Drinking and Intellectual Independence

Just as it would have been interesting to have a vegetarian president (Ben Carson) and see what kind of influence that had on American diets, it would be interesting to have a President who doesn't drink (let alone drink and drive):

For Trump, teetotaling was ingrained in him by his older brother Fred, who struggled with alcoholism.

"I learned a lot from my brother, Fred," Trump told Forbes. "He set an example. It wasn't, maybe, the example that people would think, but it really was, in its own way, an example. That here was this fantastic guy, who got caught up in the alcohol, and he ultimately died from alcoholism."

"I used to say that I didn't drink because of Fred, I would never drink."

Linked from that article was this one, which had a quote from Warren Buffet that I really appreciate:

Warren Buffett: You don't need a lot of brains in this business. I've always said if you've got an IQ of 160, give away 30 points to somebody else, because you don't need it in investments. What you need is emotional stability. You have to be able to think independently, and when you come to a conclusion you have to really not care what other people say. Just follow the facts and your reasoning. That's tough for a lot of people. But that part, I was just lucky with. I was born that way.

SF: But what was that extra thing? So many will acknowledge that, and yet, as we saw in the current crisis, they panicked while you went into seemingly potential disasters like GE and Goldman Sachs.

WB: I can't really tell you. I didn't learn it in school or anything. It never bothered me if people disagreed with what I thought, as long as I felt I knew the facts. There's a whole bunch of things I don't know a thing about. I just stay away from those. I stay within what I call my circle of competence. Tom Watson [IBM founder] said it best. He said, "I'm no genius, but I'm smart in spots, and I stay around those spots."

Emphasis added.

-M

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Reputation in 5E

[One of my players asked for some kind of game structure around reputation and notoriety. Here's my quick version of what I think I'm going to try out this week.]

Reputation exists within a certain context which we'll call a peer group. Everyone in the peer group knows the reputation of everyone else in the peer group. A minor embarrassment (by the standards of that peer group) such as not getting invited to a party costs you 5 reputation (within that peer group), while a minor victory (getting a famous celebrity to attend) earns you 5 reputation. A major embarrassment (clothes catching on fire at a party) could cost up to half your reputation or 100 points (whichever is greater), while a major victory (saving the city) could double it. (DM's discretion here as to magnitude.) The only mechanical effects of reputation are that you can give it away to someone with less reputation, you can spend it to "attack" the reputation of someone who has less than you do (degrading both equally on a 1:1 basis), and everyone knows how much reputation everyone has. The additional roleplaying consequence is that people who want reputation within a certain peer group are likely to cooperate with those with high reputation, who therefore have the power to enhance or destroy other people's reputations. Toadies and flunkies, in-groups, out-groups, etc., all emerge naturally from this simple set of rules.

You can participate in multiple peer groups and have different reputations within each. I might have loads of street cred (Reputation: 500 among the Waterdeep Toughs) but be virtually unknown amongst the nobility (Reputation: 5 for once attending a certain party) and yet be hated and feared by chromatic dragons (Reputation: 200 for killing three dragons). Note that Reputation doesn't have to mean that people like you (the dragons hate me), but if I want to spend my credibility mocking a certain chromatic dragon he has to respond (likely by trying to kill me) or be shamed among his peers. A regular peasant wouldn't have that kind of leverage.

Notoriety is reputation with a peer group of bad guys.

The point of the reputation system is so that players can know in advance, some quantifiable way, what abstract effects their actions will have and thereby increase their feeling of agency. In my specific player's case, last week he rescued some peasants from gnolls and then threatened them afterward when they failed to give him any money. He ended up destroying their house, barn, and prized plow. In the proposed system, that might be -100 reputation among People Who Live Near Adarak, and +5 among Manly Psychopaths Who Live Near Adarak. The gnolls might even be peers within the Manly Psychopath peer group, and those of them who survived undoubtedly would lose reputation (-20 reputation?) if word of their defeat got around. How that affects their behavior depends on how important their reputation is to them, and what they think is the best way of getting it back.

Finally, I might build in some quick handles into every peer group that let you gain some starting reputation. E.g. Street Toughs might give you an initial reputation equal to your Intimidation passive score, and Nobility might let you gain 5 reputation with a week's worth of effort and a successful Persuasion check against 1/5 your current reputation. The purpose of the handles is, again, to empower the players with specific knowledge about their options.

-B.C.

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Mrs Palmer's memory

[Excerpt from Mrs. Palmer's account, as published in They Knew The Prophet.]

