The Rs included voter ID into that bill so that the Ds would vote against it. Then the Rs and the Ds get to keep trading and maintain plausible deniability.
Context for those commenting she voted against it. As @RepThomasMassie pointed out at the time, the bill had voter ID in it as well as the stock trading ban. The Rs put the two in the same bill on purpose so that the Ds would vote against it and the Rs get plausible deniability.
Think about every man you put in the friend zone. Those men wanted the relationship you described. Now consider, did you put them in the friend zone BECAUSE of those qualities?
Fucking other women is not a solution. He got married because he wants to fuck that woman. The pain comes from her not wanting to fuck. Wife and rando are not interchangeable.
So much depends on the existing code, the prompts given and what design philosophy you specify. Your observation is meaningless without those variables.
People who lack a theory of mind do not even have one for their past self. She feels a certain way now and so that must be how she felt then.
Yes, let’s intervene to fix the problems of all the past interventions. Then when we have even more problems we’ll just intervene again to fix the new problems. We don’t need to consider removing those interventions, that would be crazy.
Those retirees voted for it for decades despite the obvious train wreck approaching. When you talk to them about fixing it now, they refuse to give an inch. They want it to last just long enough until they die. The layers of indirection do not change the reality of the theft.
Best book I've read on the subject is "The Primal Prescription" by @BobMurphyEcon and @DougMcGuff
Show up with Ring Dings and Pepsi and you become the biggest hit of a party. People would say, "Just between you and me, I'm really excited about the Ring Dings and the Pepsi."
My theory is that his strength is making decisions so that plays are broken less often. It's hard to see that on the field. It's easy to see when Mahomes pulls a first down out of what looked like a sure sack.
You're allowed to admit Rand got something wrong. Calling consciousness an irreducible primary isn't profound, it's giving up. All evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of the physical world.