"ggez" is fine because you're taunting, it's meant to be rude. If you're trying to be polite but say "gg" it reads about the same, that you don't care enough to actually type out a few extra characters.
merc
joined 2 years ago
AFAIK, Israel is actually extremely prosperous these days, and the money received by the west is just "nice to have" free money these days.
No, Certificate of Deposit!
I just hate "lmao" used as punctuation.
That's what bugs me about that one.
Saying "good morning" or "good evening" or whatever is a salutation. It's not conveying any real information, it's just ritual politeness. I'm not a big fan of ritual politeness. But, if you're going to do it, don't half-ass it. To me, it's impolite and insincere to half-ass or abbreviate a greeting.
I feel the same way about "GG" and "TX" for thanks. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
It's pretty common in CRPGs (computer role playing games) and MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arenas) for an ability that you have to wait before using again.
No, that's "cd".
That's true, but it's also true that within a small community sometimes acronyms are necessary. Like, imagine NASA:
"Jones exited the AL in his AES but the C4ISP flagged an error either in the LSPG or WFCA."
vs.
"Jones exited the air lock in his Anthropometric Extra Vehicular Activity Suit but the Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information Systems Protection system flagged an error in the Life Support Power Generation System or Water Flow Control Assembly"
Insiders can use the acronyms to be much more efficient. Outsiders probably wouldn't even understand what they're talking about even if they did spell things out fully.
The only problem is when acronyms leak and what's a well known and clear acronym in one group becomes a confusing one to another group, or worse is confused for a different acronym from a different group.
if they control more than 2/3 of the government [you'rre] screwed
That's why I think confirming after 5, 10 years might be a good idea. A supermajority is rare. Unless the supermajority screws with the laws to guarantee they stay in power, the next congress might have enough votes to undo any meddling they did. If they do cement their power, then you're screwed either way.
Rewriting the 2nd seems like a very smart idea to me.
It's amazing to me that they can even measure a 0.01 XG shot. This comes from James Benge's twitter account.
The XG graph is also interesting. Tottenham has a continuous stream of very low quality shots, resulting in the graph going up in tiny increments. Arsenal has a series of decent chances near minute 17, and then the one high-quality shot resulting in Gabriel's goal.
https://understat.com/match/26640
I'm sure part of it is Arsenal defending in a low block after scoring. But, it also smacks of desperation on Tottenham's part. If you're taking a shot that has a 1% chance of going in, rather than passing and waiting for a better opportunity, you don't believe that you're going to get a better opportunity.
view more: next ›
My idea (not very well developed) was to do it once 5 years after the amendment, once 10 years later, and once 20 years later.
The 5 year window would be for obviously bad amendments that really should never have passed. You just have to wait 5 years to try to fix things because that's enough time for a set of elections to happen and power to change hands, so you don't just have the same people voting on something.
10 years is for something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but a decade later has some obvious problems. Something like prohibition, or new amendments that might have been written in the wake of some major event like a terrorist attack.
20 years would be so the next generation has a chance to weigh in. Maybe older people were scared of the world changing to they wanted to enshrine something in the constitution to keep the world the way they liked it. Younger people would then have a chance to reverse it.
The idea is that there's a 20 year trial period for new amendments. If they're still thought to be a good idea, it should be pretty easy to rubber-stamp their renewal at the 5, 10 and 20 year marks. If the support for them has faded, they automatically get repealed when there aren't enough people to support them.
I also just think it would be a good idea for amendments to be pretty common, even if all they're doing is clarifying parts of the constitution that are vague. Like, whatever your position on the US 2nd amendment, you have to admit the wording is horribly vague. So, rather than supreme court justices trying to determine the historical context around those particular words, or people making weird analogies between railguns and muskets, you just open up the document, add a few clarifying words, and close it back up again.