I remember the excitement stirred up among some of the people over Joseph's First Vision, and of hearing my father contend that it was only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy. One of our church leaders came to my father to remonstrate against his allowing such close friendship between his family and the "Smith Boy," as he called him. My father defended his own position by saying that Joseph was the best help he had ever found. He told the churchman that he always fixed the time of hoeing his large field to that when he could secure the services of Joseph Smith, because of the influence that boy had over the wild boys of the neighborhood, and explained that when these boys, or young men, worked by themselves much time would be spent in arguing and quarreling, which often ended in a ring fight. But when Joseph Smith worked with them, the work went steadily forward, and he got the full worth of the wages he paid.

I remember the churchman saying, in a very solemn and impressive tone, that the very influence the boy carried was the danger they feared for the coming generation, that not only the young men, but all who came incontact with him, would follow him, and he must be put down.

Not until Joseph had had a second vision and begun to write a book which drew many of the best and brightest people of the churches away did my parents come to a realization of the fact that their friend, the churchman, had told them the truth. Then, my family cut off their friendship for all the Smiths, for all the family followed Joseph. Even the father, intelligent man that he was, could not discern the evil he was helping to promote. My parents then lent all the aid they could in helping to crush Joseph Smith; but it was too late. He had run his course too long. He could not be put down.

There was never a truer, purer, nobler boy than Joseph Smith, before he was led away by superstition.

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Harriet Tubman

I found these accounts moving. (From http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/bradford/bradford.html.)

         It has been mentioned that Harriet never asks anything for herself, but whenever her people were in trouble, or she felt impelled to go South to guide to freedom friend or brother, or father and mother, if she had not time to work for the money, she was persistent till she got it from somebody. When she received one of her intimations that the old people were in trouble, and it was time for her to go to them, she asked the Lord where she should go for the money. She was in some way, as she supposed, directed to the office of a certain gentleman in New York. When she left the house of her friends to go there, she said, "I'm gwine to Mr.--'s office, an' I ain't gwine to lebe there, an' I ain't gwine to eat or drink till I git enough money to take me down after the ole people."

         She went into this gentleman's office.

         "What do you want, Harriet?" was the first greeting.

         "I want some money, sir."

         "You do? How much do you want?"

         "I want twenty dollars, sir."

         "Twenty dollars? Who told you to come here for twenty dollars?"

         "De Lord tole me, sir."

         "Well, I guess the Lord's mistaken this time."

         "I guess he isn't, sir. Anyhow I'm gwine to sit here till I git it."

         So she sat down and went to sleep. All the morning and all the afternoon she sat there still, sleeping and rousing up--sometimes finding the office full of gentlemen--sometimes finding herself alone. Many fugitives were passing through Now York at that time, and those who came in supposed that she was one of them, tired out and resting. Sometimes she would be roused up with the words, "Come, Harriet, you had better go. There's no money for you here." "No, sir. I'm not gwine till I git my twenty dollars."

         She does not know all that happened, for deep sleep fell upon her; but probably her story was whispered about, and she roused at last to find herself the happy possessor of sixty dollars, which had been raised among those who came into the office. She went on her way rejoicing, to bring her old parents from the land of bondage. She found that her father was to be tried the next Monday, for helping off slaves; so, as she says, she "removed his trial to a higher court," and hurried him off to Canada. One more little incident, which, it is hoped, may not be offensive to the young lady to whom it alludes, may be mentioned here, showing Harriet's extreme delicacy in asking anything for herself. Last winter ('67 and '68), as we all know, the snow was very deep for months, and Harriet and the old people were completely snowed-in in their little home. The old man was laid up with rheumatism, and Harriet could not leave home for a long time to procure supplies of corn, if she could have made her way into the city. At length, stern necessity compelled her to plunge through the drifts to the city, and she appeared at the house of one of her firm and fast friends, and was directed to the room of one of the young ladies. She began to walk up and down, as she always does when in trouble. At length she said, "Miss Annie?" "What, Harriet?" A long pause; then again, "Miss Annie?" "Well, what is it, Harriet?" This was repeated four times, when the young lady, looking up, saw her eyes filled with tears. She then insisted on knowing what she wanted. And with a great effort, she said, "Miss Annie, could you lend me a quarter till Monday? I never asked it before." Kind friends immediately supplied all the wants of the family, but on Monday Harriet appeared with the quarter she had borrowed.

