MileyCyrus comments on Minor, perspective changing facts - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 22 April 2013 07:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (157)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 22 April 2013 10:00:00PM 1 point [-]

I can think of a few examples but they're all political.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 22 April 2013 11:12:52PM 8 points [-]

Not sure if this is political, but I understood why people in America were so obsessed with gay marriage much more when I realised that spouses get health care automatically. So people weren't really (or not exclusively) getting upset over a symbolic distinction but a practical one.

Comment author: Larks 22 April 2013 11:23:52PM 7 points [-]

There's been a similarly large fuss over gay marriage in the UK, where 1) the NHS provides healthcare to everyone and 2) existing civil partnership legislation gave gay couples all the benefits of straight couples. So I don't think that practical issue is very important.

(Also, there are many far easier ways of getting health insurance than by upsetting arguably the most important institution in the history of the world!)

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 23 April 2013 09:44:20AM 6 points [-]

Your observation on this subject disagrees with mine. I'd say there was significantly less fuss about gay marriage in the UK. I suggest this is selection effect on one or both of our parts.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 23 April 2013 06:51:14AM 1 point [-]

Interesting paper on monogamous marriage: http://www.gwern.net/docs/2012-heinrich.pdf

Comment author: Randy_M 24 April 2013 03:19:05PM 2 points [-]

I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but my (optional) employer-provided health insurance had a premium increase when I opted to include my family vs just insuring myself. Of course, the increase wasn't the same as doubling the price, but the coverage was contingent on my having a full-time job that chose to offer it and my paying more for it.

Comment author: private_messaging 23 April 2013 06:40:29AM 1 point [-]

Thing is, they don't know about that either, and/or don't care.

Comment author: shminux 22 April 2013 10:17:16PM 6 points [-]

Like that under the US criminal definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction almost anything that can disrupt a mass qualifies?

Comment author: knb 23 April 2013 02:43:29AM *  10 points [-]

I guess there really were WMDs in Iraq.

Comment author: Stabilizer 23 April 2013 01:41:14AM *  6 points [-]

Holy shit. You're not even kidding! Check out the definition here. Under the definition, it says that it includes (among other things) anything that is a 'destructive device' as defined here which in turn includes,

any type of weapon...by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter...

This is so funny, it's not even funny.

Note: the above links say it's a U.S. Code prelim (i.e. some revisions might happen). But I found similar things here.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 23 April 2013 05:17:17AM 5 points [-]

The Boston marathon bomber was charged with using WMDs...

Comment author: wedrifid 23 April 2013 06:56:39AM 2 points [-]

The Boston marathon bomber was charged with using WMDs...

That would totally make sense if the marathon bomber had managed to blow up an entire 42.2km course with one device. It's less credible for the actual Boston [finishing line of a] marathon bomber.

Comment author: Stabilizer 23 April 2013 06:50:12AM 2 points [-]

I actually did not know that. Thanks.

Comment author: Kindly 23 April 2013 02:04:43AM 2 points [-]

It's not that bad. At the very least, a destructive device must be "designed for use as a weapon" or else it doesn't count. I'm still not sure why these things (the definition seems to include most guns, although I'm not sure what the bore measurements imply) are called "weapons of mass destruction", though...

Comment author: Nornagest 30 December 2014 06:56:06PM *  1 point [-]

The bore measurement requirement excludes any guns of .50 caliber or under (or around 12.7 mm in metric) from the "destructive device" category for legal purposes, which covers most modern small arms. Aside from a handful of experimental or exotic weapons, the only real exceptions are a few Eastern Bloc heavy machine guns and anti-materiel rifles, which you'd have a hard time getting ahold of in the States anyway.

It's common for black powder weapons to have larger bores -- .5 to .8 inches were typical calibers for colonial-era muskets -- but they're excluded from the "destructive device" category by a separate provision.

Comment author: BlazeOrangeDeer 23 April 2013 04:22:53AM 1 point [-]

Like a cannon from a civil war reenactment?

Comment author: Kindly 23 April 2013 11:41:48AM 2 points [-]

That is one of the deliberately excluded cases.

Comment author: Zaine 22 April 2013 11:31:52PM *  2 points [-]

I want to believe this is a pun. That definition includes swords.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 23 April 2013 09:22:44AM 1 point [-]

I thought that swords of mass destruction exist only in anime.

Comment author: Zaine 23 April 2013 06:41:40PM *  0 points [-]

Cut a piece off a body of mass, and its mass has been disrupted.