Right, it would be started basically exactly the opposite. Certainly not a statement followed by an if block.

Those would all start with the if, followed by two conditions, not a statement and then an if. There would be a condition to evaluate, followed by then/else?

Maybe it’s just worse when written. The period at the end of the sentence makes it hard to see how it could be misunderstood.

To your point though, not sure if I’m aware of any programming language that would continue a statement with a following if block. Far more likely that it would fail due to lack of an element to apply the 6 to rather than having a pointer to the previous object, or he would try getting what ever the literal version of a 6 would be, or maybe some slang version.

That is true, but it is also fair to point out that you are proposing solidarity with someone who voted for fully supporting these negative things happening to other people, even if there was only a vague sense of what that might mean, and is specifically upset now that it unexpectedly turned around on him and his circle. We have to stand with and support someone we might have to fully expect to continue doing the exact same thing as the opportunity arise.

It’s true his interests overlap our own, and raising everyone up is in our best interests, but just realize that we want to give liferafts to people who would prefer to poke holes in the liferafts of others. We want to save people who are acting like spoiled, entitled children and who we have no reason to believe will act any different after they’ve been saved. Just understand that afterwards we need a system that will survive this type of behavior.

“shaped”

It is arguably preying on this trait that made the pricing possibleAsode from that, you can’t honestly suggest to that just ‘not being that way’ is a valid option. Sure that can work to a small degree for specific individuals, but ‘just don’t be the way you are’ to solve some specific challenge, likely at the detriment to many other traits you may not want to break, is thoughtless and ignorant advice.

Is the gift so expensive that you feel it necessary to reclaim the money? Would it feel as though something was missing if they hadn’t got you anything? It seems like the more appropriate choice in this situation might have been to accept the gift generously and simply not used it, or not used it often and continued to use the older item. Then, if asked about it, perhaps explained it at that point instead of making a point of explaining that you wanted to return the item and get the money for it.

Yeah, but they’re not charging people extra for parts they’re calling tarmac or ramps, and literally no one knows that tarmac is the material used. On the other hand, people know what a window is, and are willing to pay more to sit next to one.

Seat selection, and it seems like every other friggin extra airline fee in the US, seems to be based on how full the flight is and how much people are willing to pay for it. 90% sure they are experimenting with it to the point where that fee will change just by refreshing the page and they likely have everything from $5-$200 ‘upgrade’ fees based on what they’ve found they can get away with. Hell, I’m surprised they haven’t started auctioning the seats while waiting to board. Maybe just typing this was a bad idea.

I would argue the other way. Not all airplanes have this, and unless you fly a lot you may not come across it, and if you do happen to notice, there’s no reason to immediately assume that they would necessarily call them window seats. Lots of industries have ‘common parlance’ that many of their customers may not run into until it causes an issue, and blaming the confusion on the customer is unfair.

If anything, they should lose the case and be forced to modify their terminology to something like ‘window side’ seating or something. I mean you could easily argue that a ‘window’ seat doesn’t necessarily give you a great view because it’s over the wing or something, but to call it a window seat when it has no window is close to calling a hotel room a ‘queen bed room’ and then getting there and there’s no bed, and claiming it’s the same size as a room they would normally put a queen bed in. I mean what are you paying extra for if you pick a fake window seat? Maybe not having someone to the wall side of you, but at bare minimum they should be liable for charging extra while neglecting to mention it’s a window seat with no window.

If nothing else, if you think a ‘window seat with no window’ seems like an odd phrase, and not an obvious thing sometime should say, then it’s not being pedantic to call this out.

Funny thing is even that number would be based on all the people who can pay 20 but not 800. If it all has to be balanced by the users it would probably be an order of magnitude… Or the market would play like it logically should and it would be like 3 companies paying a million a month. But what would they do with it? Sell it at a loss for like 20 per user and hope they figure out some way to make money :)

Probability manipulation seems like just being able to transfer your consciousness into whatever multiverse contains the outcome you prefer. All the other versions of you still experience all the bad outcomes, but you get to surf through your best guess at the ideal one.

Well the population itself is not even 1/100th ‘at capacity’ in the US. The distribution of the population is certainly a cause for concern, and infrastructure is sorely in need of upgrade, but those are management problems. These are arguably exacerbated by the the fear of ‘who’ the increased infrastructure would be for, but it is in no way driven by lack of resources or space. We have huge swathes of crop land subsidized into non-food crops, crazy amounts of unoccupied land, ready access to transportation if we had drivers. Maybe the most restrictive resource is water and workforce. No magic fix for the former, but immigration would directly fix the later.

You may not want more towns/cities, and additional building should be done with pollution in mind, but it really comes down to ‘not in my backyard’-ism. There are a lot of people that exist, through no fault of their own, and to say they should live in even more cramped and dangerous environments than you just so you can afford more elbow room is exactly my point. It’s not legal or logistics reasons the US doesn’t want more immigration, it’s primarily culture and racism. Good or bad, i’d be willing to bet when someone moves in down the street with a German accent most people will think, at worst, it’s kind of interesting, but if they are dark skinned or speak Spanish, a whole bunch of people that didn’t bat an eye at the German immigrant, legal or otherwise, will suddenly have concerns about ‘over population’.

No, not on it’s own, but it’s rarely on its own. In the US opposition to illegal immigrants and racism tracks nearly one to one.

One could imagine a country where illegal immigration itself was a distinct problem, where the society was balanced in such a way that legal immigration was at an optimal rate and additional people coming into the country had downsides that outstripped the positives, when though, for example, the immigrants were of the same culture/class/standing as the existing citizens.

The US, on the other hand, is nowhere near an optimal legal immigration rate, even though we benefit pretty significantly from both legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, for example, contribute significantly to the economy while not drawing ‘as many’ benefits away. Overwhelmingly the actual arguments against illegal immigration are grounded in cultural differences and language and, to put it simply, the desire for one class to want a reason to consider themselves better than another class by an easily recognizable yardstick.

Makes that ‘are we the baddies?’ a whole lot easier to answer.

You know what he told one prophet. He doesn’t have to do it any way in particular.

And he said thou shall not murder, but didn’t define what murder is. He has commanded genocide and other killings in his name, in addition to rules requiring stoning sinners to death… Murder is obvious a fluid term and he can define it as he wishes.

What difference does it make to you? God doesn’t have to run his plans through you somehow. They brag if he wants them to brag, if he wants people to believe he condones it, he’ll do it one way, if he doesn’t he’ll do it a different way. Why are you so arrogant as to think it has to make sense to you in order to be one way vs another?

Why would they need a prophet to tell them? And if they did, how do you know they don’t have them? Do you think good needs to make a prophecy evident to you specifically for some reason?

How do you know what he wants any better than the people he actually tells to do things? He may be getting exactly as many deaths as he wants, or not enough, or to many… Why do you think you, out of all people, would be the one who knows God’s mind?

‘Murder’ doesn’t mean ‘kill’. Self defense isn’t murder, accidentally causing sometimes death isn’t murder, obeying God’s will isn’t murder. If God determines morality, there is nothing that can’t be made moral by defining it as his will.