look, we've already achieved globalism and eliminated/mitigated zero sum games / dangerous abilities
Yeah, can't wait for next magnitude of space travel speed
Probably like a difference of less than 2hrs
Time travels faster on mars, relative to earth time passage
According to tyson, sounds wrong
Uh, the difference in time is accounted for when you try to match the velocity of the object / go into the gravity well
Fk, I need to think and research
||I'm a philosopher, philanderer, and ml, AI, & symbolic system enthusiast||
||AKA I'm unemployed, and unemployable||
I was doing cs too, was pretty good at it, but couldn't stand all that desktime
Quick, let's make this political
If I was motivated by money, wouldn't I have some...
What system of conflict resolution should be put in place?
And what system should their be for managing shared resources?
Socialist who supports high market freedom and decentralization of authority+states rights, primarily Consequentialist with Deontological elements.
Learn about debate, philosophy, and politics.
Prefer not to answer
Atheist - Anti-theist
Clear Quid Pro Quo, concerning violation of establish norm.
Serious question, why are satanism and anti-ukranian sentiments the only automatic ban behaviors?
To believe in objective moral truth does not require belief in god, even among educated folk
See platonism, kantian ethics, utilitarianism
Meanwhile, as an atheist & moral sentimentalist, I believe pedophilia is subjectively / subjectsively wrong and should be forbidden.
I'm unclear on what you mean by intrinsic morals
Not really clear on existentialist or materialist philosophies, gonna go read up
Yeah, I wasn't sure whether it would bc I was unclear on your point; can you clarify what you mean by intrinsic morals?
Objective morality is a better way to say it imo
Morality can be intrinsic without being objective
I mean, morality can be intrinsic to the self; to some you cease to be you when your morality changes in certain ways
Or intrinsic to the holder of a character trait
I understand that the phrase has a distinct definition
But my point is it isn't equal to intrinsic + morality
So, my version fo the phrase is also valid
And I do think considering intrinsic subjective ethics is worthwhile
But that's very different from what I'm doing
I'm taking the meaning of the two words, to make a more literal version of the phrase
Well, I'm taking the meaning of the words and addressing them, rather than just the meaning of the phrase
Telling me I can't use intrinsic literally, is kinda weird
I'm not arguing with your usage, I'm defending my usage of the component words to form a similiar phrase of distinct meaning.
And pointing out how the phrase as you used it might mislead some people, and be ambiguous to others, the philosophic common term or not
Eoppa, non literal readings are inherently ambiguous as words / phrases have literal meanings
I accept your usage as a figure of speach
But the common usage of the phrase is distinct from the common usage of the words
and the common process for combining words
I think there is serious hazard to rejecting that altertate literal interpretation / usage of the words
But something can be intrinsic to the self
objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik
One may be more common, but it is also less accessible
To philosophers who are used to using an abbreviation as a standin
Dude, intrinsic morality is clearly a shorthand, with a meaning that isn't a literal combination of those two words
Yeah, intrinsic to reality, not merely intrinsic to 'unspecified'
I choose to read that phrase as involving an omission
So that I can use the familiar meanings of the words involved.
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."
Why do you need this phrase to be a literal combination of the two words?
You made one that it isn't, and I'm really not buying it.
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. (google)
My model allows for both versions of the phrase to make sense, by explaining your version as involving an implicit omission.
You described an argument for those definitions leading to "morality intrinsic to reality"
It is to some people who are uneducated, but we don't worry about that because both versions are so widely used, and are also closely related.
Arguably, the word can be taken to have the same meaning in both cases, and the differences explained with omission
The danger here is people are at greater risk of being mislead
My interpretation is likely the interpretation of the common man
You shouldn't use the intelligence of others as a crutch, rely on it when necessary
Except, my version of the phrase is also valid
You clarfied what you meant, and I accepted that meaning
Because they don't assume you're without fault
and / or possibly have a bad internet connection at the moment, ioi
You clarified your point, I talked about I didn't read it that way, and how I took issue with the language
You then clarified that it was a term of art
And took issue when I tried to use the component words in other ways; morality intrinsic to the subject
I wanted to address other uses because they were how I intended to make my point
I believe there can be morality intrinsic to the subject, and I believe that language for describing them is permissible and proper.
Why is whether I can something the way I choose to say it immaterial?
The point I wanted to make was primarily about intrinsic subjective morality and language usage solutions
Intrinsic subjective morality is distinct from non-intrinsic subjective morality
TBF, one goal of mine was to question why objective morality has value, and why objective morality is necessary to reject pedophillia
Ah, I see the distinction "There is no *atheistic* argument against pedophilia because from a pure evolutionary perspective there is nothing wrong with it."
tbf that's pretty ambiguous to someone who hasn't read certain texts
Even if they wikipediad it or dictionaried it
Yeah, but I'm one of those people and I read it
A fundamental role of government is services that cannot be gotten more effectively on a well-free market.
There’s a big difference between nationalistic and globalistic societies, this isn’t a thing to form a quick, uneducated opinion on.
My main issue with capitalism is the prevalence of over-incentives
But that can only really be solved with globalism
3,491 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/14 | Next