         But though so timid for herself, she is bold enough when the wants of her race are concerned. Even now, while friends are trying to raise the means to publish this little book for her, she is going around with the greatest zeal and interest to raise a subscription for her Freedmen's Fair. She called on Hon. Wm. H. Seward, the other day, for a subscription to this object. He said, "Harriet, you have worked for others long enough. It is time you should think of yourself. If you ask for a donation for yourself, I will give it to you; but I will not help you to rob yourself for others."

         Harriet's charity for all the human race is unbounded. It embraces even the slaveholder--it sympathizes even with Jeff. Davis, and rejoices at his departure to other lands, with some prospect of peace for the future. She says, "I tink dar's many a slaveholder 'll git to Heaven. Dey don't know no better. Dey acts up to de light dey hab. You take dat sweet little child (pointing to a lonely baby)--'pears more like an angel dan anyting else--take her down dere, let her nebber know nothing 'bout [Negros] but they was made to be whipped, an' she 'll grow up to use the whip on 'em jus' like de rest. No, Missus, its because dey don't know no better." May God give the people to whom the story of this woman shall come, a like charity, so that through their kindness the last days of her stormy and troubled life may be calm and peaceful.

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Joseph Smith's own Bible

Reading the JST (Joseph Smith's "new translation" of the Bible) in some ways feels a lot like reading someone else's scriptures, with their own highlights and notes. It's interesting to see what he flags as important or not important. Let me give you a specific example. Rev 2:18-19 says:

18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

 

In some cases, repetition in the scriptures is significant. Is it doctrinally significant in this case that "thy works" appears both at the beginning and the end of the list? Joseph Smith didn't think so, after consulting with the Holy Ghost. I know because in the Bible he was using he crossed out the second occurrence, "and thy works." That means that "the last" means patience--thy patience will be more than thy works. That fits with the rest of what the Lord tells those in Thyatira: "I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come." You may not outwardly appear to accomplish much, he seems to be saying, but if you just endure to the end as saints I will be happy with you. Be humble and be faithful, and I will comfort you when I come.

-Max

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Paradox of Leadership

There's a tension in the gospel which almost looks like a paradox: we are instructed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, to invite others to come to Christ. But we are also told that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a cathedral (or whatever) only for saints. That is, everyone is welcome no matter where they are in their spiritual progression.

This means that there may come a time, or many times, when you see people around you even at church who embarrass you. Don't be shocked or disappointed or disillusioned. It's part of the plan. When this happens, you need to:

(1) Exercise charity. Do not judge them too harshly for their weaknesses.
(2) Realize that maybe you are the spiritual adult in the room. Be the light for them. Do not contend, but do not compromise your integrity either. Just do what is right.

In short, the answer is individual virtue. We're called to be the light of the world not only to the world but to each other. You'll know you're living the gospel right when you sometimes feel alone.

"The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?"

~B.C.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Suddenly

Aiath/Migron/Michmash/Geba/Ramah/etc. are all places on the way to Jerusalem. I infer that Nob is where Isaiah 37:36 occurs, when the angel smites them. But don't read this too literally--Isaiah isn't JUST talking about the Babylonian invasion, he's talking about a pattern that occurs throughout history, including today, where the mighty are suddenly humbled by the Lord. That general principle is presumably why Nephi included this chapter of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 20.

~Max


Isaiah 10: 28-34

28 He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:

29 They are gone over the passage: they have taken up their lodging at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled.

30 Lift up thy voice, O daughter of Gallim: cause it to be heard unto Laish, O poor Anathoth.

31 Madmenah is removed; the inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee.

32 As yet shall he remain at Nob that day: he shall shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.

33 Behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.

34 And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Supreme Court history

Some interesting factoids here:

For example, at the beginning of our Republic, only six justices served on the Supreme Court. In the decades that followed, Congress passed various acts to change this number. For many years, there were only seven Supreme Court justices; during the Civil War, there were as many as 10. It wasn't until Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 that the number of justices was fixed at nine.

Consider Justice Robert Jackson's leave of absence to serve in the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. His hiatus left the Supreme Court with only eight justices on the bench for an entire year. But having an even number of justices in no way inhibited the Court's business. As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, Jackson's absence did not "sacrific[e] a single interest of importance" because the Supreme Court could simply reschedule any cases that resulted in split decisions.

When tie votes occur today, the Supreme Court has the same ability to reargue cases at a later date or simply let the opinion of the lower court stand. But rarely is either option necessary because ties are so uncommon.  That's because the vast majority of the Court's decisions are either unanimous or split along non-ideological lines. This holds true even for some of the most high-profile, controversial cases. For example, after Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from Fisher v. University of Texas—a 2013 affirmative action case with far-reaching implications for college admissions—the Supreme Court still reached a near-unanimous decision with only eight justices.

