StringJunky

It has been on my mind a while, and seeing a comment by studiot about the number of neg reps in a thread, prompted me to say something. I feel quite strongly now that it is causing harm and resentment amongst highly intelligent and thoughtful members.

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just having a like-only system because persistently uncivil, intransigent posters are banned anyway.

Has it occurred to you that the apparent 'significant' rise might be due to scientists eyes being opened to see clearer, with better instruments and processes? This is what John Tyndall had to work with mid-19th century: You can't put that in your bag of tricks and go roving around for data.

Ive used it since about 2005. Extremely reliable.

A menage a trois. Marriage of three. I'm reporting.

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge are missing or in short supply. It should be a given that a candidate has broad experience/overview of the legal landscape, besides having some depth in a particular area.

Russia and China are publicly cosying up together:

Just in:

Yes, that as well. Bullies, thieves and other miscreants judge others by their own standards of conduct... it's all they know.

If you look at this map and turn Ukraine to the NATO colour, that's a big extra chunk of direct border with Russia, hence their likely concern, even if the effect is just psychological. https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2022/01/image-9.png

Someone is being very disingenuous in this rising conflict, it is not hystera. Putin is trying very hard to reverse the blame. He's probably doing that to justify any future Russian actions to his domestic audience, who are blinkered news-wise by government design.

The leaders are sparring on the advice of their respective military experts, we can't expect our news or their words to reflect their true positions... BS, omission and bluff is necessarily very much on the menu atm, methinks. oooh! That's a very hawkish comment from you. Has the dove flown? I agree, generally, you can't keep walking backwards to keep the peace.

I thought iNow said something directly it about as a riposte to a comment of mine, but I seem to be mistaken. It was earlier in the day. Looking back now, it might have been this comment from Phi, bolded: Anyway, thanks for all your views. This was just a learning exercise and I'm not really defending a view. The US system is what is, and I agree, reservations aside, that, in practice, a a black, female SC judge will improve representation of the wider US population.

It's wrong, whichever side it comes from. The selection of Kavanaugh was a stinker, as we all know. I'm becoming less enamoured of the Dems, and they seem to play by the same playbook as the GOP. Same old shit, different actors in each successive administration. I agree, it['s a sad state of affairs, the US judicial selection system being so political.

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this. My possible concern, and Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican. I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side? If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour for them to get the job.

@iNowOK. Thanks for your observation. It seems she is up next for election again in 2027. Is that not a very long way away, such that she would be concerned much about that at this point in her tenure? Your point would have had considerable weight had she been up in the near future, I think.

I expected that from you, iNow, I know you are an ideologist. Why is Susan Collins unhappy?

Is it a wise move for Biden to limit the field of potential candidates to black women just because there hasn't been one? Should not the best qualified person be chosen to such an important position, irrespective of gender and ethnicity? If that turns out, after collective deliberation, to be a black woman, then all well and good, but is it a sound way to do this? Is affirmative action not politicizing the process and discriminating against an equally qualified pool of candidates that don't fit that category? Occasional Republican ally of Democratic legislation seems to think so:

I will agree that one should attack the argument and not the poster.

Right, cheers.

It's called 'pragmatism' and having an awareness of our species, and others, fragility in having all our eggs in one basket, Earth. You may feel a sense of permanence in Earth being, even naturally, hospitable for all time without human effects, but that is a bit naive. As for unrealistic, I sense a bit of conservative Ludditism in your approach. There was a time that learned people thought that if you went over 20mph, you wouldn't be able to breathe.

If one caught cancer induced by an aflatoxin, could someones malignancy be directly traced back to it as cause, or has it just been isolated in research experiments as a potential cause? As an example, Koposi's sarcoma is directly attributed to HIV and HHV-8 infection, aren't they?

It seems cooked rice left for too long is an ideal environment for any Bacillus cereus spores that are floating around to germinate into bacteria, and poison you - from the NHS site.

Perhaps it is your choice of news sources that is the problem.

I think ANPR cameras do a better job of speedsters because they calculate average speed between two distant cameras, rather than just the one camera capturing a single speed data point over a short distance. These can be easily circumvented by people familiar with speed camera locations by slowing down just in time. That's more a recipe for accidents and reckless driving because it puts people in two modes: fast and slow. ANPR cameras probably force more people to drive in a more steady fashion because the mental mathematics of getting around them is too difficult to work out in real-time.