decakay.bsky.social
From finance to neuroscience to aquariums
256 posts
24 followers
19 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
There is a pun here about using the Turek test
comment in response to
post
I could write a lame joke about three Pauls and a Bart walking into a bar, and then I could tell it was an AI reading Bart's part, because it doesn't randomly laugh.
This is reference to that being the only way I can tell when it's AI or really Bart
comment in response to
post
"Oh, YOU know what you did!"
- it's why God invented this line in relationships
comment in response to
post
It wouldn't have been copied, so you need an extraordinary find. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the times that we've found dinosaur fossils with actual potential remaining biological carbon. One in a billion kind of thing
comment in response to
post
There would be a selection bias, so obviously no Christian sources would perpetuate the document. If there was some type of secular legal document found that was extraordinarily lucky to have survived such a long time, maybe?
comment in response to
post
WWVD?
What would Vlad do?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
What madman would make such art???
It reminds me of those optical illusions of squares that have black dots that you can't see when you're looking at them
comment in response to
post
That looks wholly triangular, a holy trinity so to speak
comment in response to
post
Which ER?
comment in response to
post
I was just adding to your point. I also think there is insufficient evidence, but it's pretty easy to construct a very specific description of God that fits the evidence. Many different concepts, even.
And, obviously there is sufficient evidence to reasonably rule out many conceptions thereof
comment in response to
post
Evidence can be part of multiple competing hypotheses. A cheap camera would take a grainy photo of both a real UFO and a cheap mock-up.
But either way, it's evidence. Just not enough to distinguish between those hypotheses.
comment in response to
post
Oh, there's no doubt that my use of the verse is outside of authorial intent.
comment in response to
post
When I was a child, I believed as a child. But now that I am grown, I've put away childly things
comment in response to
post
Battle River—Crowfoot ran 80% conservative, so it's a wise choice
comment in response to
post
Hmmmm, that's regular voters. I was speaking from the Conservative point of view, keeping him on as leader and parachuting him in somewhere.
But putting him into a riding where he's not guaranteed to get 60%+ would be a pretty stupid Gamble
comment in response to
post
I was just impressed with how well designed it was. Its swimming pool still has water in it!
comment in response to
post
Strategically and politically, I think they would be quite smart to parachute him in somewhere.
He's done quite well in becoming the mainstream face of modern conservatives
If there's a coupe against him, I don't think we'd see it.
comment in response to
post
He needs external enemies to keep morale up, you're right.
comment in response to
post
The first time I understood the slang term "I can't even" was the time I grabbed the wrong box of KD at the store and then had a craving later
comment in response to
post
Oh they won't be hit harder, because morale is an important component of perceived suffering. Trump is willing to fight until the last Democrat on this
comment in response to
post
Oh yeah, there is definitely some short-term morale for pain leading to gain. That's the theory for them
comment in response to
post
Or, people are complicated. I'm telling you, inflation that cannot be blamed on political opponents are a vital component in 2026
comment in response to
post
Yes and no. They thrive off of the idea of an external threat. But people notice their pocketbooks.
comment in response to
post
In will be inflation in strongly Republican districts that will cause them to grow a spine. But it has to be from events (supply reduction) that cannot be blamed on their political opponents.
comment in response to
post
It will be inflation in strong Republican districts that loses him 2026. But it's *hard* to increase costs in a specific region unless there is some type of event that reduces supply without triggering "we're under attack!" gumption.
comment in response to
post
Trump alienating Vietnam with accusations of 90% tariffs *before* fixating on China was weeeeeird.
comment in response to
post
I would not spend the windfall on anything other than the Heritage Fund. It is the ultimate diversification. When we spend the royalties, we habituate to that income.
Making it a source of dividends rather than easy today money means that we have more incentive to diversify our economy as well
comment in response to
post
It's a weird theory, devaluing the dollar to get nominal surpluses. But voters love surpluses
comment in response to
post
I was very disappointed with the first time I tried it, although I don't know if I set reasonable expectations. I wanted it to taste like some type of combination involving gondolas and Godzilla
comment in response to
post
I'm not against Canada selling oil. The one macrotrend that really concerns me is that we are becoming increasingly dependent on increasing our production of oil, which is the opposite of diversification and overall increasing productivity
comment in response to
post
Okay, I do think we are misscommunicating slightly, unintentionally.
Is it your position that if we increased output, they would buy less from Russia? That it would reduce Russia's income?
Unless they are intentionally pivoting to reduce consumption, it's unlikely. We are price takers
comment in response to
post
As long as we are proactive about creating the alternatives before we need them
Alberta suffers from a lot of foreign influence, and that's why we feel like we need to increase production (increase!) to grow our economy and that it would shrink if we didn't
It's an unfortunate implicit assumption
comment in response to
post
Again, we're a price-taker. We cannot reduce their demand with increased supply.
Geostrategically, you're correct. AGW-wise, we need to be longer thinkers.
comment in response to
post
Jevon's paradox. We cannot reduce their demand with supply. Only technological innovation PLUS a commitment to reduce supply can reduce their demand.
comment in response to
post
I've seen analysis that his goal is to strongly depreciate the American dollar, in order to get nominal surpluses and to get the employment boost that a weakening currency gives.
Of course, it's impossible to be a Trump Whisperer
comment in response to
post
Me too. 100%. Or at least coordinate ways of being less sensitive to his tantrums. But it's like herding kittens, I'd bet.
comment in response to
post
A rhymer with poor enunciation!
comment in response to
post
Just end most sentences with 'Um' or 'Er'!
comment in response to
post
Naw, lots of us are willing to be allies again. There's a chance that this is just a hiccup, assuming Vance doesn't win the next election.
But the ability to trust has been strongly reduced. I have fun friends that I would not trust to hold my wallet
comment in response to
post
I don't know why we just don't put a microphone there and do some insider trading
comment in response to
post
But I quite dislike the stuff. I'm lucky, I can eat cottage cheese very easily, so that is my main source of clean protein.
But if I was a member of the community that tried to get a gram per pound of body weight, I don't know what I would do. I might have to rely on protein powder as well
comment in response to
post
I think because we now use a lot of extra protein in order to maintain muscle mass with our sedentary lifestyles.
If we were much more active, we could use lower levels of protein, and then our bodies would engage in nitrogen sparing.
Basically you need protein to retain muscle during weight loss?
comment in response to
post
The one piece of all this that makes sense is Trump's utter aggression towards foreign aid. His own charity was shut down for self-dealing, he cannot conceive of spending money in a win-win way
comment in response to
post
This is one of the larger tax increases that we've seen recently, but without the approval of Congress. Taxation policy is supposed to be Congress's job.
I'm not sure that returning the DOGE money is legal without Congressional approval either
comment in response to
post
You would expect them to reciprocate, but they are the Polar Opposites of trump
comment in response to
post
Is there actually capital flight, or are people just pulling out of the market? So much of market valuation is maintained because we are borrowing to purchase, so it's a money velocity issue more than anything. No?
There's still the tallest pygmy question