While Democrats would have us believe that an even number of justices hamstrings the Court and results in myriad split decisions, the statistics paint a different picture. Since I was first elected to the Senate nearly four decades ago, the Supreme Court has heard more than 500 cases with only eight justices—either due to recusal or vacancy. Less than seven percent of these cases resulted in a tie.

The current Court vacancy is unlikely to last longer than a year. Yet throughout history, numerous vacancies have stretched for longer periods of time. For example, the seat vacated by Justice Abe Fortas in 1969 remained empty for nearly 400 days, and numerous vacancies in the 1800s sat open for more than two years. It is worth noting that in none of these cases was the Court unable to function without a full contingent of justices.

I think six is a pretty good number. I loathe 5-4 Supreme Court decisions decided by a single swing voter. I think that if you can't convince a few people from the other side of the aisle to see your perspective, the decision doesn't deserve the weight of precedent. A 4-2 vote on a six-person court has legitimacy in a way that a 5-4 decision on a nine-person court does not.

-Max

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

LINQ IQueryable.ToDictionary

The normal ToDictionary() method is built off of IEnumerable. If you use it with EntityFramework and IQueryable you have potential perf problems because it's using a bunch of bandwidth to select fields that just get thrown away.

Here's a smarter ToDictionary method that's built off of IQueryable and not IEnumerable. It integrates with EntityFramework to ensure that you select only the minimal number of columns needed, instead of fetching them all and projecting out only two columns after everything's in memory.

Usage:

var colorDictionary = this.Db.Items.ToDictionary(x => x.Id, x => x.Color); 
// results in the following SQL:

// SELECT 

//     [Extent1].[Id] AS [Id], 

//     [Extent1].[Color] AS [Color]

//     FROM [dbo].[Item] AS [Extent1]

Code:

    public static class IQueryableExtensions

    {

        public static IDictionary<KeyType, ValueType> ToDictionary<T, KeyType, ValueType>(this IQueryable<T> input, Expression<Func<T, KeyType>> keySelector, Expression<Func<T, ValueType>> valueSelector)

        {

            // deconstruct keySelector and valueSelector as member expressions

            var keyAccess = (keySelector.Body as MemberExpression)?.Member; // discard the "x => x" part of x => x.Name, retain .Name

            var valueAccess = (valueSelector.Body as MemberExpression)?.Member;

            if(keyAccess == null || valueAccess == null)

            {

                throw new ArgumentException("keySelector and valueSelector must be of the form 'x => x.MyProperty'");

            }

            var keyType = (keySelector.Body as MemberExpression).Type;

            var valueType = (valueSelector.Body as MemberExpression).Type;

            // Make a new expression, x => new Pair<keyType,valueType> { Key = x.Key, Value = x.Value }

            var pairType = typeof(Pair<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);

            var xParam = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T));

            var newExpression =

                Expression.Lambda(

                    Expression.MemberInit(

                        Expression.New(pairType),

                        Expression.Bind(pairType.GetProperty("Key"), Expression.MakeMemberAccess(xParam, keyAccess)),

                        Expression.Bind(pairType.GetProperty("Value"), Expression.MakeMemberAccess(xParam, valueAccess))),

                    xParam)

                as Expression<Func<T, Pair<KeyType, ValueType>>>;

            var pParam = Expression.Parameter(pairType);

            return input.Select(newExpression).AsEnumerable().ToDictionary(kv => kv.Key, kv => kv.Value);

        }

        private class Pair<K, V>

        {

            public K Key { get; set; }

            public V Value { get; set; }

        }

    }

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

5E Magic Resistance (variant rule)

Variant rule: Magic Resistance

[This rule replaces both Monstrous Manual Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistance. Creatures with one or the other should be assigned a Magic Resistance ability and score.]

Some extremely powerful creatures strongly resist and disrupt the effects of magical energy. These creatures live and breath arcane energy, and by an act of will they can cause magic to recoil from them like water droplets skittering off a hot griddle.

A creature with Magic Resistance can apply that resistance whenever it is affected by a magical effect by expending its reaction. If there is a saving throw or attack roll involved, it can wait until the result is known before deciding to use Magic Resistance. When Magic Resistance is used, the creature makes an ability check against the DC of the magical effect (similar to Counterspell) and if the check succeeds, the magical effect is negated. Unlike Counterspell, the check need not occur at the instant of spellcasting. A Magic Resistant creature could, for example, attempt to walk through a Wall of Force, and at the instant where the Wall of Force prevents its movement, expend its reaction to dispel the Wall of Force. A Magic Resistant Creature could similarly choose at any time to resist the effects of a Maze spell holding it captive or a Planar Binding spell compelling its obedience.

