Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,390 profile views
  1. Rippounet

    Star Trek Thread: Set Picard to Stun (spoilers)

    I liked it. I watched the latest two episodes in a row and the whole thing was a mix of so many things that I too have no idea what I've been watching. But I liked it. Ir almost seems that the writers are just trying to ensure the actors have fun and the plot is kinda secondary. Every one had their moment to shine, though some aren't exactly necessary (I didn't see the point of Raffie's story). This time Steward/Picard is not the only one shining. Seven, Elnor, and Jurati were all fantastic in their own ways. I found kickass Seven really enjoyable, Elnor's candor touching, and Jurati finally makes sense as a character. In just two episodes we somehow got a space battle, a sword fight (or two?), and a few phaser (/disruptor?) shots. Not bad. Also, and paradoxically (given what I said before) it seems there will be a decent intrigue in the end. It's just not the main focus of the show yet. I did read a couple theories about it here and there though, so it's at least intriguing enough for people to think about it.
  2. "Drink every time your favorite candidate raises their hand." Fun fact: the French left-wing media is starting to say Buttigieg is another Macron. It's not a compliment.
  3. Middle of nowhere or thereabouts.
  4. To be clear the problem wasn't the pay itself, the problem was having to pay 80£/week for a small room.
  5. You should be. Edit: shit, I'm drunk enough to confuse states, but still, the bottom line remains that from what I know, Trump voters in those states (Michigan & Wisconsin) are not the "usual" Republican voters, and a record number of registered voters is bad news for the Dems. Will go hide somewhere now (don't drunk post, people).
  6. Thanks for the answer Wert, don't have anything to add on the serious stuff. I kept those pay slips in a folder with all my other papers right next to my computer (I'm that kind of guy). The year was 2002 (fuck, I'm old), and the pay was 747£/month (797 actually, but there was about 50£ of insurance). Accomodation and uniform were closer to 80£/week. So yeah, it was a BS deal all right. Though as a student it was still a great experience (partying in the UK was great fun), and I got to keep those uniforms for gardening ^^. Left me with the wrong impression though, obviously. Glad to hear things changed.
  7. Is this a great argument though? Honest question. It seems to me that in most cases it is possible to pay people a decent wage if you're depending on local (in this case, British) patronage - and that conversely, if an economic activity depends on low wages to be sustainable then perhaps said activity is questionable on some level in the first place. As for competition with overseas rivals that will be trickier, yes, but again, I'm not certain this is a worthy goal in the first place. I'm not familiar with those standards, so I'm treading on thin ice here... But isn't there an active neo-liberal or market-centered approach to labor in the UK? Massive loss of worker rights that began with Thatcher? Huge wage disparities? Not being an ass, it's been years since I did any kind of studying of the UK, but I remember that from a French perspective it really wasn't that hot... When I myself took a summer job in the UK (must have been more than a dozen years ago, fuck I'm old ^^) I was paid around 100£ a week... I think it was something like 150£ but my employer had me pay for compulsory in-site lodging (and uniform ^^) so I ended up with about 400£ a month for a full-time job that often went over 40h/week... 'twas ok for a student, but fuck, I was glad to come home... Where I got the same salary for a part-time job... So yeah... again, from my perspective, definitely not hot.
  8. Rippounet

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Talk about the pot and the kettle... It's not arrogance to explain to someone why they're wrong, or why using the correct words matter. If a "layman" wants to discuss complex issues they should be ready to learn about these issues. Insisting on using vague or incorrect terms to put forward nonsensical theories or ideas is in fact a form of arrogance. Why should anyone force themselves to forget their knowledge to communicate with you? Do you believe your thoughts on the coronavirus to be so valuable that it's up to others to make the effort? This isn't a classroom where people who know what they're talking about are supposed to explain things to others, it's a forum where people discuss stuff. If you don't know, just shut up and learn. In all honestly I didn't know the fine differences between airborne or droplet spread either, and I'm grateful to people who took the time to explain it. Now the conversation can be all the more interesting. By contrast, insisting on using incorrect terms would just make everyone dumber. I see this sort of attitude everywhere and sometimes it drives me nuts. Apparently individual opinion is so valuable that in a discussion everyone should listen to what the most ignorant person in the "room" has to say and if you don't you're arrogant or condescending or whatever. Way to elevate discussions...
  9. Rippounet

    Why does anyone like the idea of "the Singularity"

    Humans have waged war or committed genocide for disagreements over this kind of thing.
  10. Rippounet

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Exactly. Without anything more, a coincidence is only that. Of course, if there is anything more than a "troubling coincidence," I'll be very willing to think about it, I am extremely paranoid. Which is exactly why I don't take kindly to the "coincidence" argument here in the first place. There are too many "conspiracies" that warrant thought already without adding new ones every time something scary happens. Also, I don't have enough canned goods at home right now, so please hold the zombie apocalypse for a few days. Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/world/coronavirus-timeline.html
  11. Rippounet

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Not quite. Casting doubt on an established narrative may also require proof. Otherwise it's too easy to be claiming that you are "just asking questions" when you are really sowing mistrust and fear. I remember liking Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Alas, my library is a mess and I can't find it right now, but I remember it being an interesting read. At any rate, I'm certainly not throwing anything around "mindlessly," nor am I the one toying with the burden of proof here.
  12. Rippounet

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how conspiracy theories work. Someone comes up with a fanciful but relatively believable idea, often based on what's claimed to be a "troubling coincidence" or whatever, and suddenly it's up to others to show evidence to rule it out. By that token, I'll say that there is no coronavirus, it's a conspiracy by Heineken International to hurt the Anheuser-Busch InBev group. I mean, what are the odds that this disease has the same name as a famous beer, uh? Can you prove that I'm wrong? CAN YOU?
  13. Rippounet

    Why does anyone like the idea of "the Singularity"

    These days the narrative is -finally- being inverted though. Yes, human societies needed ethics, and rules. That's how religions got their strength, their legitimacy. But the necessity of ethics and justice can be separated from supernatural beliefs. In fact, anthropologists and historians have dramatically reconsidered their views on past religions. There are just so many cases where the strength of a religion is correlated to the requirements of a human society, and many others, even in ancient history, in which religion and ethics were already somewhat distinct. In short, it isn't the fear of gods that has kept individuals in line, but the fear of justice performed in the name of the gods. And the gods could be cruel in ancient times, because that's often what it took in those days, when survival of most people was an everyday concern and violence was just a few days of empty stomachs away. That's what some people would call "liberal bias in academia," ha! But we haven't moved past the stage where we need faith in something for civilization to exist just yet. We at least need to believe in justice, because apes are naturally inclined to desire fairness. Hence several competing visions of justice, which themselves lead to competing visions of society. I know which one I want to prevail, but I wouldn't look down on the other(s) just yet. In other words I'd rather have an erroneous vision of what consciousness is rather than none. We don't need faith in gods, but without it we need faith in humanity all the more. Throw away the gods and the idea of a mystical "spark" in ourselves, and what will we get? Nothing good imho.
  14. Regarding the bolded: after Trump started tweeting that the system was rigged against Sanders his campaign (Bernie's) took the position that it was rigged in 2016, but not in 2020. And before anyone starts screaming let's remember that Warren stated, in absolutely unambiguous terms, that she also believed the 2016 nomination process was rigged. I get that Bernie's messaging might be irksome for moderates though.
  15. What is this supported by? Is this backed by facts, or just an impression?