Finally some populism I can get behind.

I recall from elementary game theory that the ability to provably bind oneself to an action (ie make a promise you can't back out of) is extremely valuable in negotiation. It is hugely important in our day to day lives (loans, service contracts etc), but also politics.

The US ability to have people believe their promises has been shredded by Trump (Eg Iran Nuclear Treaty). We just renegotiated NAFTA to the USMCA, and now all of a sudden it's no good? How can we trust that this deal will last more than 15 minutes? How can we have any sort of partnership with an organization like this?

It's really disappointing that there is so much opposition to the existence of sogi minority people. My position is that rainbow crosswalks should not be installed in places where people with minority sogi are not safe.

It's sort of a self selection. We shouldn't tell people with minority sogi they are safe and welcome if they are not.

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it's 3.5

I don't think jewelry wearing is compatible with the Amish conception of propriety and modesty but I'm not going to say it wouldn't happen.

It's not, but it seems Argentina doesn't think people should be allowed to own their phones.

Shifts team to generative AI.

If your car development team can be transferred to AI developement you weren't building much of a car.

I'm not a law talking guy, this isn't the law, and it isn't ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.

I believe it's true that drunk people can't consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:

Did the accused have the reasonable belief that the plaintiff would consent to sex while sober?

If you're in a police interview or a trial and are asked:

What made you think the plaintiff consented to your actions?

And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:

I vaguely recall that they seemed kinda into it, and they didn't say no, oh! and they didn't fight back.

You're going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you've been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.

This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.

This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.

The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn't fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It's much better they be scared into over thinking whether they're risking arrest than that they rape somebody.

Obviously more nuance is good, but if you're trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.

Hey I love this meme everytime I see it, but I want to point out that that point about growing up in "similar circumstances that nurture their skill' is contingent upon working musicians being able to afford to raise children. Children that will also need to work.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think there is a comparable proportion of the population that are working musicians, that earn enough money to support children, but not so much that the children don't have to learn a trade, as there were in "Enlightenment" Europe where if a person wanted to hear music they had to make it themselves, or pay someone to make it, and every rich asshole had a chamber orchestra following him around.

Also parents don't teach children their trades the way they used to, and they aren't expected to support their parent's businesses the way they used to. (I'm not lamenting this). There used to be a lot of pressure on children to contribute economically. Mozart, and his siblings probably faced what we'd consider child abuse if he didn't practice. He was certainly exploited.

Michael Jackson is a Mozart of the 20th century. He was put to work at a young age to support his parents and siblings, that were also working musicians.

As much as I love Weird Al (and I do) I don't think he was groomed and exploited the same way MJ/WM were. Kudos to his parents for that I guess.

I think it's more likely a way to get a portion of your employees to resign without having to deal with the socio-econo-political headache of layoffs or give severance packages.

It doesn't boost productivity, but it may cut payroll.

Another way of thinking about it is betting your entire bankroll for 99.9....% certainty that you will win $1.

Say you go into the casino with $1000.

Bet:

$1 lose.
$3 lose.
$9 lose.
$27 lose.
$81 lose.
$243 lose.
$729 oh wait you can't bet that much, you only have $457 left. Dang, do you bet $457 or find another $272? 

Bet $457 and you win $914! Congrats you're now only down $86!
Or maybe you lost and are down $1000.

Or maybe you scrounged up $272 so you could keep playing
Bet 729 and lose. Now you're down $1272.
Or
Bet 729 and you win 1458. Pay back the $272 you borrowed from your buddy, you're still up $186. 
You just bet $729 dollars for a %50 chance of winning $186.

But what are the chances of getting 6 or 7 losses in a row? 1 in 64, or 128 respectively, actually worse because roulette wheels aren't 50/50, they're 18/19 (18 wins and 19 losses in 37 plays on average) or worse. So losing 6 times in a row will happen 1 in 54 plays, 7 losses is 1 in 106.

Google says roulette wheels spin 55 times per hour so with your strategy you will lose your bank roll in about one hour assuming your starting bet is 0.1% of your bank roll.

I seem to recall Diogenes replied:

Likewise: if I were not Diogenes I too would wish I were Diogenes

I mean it's all probably made up but what a guy.