Example: Esmerelda the Enchantress casts Hold Monster VII on a Balor with DC 18. It rolls an 11 on its saving throw and fails. But before the magic takes hold, the Balor resists the magic! A Balor has +12 to Charisma (Magic Resistance), and Esmerelda cast the spell at 7th level, so the Balor has to make a Charisma (Magic Resistance) roll of DC 17 to avoid being paralyzed. It rolls a 21 and shatters the spell! The spell ends, freeing the Balor and any other creatures targeted by the spell.

Note: because a reaction is required, Magic Resistance cannot be used by creatures who are surprised or incapacitated.

Note 2: because Magic Resistance is an ability check, things which affect ability checks including Hex and Cutting Words do affect Magic Resistance rolls. This is by deliberate mechanical analogy to Counterspell.

Note 3: whether things like a monk's Stunning Strike can be resisted with Magic Resistance depends on how your DM interprets whether they are magical or not. Magic Resistance is not limited strictly to spells but does apply only to things that are fundamentally magic. If the DM rules that magic resistance applies to Stunning Strike, he will also tell you what level spell each strike is equivalent to for purposes of Magic Resistance. It might be appropriate to set the level equal to the monk's proficiency bonus.

Variant: some DMs might want the players to do the rolling instead of the monsters. A mathematically-equivalent formulation to the above is: monster spends its reaction to set a DC equal to 12 + Charisma (Magic Resistance). The player then has to roll to beat that score with a bonus equal to the level of the spell. In the case of Esmerelda, she can roll at +7 to beat the Balor's DC 24. Just as before, there are 4 chances in 20 that the Balor is affected by the spell.

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

WotC vs. TSR

[from another conference]

The main card gamist/WotC influences I see in 5E, relative to 2nd edition, are that:

(1) Every capability has a reified name. Whereas TSR might have written "a bard's companions get +1 to saving throws vs. charm while the bard is singing," WotC will write, "Countercharm: as an action, the bard can begin a song... non-hostile creatures get advantage vs. charm..."

(2) Capabilities are defined primarily in gamist terms. WotC will think up a mechanically-cool ability like Bardic Inspiration, Cutting Words, give it a snappy name per #1 and a place in the action economy (bonus action/reaction), and give absolutely no thought to roleplaying considerations such as just how exactly a bard is using one mouth simultaneously to give an inspiring speech to a companion (bonus action Bardic Inspiration), insult an enemy (reaction Cutting Words), and cast a spell (action Fireball) using his kazoo as an arcane focus, all in the same six seconds. As I recall 2nd edition, there was no such strong distinction between "fluff" and "crunch" (unused terms back then) because the fluff was primary: if the bard can spend an hour giving a rousing speech to his companions which heartens them against fear and boosts their morale, we know exactly what he is doing in-universe. He's not "spending his bonus action to give them a d8 Inspiration Dice" that they can later expend.

(3) There's an implicit structure to capabilities, and the writers avoid going outside the box. Capabilities are strictly-defined to avoid potentially upsetting mechanical balances, even when it's probably not necessary. Contrast 2nd edition's Tarrasque which caused fear in anything that could see it (no range limitation, although higher-level/HD creatures were less vulnerable) to 5E's Tarrasque that causes fear within some ridiculously tiny radius (120'?) that WotC writers probably think is a large radius. Is there any reason why the Tarrasque's fear should have such a small radius of effect? Were they genuinely concerned that it would be bad if the Tarrasque caused fear in things a mile away? I don't get that impression. I think they're just used to thinking of 120' as an appropriate radius for a high-level creature ability (ancient black dragon breath goes 120') that allows easy access to a "typical" medium-sized battlegrid. It's not so much, I think, that WotC would have found unlimited-range Tarrasque fear a balance problem as that they simply have no reason to break their own pattern here; 120' is enough for the scenarios they're thinking about. They're not thinking in terms of an infinite-resolution roleplaying world, they're thinking primarily in terms of their own gamist jargon.

All three of these aspects remind me of card games.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Law of Consecration

One of my favorite things about GoFundMe is that it exists. I mean that I hope and like to think that the very existence of an easy way to reach out to family and friends for help in an emergency relieves mental and emotional stress on people who are just barely getting by. I want them to know that the rest of us are there for them, even if 90% of the time they end up not needing the support.

