The casino plot in TLJ, although a little awkwardly inserted, was good on its own terms.
I would criticise you for judging the movie based on its synopsis instead of watching it but I do it too.
Unironically it occasionally annoys me that miniatures are all the same height. I can kind of accept it for Space Marines, if you grew them all to the same height it would be easier to armour them, but historical miniatures? Ridiculous!
The dolphins could speak but they all got blasted by the Havana ray.
"Don't be stupid, be a smartie, come and join the Nazi party."
In self defence, rather than defence of others, is a funny one. US entry into WW1 and 2 was prompted by attacks, but was the US really in danger? How about Afghanistan; that seems like a better case of self-defence than either war. Defence of others gets you Gulf 1, Korea, etc...
bsky.app/profile/jose...
A group of barely restrained thugs who wrestle people to the floor then beat them for the deplorables' amusement Vs conscientious professionals who deploy violence in a carefully monitored and regulated octogon
The longer the Moscow internet outage lasts, the better online gaming is going to be.
Also, We Need to Talk About Kevin is a bad film that masquerades repeating the audience's stereotype of school shooters back to them as edification.
that's why weird dudes online are so obsessed with sea mine retention
Is the poppy organic?
Lol, autocorrected prior to poor. Anyway, no more replies.
Well that's what a poor expectation is. You are also implicitly asserting a prior.
I'm going to stop replying, this is going nowhere.
I'm not sure what you mean about projecting outcomes, but obviously in a Bayesian sense we all have our own priors about what we expect about a person described in such a way.
Having expectations about a person who I know a small number of things about is different from creating a hypothetical person.
No, I refered to a real group of people (drivers) and a specific person.
I don't need to create a hypothetical person to say that actually existing people seem to be deterred from speeding offenses by fines more effectively than I would expect the man who Sam saw throwing the brick through the window to be.
Sometimes when I use the word specific I mean that I have been very presice about my meaning. Sometimes when I use the specific it is because I mean something applies only in some cases rather than the general. That was the latter usage.
You've have inferred something far too general from something I said that's quite specific.
What is it that I'm supposed to be getting wrong about mental illness?
You asked me to what extent and I suggested an extent. There's no point quibbling about if you think I use the word effective weirdly.
When I say "By that definition" that should make it clear that I'm talking about the definition given above and nothing else; not the actual law.
Something is effective if it has any effect at all. How effective does it need to be to be worth doing? Well, I'd say if a million dollars of fines were taken for every life saved it's worth doing, but a trillion trillion is too much, so the line is somewhere in between.
No, if someone had a gun on them they still might not go through with it.
You're talking about degrees of certainty, but the definition given only talked about absolutes. That's the biggest problem with it.
Right, so this is about financial penalties for traffic offenses.
Deterrance is not a binary. To be an effective deterrant, fines merely need to prevent some, not all, traffic offenses or reduce their intensity (and the corresponding risk to the public).
How could it be?
