Do you have a source on the 'no scope' detail?
Magnergy
joined 1 year ago
I've heard that "no scope" detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.
It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.
Obama.
I get what your point, and is a fair one. Except there is evidence that he wouldn't have been voting their way, since he was thinking of leaving the court, or at least gave that impression to others to get a raise. Then the gift tap turned on...
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
Spree
Pocket Coffee
Dum Dums
You meant, pointless makes roundabouts traffic lights?
Is akin to people complaining about how the posts in a thread don't all agree on something, so the forum and its participants are hypocritical.
I was too young to vote at the time, but the charts and graphs thing was rad.
Hmm... Katamari Damacy, Braid, Portal 1 2 combo. Subnautica.
Iirc, the future government (? I guess) weren't trying to find the source to stop the release, but to get a pure sample to study so as to cure the disease in the future. The lady on the plane was there to get the sample.
If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.
Unless you burden the word 'enough' with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn't necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).
Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.
view more: next ›
Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn't seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.
I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like "invaders" or "raiders". Nice and clear to everyone.
B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.