Here's my pledge to you all:

'Therefore, ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you; for he that asketh, receiveth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened.'

I am not my Father but I will do what I can with what He gives me for whoever asks.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Election 2016

I guess I might as well show my hand RE: the 2016 election.

I disavow all candidates from both parties, Republican and Democrat. I considered Cruz for a while but I currently don't feel comfortable with him as a potential leader--too divisive.

From my perspective, the American Republic is (nearly) as dead as the Roman Republic. We're beginning the Empire phase now and the Constitution has pretty much done its job and is on its way out. I've already done my mourning over that over the course of the last decade or so, and now I'm viewing this election as a spectator. I was born in America and I think I may yet live to see her die. In some ways she has already.

But Christ was born to raise the dead.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Personal revelation

It's always interesting to see how the Spirit works in the life of Joseph Smith. There are many times when he does something, then seems to stop and ponder briefly, and then relents and reverses his course. Here are two examples, one from the memoirs of George Miller and another from Howard Coray. Interestingly, both of these involve Joseph at first deprecating or doubting himself, and the correction needed is for him to step up and magnify his calling.

Studying these accounts may help you to better understand the way the Spirit works in your own life.

Emphasis added in bold.

===============================

I had a friend in Quincy who had in one of his houses the families of Joseph Smith, Sen., Samuel H. Smith, Don Carlos Smith, Jenkins Salsbury, and a Brother Henry Hoit. He said they were all destitute and he thought gentlemen, and would suit my purpose. I waited on the venerable patriarch and those under his roof. He frankly said that his sons would take charge of my farm and effects, and praised God that I had been sent in answer to his prayers...

Getting in speaking distance, he suddenly reined up his horses as making ready to speak. I was much agitated as the words came from his mouth: "Sir, can you tell me the way to the farm of a Mr. Miller, living somewhere in the direction I am going?" Instead of answering him directly, my reply was, "I presume sir, that you are Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon Prophet?"

"I am, sir," he said, adding, "I also presume that you are the Mr. Miller whose farm I inquired for?" "I am, sir," I replied. He then introduced me to his wife and family.

I solicited him to preach. He excused himself as not feeling like sermonizing, having just escaped from prison; that he felt like a bird uncaged and was more disposed to reconnoiter the country and visit his friends and people. Upon my urging the matter, he suddenly turned to me, saying that he did think of some one of the elders preaching for me, but he was now resolved on doing it himself; that it had been whispered that a Samaritan had bound up the wounds of his bleeding friends, adding that he would do the best he could in the way of preaching. Accordingly the time and place was fixed upon, and I went to notify the people of the appointment of the Mormon Prophet to preach.

================================

In June, 1841, I met with an accident. The Prophet and I, after looking at his horses and admiring them across the road from his house, started thither. The Prophet at the same time put his arm over my shoulder. When we had reached about the middle of the road, he stopped and remarked, "Brother Coray, I wish you were a little larger. I would like to have some fun with you."

I replied, "Perhaps you can as it is"—not realizing what I was saying. The fact that Joseph was a man of over 200 lb., while I was scarcely 130 lb., made it not a little ridiculous for me to think of engaging with him in anything like a scuffle.

However, as soon as I made this reply, he began to trip me. He took some kind of a lock on my right leg, from which I was unable to extricate it, and throwing me around broke it some three inches above the ankle joint.

He immediately carried me into the house, pulled off my boot, and found at once that my leg was decidedly broken; then got some splinters and bandaged it. A number of times that day he came in to see me, endeavoring to console me as much as possible.

The next day when he happened in to see me after a little conversation, I said: "Brother Joseph, when Jacob wrestled with the angel and was lamed by him, the angel blessed him. Now I think I am also entitled to a blessing."

To that he replied, "I am not the Patriarch, but my father is, and when you get up and around, I'll have him bless you".

He said no more for a minute or so. Then, looking very earnestly at me, he declared, "Brother Coray, you will soon find a companion, one that will be suited to your condition and whom you will be satisfied with. She will cling to you like the cords of death; and you will have a good many children."

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Umbilical cord cutting: effects on health

Fascinating. I had no idea this debate on cord-clamping even existed.

