No, you haven't suddenly stopped moving. If you choose the virtual particle's reference frame as the rest frame, then you are moving in its reference frame. If the particle winks out of existence, you are still moving in its reference frame, you just have no way to perceive that fact.
Actually, in a typical MTT short stacks are forced to shove all-in very aggressively, which can be construed as having to make "poor" choices--the decisions aren't actually incorrect, but larger stacks wouldn't have to take such frequent and large risks.
What about plain old Georgism/"geolibertarianism" with the proceeds from the LVT going straight to a uniform citizen's dividend? In my view, this would be a near-perfect system, having only a couple of flaws:
1. The difficulty of disentangling improvements on land from the land itself/fairly valuing land
2. It doesn't address the issue of population growth
The rest of the Internet hates /pol/ because the posters there are at once extremely right-wing and highly intelligent (albeit paranoid). According to the liberal world-view, such a phenomenon is impossible.
The burden of proof does not lie on him. There is a stunning lack of hard evidence that the holocaust took place as we're told it did. Whenever you ask for hard evidence, you're given the same run-around. I'd be happy with any of the following:
1. The remains. When you ask about this, you're first told that the bodies were cremated. The extremely implausible logistics of this aside, cremation leaves behind a significant amount of remains that would not have decomposed yet. The next line of defense is that exhumation violates Jewish law. Well, you know what? Too bad. Religious law may be violated in the course of a murder investigation.
3. Millions of birth certificates with no corresponding death certificates.
2. Records of who was gassed that can be corroborated. I'm aware that the Nazis kept records, but the records that people come up with when I ask for this are, at best, lists of people who have died of typhus or starvation. If I press, the defense becomes, "Well, why would they incriminate themselves?" Well, I don't know, but as far as I'm concerned this is a murder trial, and it's innocent until proven guilty.
I've had this discussion online half a dozen times and no one has ever provided any of these three things.
The problem is that one tenet of our legal system is that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Such a tenet is absurd given the sheer volume of existing law and the rate at which new laws are being created. If we want to keep the tenet, every citizen should be issued a single book of a reasonable length that accurately summarizes which kinds of behavior are legal and which are not. Then, if someone is accused of breaking some obscure law, a demonstration that the accused could have reasonably concluded that his behavior was not illegal based on an accurate reading of the standard summary should be sufficient for acquittal. You can't have it both ways.
The law should serve the interests of man, not vice versa. No one should have to fear going out into the world and trying to accomplish something because he might inadvertently run afoul of the law. Such a state of affairs benefits no one but lawyers.
That's not bullying. Bullying involves some sort of threat or intimidation, or at least the desire to hurt or humiliate. Telling someone that you think their opinion is wrong and that they're up in arms over nothing is not a threat, nor must it be done with the intent to hurt or humiliate.
You've got it all wrong. First, it's the OP who wants to bully (browbeat) people, not me. When someone says, "Why do we tolerate [insert behavior that is neither illegal nor unethical]?" the implication is that "something should be done" about the "bad" behavior, i.e., the "offender" should be coerced into changing their behavior. That's a reasonable definition of bullying. Second, walking away from someone who is not a positive influence on your life is not "[running] away from conflict". It's only when you can't walk away that there's even a conflict to begin with. Sure, the developer could tell Linus that he needs to chill out, but the implied end of that sentence is "...or I'm out of here." anyway.
No one's pointing a gun to this Mauro person's head and forcing him to interact with Linus. I doubt Linus ever took a vow to love, honor, or respect Mr. Mauro. If someone with whom I am only interacting by choice says something mean to me, you know what I do? I take my ball and go home.
You are being an idiot and should get the fuck over this nonissue.
>I‘ve written here before about the ongoing puzzle of improving the ratio of women to men in the tech sector.
That's nice, but when are we going to address the real barriers faced by women? Women are vastly outnumbered by men in many sectors, including workplace injuries and fatalities, acute and chronic homelessness, suicides, mental illness including schizophrenia, violent crime victimization, recruitment into gangs and child armies at a young age, legal genital mutilation, false imprisonment, unfair estrangement from children, involuntary celibacy, and a host of other exciting fields. When are we going to stop pussyfooting around and demand a better ratio of women to men in the really important sectors? If we work together, I know we can do it.