In the study, a group of 263 healthy Swedish full-term babies were randomly split into two groups. One group had their umbilical cords clamped less than 10 seconds after birth. The cords of the other group were clamped three minutes after birth. The two groups were then monitored for four years. The babies with delayed cord clamping performed modestly better on tests assessing their fine motor skills and social skills. The boys in the study displayed the most statistical improvement. The results, researchers say, showed no difference in overall IQ.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/health/cut-the-cord/

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Spiritual lessons

Dear J.,

Here's an interesting event. In real life, I recently (within the past 3-5 years) lost a relationship of great value to me. I think I'm okay with this because I did everything I could for s'her while I had the opportunity. But anyway, the point is that today I lost an object of great physical value to me (my wallet). I did the normal thing of checking possible places where it could have fallen out, praying for help to be clear-minded, etc. Still no luck.

Prompted by the Spirit, I felt like this might be one of those times where you just have to write it off and move on with life. So I prepared to leave for work, pulling out some socks from my drawer and thinking about how I might check for the missing wallet at work and the drop by the bank afterwards to begin the process of replacing everything. And also prompted by the Spirit, I said another prayer, not asking this time for help finding it or being clear minded or anything, but just to learn whatever it was that I need to learn from the experience.

And I went to the kitchen table to put my socks and shoes on, and pulled out the chair to sit on... and the wallet was there on the chair. Somehow it had fallen out of my back pocket last night while playing D&D. And... huh. Five seconds after the prayer, and there it is? And now I don't have to go through all the not-tragic but not-fun experiences I was anticipating. Was the lesson completed by the fact that I was willing to stop wanting it? I did ask to learn what I needed to learn, and that's what came immediately to mind...

So I paused for a moment to write this note so I don't forget. Tentatively, what I'm getting out of this is, if I had to translate it into words, "Move forward. But don't worry, be happy." I think I'm making the right choices. BTW, that doesn't mean I expect to get that relationship back. But I do expect to feel perfectly okay in a few years about letting s'her go.

-Max

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Recognizing revelation

Link.

I was about to state my own take on the subject and then realized that I would just be repeating Brigham Young almost word-for-word.

"If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in my life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgement will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes." -Brigham Young

Also, I think Elder Bednar says something really important at 5:16.

-Max

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Apple/FBI controversy

I found this an interesting offer from John McAfee:

"So here is my offer to the FBI. I will, free of charge, decrypt the information on the San Bernardino phone, with my team. We will primarily use social engineering, and it will take us three weeks. If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America."

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

-Max

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.

Workers and robots

Providing gainful employment for everyone is the defining economic challenge of the 21st century. I do not believe the answer lies in capitalism, communism, or socialism. The only feasible answer I know of lies in widespread voluntary obedience to the Law of Consecration.

So, that's the solution. The below excerpt from this article tells you a bit more about the problem.

Vardi insisted that even if machines make life easier, humanity will face an existential challenge.

"I do not find this a promising future, as I do not find the prospect of leisure-only life appealing," he said. "I believe that work is essential to human wellbeing."

*snip*

Last year, the consultant company McKinsey published research about which jobs are at risk thanks to intelligent machines, and found that some jobs – or at least well-paid careers like doctors and hedge fund managers – are better protected than others. Less intuitively, the researchers also concluded that some low-paying jobs, including landscapers and health aides, are also less likely to be changed than others.

In contrast, they concluded that 20% of a CEO's working time could be automated with existing technologies, and nearly 80% of a file clerk's job could be automated. Their research dovetails with Vardi's worst-case scenario predictions, however; they argued that as much as 45% of the work people are paid to do could be automated by existing technology.

--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,
Loved I not Honor more.

Road From Republic To Empire

A truly insightful article. Selected excerpts below but I recommend the whole thing. -Max


There is in the Anglo-American tradition a clear precedent for the executive's power to suspend the law. Under the royal "prerogative of suspension," the British monarch could summarily "suspend" the operation of any law at any time. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 did away with that power. And as we know from the records of the Philadelphia Convention, the original Constitution carefully circumscribed the veto precisely in order to ensure that the president would never exercise such a power. So how far does this newfound suspension power go? Think about the business-mandate penalty in Obamacare: Unless you're a small company, you have to offer health insurance to your employees or pay a $3,000 tax. The tax liability is created by operation of law, but Obama announced that it wouldn't be collected for several years, and — abracadabra — the liability vanished from financial statements across the land.

So if Obama can eliminate statutory tax obligations by the stroke of a pen, would a future Republican president be able to eliminate taxes that he doesn't like, such as the capital-gains or corporate-income tax? Obama was asked that question in a 60 Minutes interview, and he answered simply, "No." He didn't explain why not, but the reason is not hard to divine: There was public support for both the immigration order and the business-mandate suspension, whereas a unilateral suspension of the capital-gains tax would probably be deeply unpopular. Thus, the only constraint on this newfound suspension power is political, not constitutional. That's in harmony with the view of left-wing law professors such as Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner, who believe that Congress could delegate all legislative authority to the president, without concern for the Constitution's separation of powers, because political constraints will be enough to prevent the establishment of a dictatorship. One wonders if Vermeule and Posner are having second thoughts now. "Shame is our most powerful restraint on politicians who would find success through demagoguery," wrote Ezra Klein at Vox. But of course that's no restraint at all for a demagogue, which was the point of constitutional limits. 

Most Americans probably don't realize that only a small fraction of our laws are passed by Congress. The vast majority are enacted as "rulemaking" by regulatory agencies in the executive branch, pursuant to congressional delegations of legislative authority. The Obama administration has been particularly virulent in this respect, with executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency enacting transformative regulations that would never pass in any Congress. In the case of Yakus v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court decided that it didn't need to worry about Congress's delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch, because both Congress and the federal courts were in a position to police what the executive does with those delegations. This rationale has been abundantly refuted in the decades since. Congress is never in a position to block an agency rule, except in the rare circumstance that the president's own party rebels against him. And the Court uses the pose of "deference" to justify letting the political branches do exactly as they please, concerned most of all with preserving the Court's own popular legitimacy.

The Congress that wrote the Clean Air Act would never have imagined that the EPA would one day use it to seize control of America's electricity generation from the states, as its Clean Power Plan envisions. Yet now, even a large majority of Congress can't stop the rule. Normally, a two-thirds majority is required to pass a bill over a presidential veto, but delegation flips that obstacle upside down: In the case of agency rules, a two-thirds majority is required to block a regulation over the president's veto. Through a clever delegation, any president can collude with Congress to impose law on future Congresses. That is exactly the purpose of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Dodd-Frank. The CFPB will be creating law and adjudicating on autopilot, with its own revenue stream, subject to no political control whatsoever, until a president and a congressional supermajority can combine to kill it.

With Congress powerless to stop what the president does with delegated authorities, the last line of defense is the federal courts. That, alas, has proved to be no defense at all. In the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that an executive agency's interpretation of its own enabling statute is due broad deference, if there is any "rational basis" at all for that interpretation. Incredibly, the Chevron rule even applies to agency determinations regarding the scope of their own powers. Many Americans would be embarrassed to learn (as I was in law school) the contortions of sophistry and solipsism that federal courts are willing to perform in order to let agencies escape the limits in their enabling statutes. Chevron contains another lesson, too: It was hailed at the time as a victory for Ronald Reagan against crusading environmentalists, because political short-sightedness afflicts us all. The Supreme Court dealt the EPA's clean-power plan a potentially fatal blow this week, when it decided to delay implementation of the rule until the legal challenges have run their course, but that is a function of Obama's appetite for testing the high court's deference to the limit.

*snip*

The progressive cookbook is full of recipes for the dictator of the future. Take, for example, Obama's masterful use of regulatory uncertainty to achieve his goals, in defiance not just of Congress but of the federal courts. In the months after the Gulf oil spill, Obama imposed a moratorium on all offshore drilling, despite the fact that most of those operations were at stages of drilling in which there was virtually no chance of a spill. When one court tossed the moratorium out, the Obama administration came back with a modified version that actually expanded the moratorium; and by the time that one was tossed out, Obama simply slow-walked the needed permits. He had achieved his objective, which was to chase most of the Gulf's deep-sea drilling rigs to other parts of the world.

Obama has demonstrated a willingness to use his constitutional powers against political opponents, as shown by the IRS persecution of tea-party groups, and by selective prosecutions — for example, targeting Senator Bob Menendez for accepting favors in connection with official duties, but not Hillary Clinton; or General David Petraeus for misuse of classified information, but not Hillary Clinton. Only Obama's forbearance and wisdom, such as they are, have kept him from taking the approach of Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chávez and overtly intimidating critics by threatening their economic interests. With that in mind, consider Donald Trump's attempt, before a recent Fox News GOP debate, to get anchor Megyn Kelly fired, or at least withdrawn from moderating the debate, as a condition of his participation. Imagine what he might do once armed with the powers of Obama's post-constitutional presidency.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431135/donald-trump-dictatorship-american-style

--

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

I could not love thee, dear, so much,

Loved I not Honor more.