[Q&A] Questions you want answered (D&D Edition)

Reviving for the new D&D:
-ask or answer questions better suited for D&D than EE
-not intended as a debate thread; if people want to debate a particular issue feel free to create a new thread for it.

I know the general idea of why the Pope went to Canada but I have so far failed to find out why he got a headdress.

As a white guy in the US my knowledge in that area is limited but as I lived pretty close to a lot of historical sites and tribes so I got some info through osmosis but have no idea how much of what I was told is correct/up to date.

All I know is people are mad and the photo broke my brain.

I am not indigenous, but Canadian Indigenous peoples give them as gifts.

The Pope is in Canada on a penitential voyage, which indicates he is performing penance. And, his apology was pretty impressive (to me as a white dude.) My guess is that he got the headdress as a gift for him actually coming to meet with survivors (and families of victims of) residential schools.

I have seen some indigenous people say it was a good first step, but the church needs to continue with the rest of what is needed, and others who say there is nothing short of complete elimination of the catholic church that will make up for what they did to Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Edit to add - I forgot the link to residential schools. It is a horrific part of Canada's past that was, to be blunt, the attempted cultural genocide of Canada's Indigenous peoples. The goal was, to use the words from when they program was started, to "remove the indian from the indian". Think of all of the worst parts of how humans treat other humans, and it was surely done to these kids after they were stolen from their homes.

Why does the State Department get to call for drone strikes and hire its own private army?

Because no one stops them and Congress gives them the budget.

I think there are a number of lawyers on the forums so I was wondering about copyright law and Lin Manual Miranda’s lawsuit against a Texas church that turned Hamilton into an anti gay lecture. Does the church have a legit defense by saying it’s a fair use parody? I thought a parody needed to be different enough from the original to have legal protections, but this seems to be just a copy and lift job.

And if copyright law is a bit murky on what is and isn’t fair use, could this be yet another sharia law showdowns at the Supreme Court? Yes, my nightmare being the SCOTUS legalizing widespread plagiarism as long as it has a Christian bent.

There's "fair use," and then there's "f*cked use."

Bonus protip: An anti-gay agenda is probably not best served by using live theatre as the vehicle.

Right?!? I’ve heard that some states have anti discriminatory copyright laws where you automatically lose if you create a bigoted version of a work and try to call it a “parody.” Granted, Texas probably doesn’t have those laws.

I’m still afraid this could go all the way to the Supreme Court if the church gets big spending supporters to bankroll appeals.

That would be the nightmare scenario.

On the other hand, as much as freedumb loving patriots deplore the gazpacho tactics of the FBI and IRS, they've probably never tangled with ASCAP.

Engaging in a spot of thread necromancy here to ask a question about US politics that I've been wondering about recently.

It's well known that the Senate, being composed of exactly two senators from each state, is heavily biased toward rural states, which are represented way out of proportion to their population. Because urban dwellers tend more liberal than rural dwellers, this translates into an effective bias in favour of Republicans.

Seats in the lower house are assigned roughly in proportion to state population, although if I understand correctly how it works, the minimum of one seat per state means there is still a slight bias toward rural states, although obviously nowhere near as strongly as in the Senate.

(Let me know if I have any of these details wrong.)

So what I'm wondering is: If the Senate is so much more strongly biased to the right than House, how come the Democrats managed to hold on to the Senate (just barely) but lost the House (just barely)? The actual makeup of the two houses doesn't seem to match what I would have expected from the way the electoral system works. What am I missing?

One hypothesis I thought of is that congressional districts can be gerrymandered, while (if I understand correctly) senators are elected statewide, giving no opportunity for district-level jiggery-pokery. Is massive Republican gerrymandering enough by itself to account for the difference? (Or rather, the lack of difference.)

Yes. Gerrymandering is your answer plus the House is no longer really proportional representation so it over-emphasizes rural voters as well. For example Delaware has one rep for almost one million people while Wyoming has one rep for 550k.

Gerrymandering has been a key republican congressional strategy for the past 20-30 years. There are tons of lawsuits going on over congressional gerrymandering but the law moves slow and there has been an infuriating lack of consequences.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:

Engaging in a spot of thread necromancy here to ask a question about US politics that I've been wondering about recently.

It's well known that the Senate, being composed of exactly two senators from each state, is heavily biased toward rural states, which are represented way out of proportion to their population. Because urban dwellers tend more liberal than rural dwellers, this translates into an effective bias in favour of Republicans.

Seats in the lower house are assigned roughly in proportion to state population, although if I understand correctly how it works, the minimum of one seat per state means there is still a slight bias toward rural states, although obviously nowhere near as strongly as in the Senate.

(Let me know if I have any of these details wrong.)

So far so good.

So what I'm wondering is: If the Senate is so much more strongly biased to the right than House, how come the Democrats managed to hold on to the Senate (just barely) but lost the House (just barely)? The actual makeup of the two houses doesn't seem to match what I would have expected from the way the electoral system works. What am I missing?

One hypothesis I thought of is that congressional districts can be gerrymandered, while (if I understand correctly) senators are elected statewide, giving no opportunity for district-level jiggery-pokery. Is massive Republican gerrymandering enough by itself to account for the difference? (Or rather, the lack of difference.)

Part of it is definitely the gerrymandering. Another big part of it, though, is that Senators aren't all up for re-election at once - Senators are elected for six-year terms, but Representatives for only two. The seats in the Senate are organized into three different "classes", and every two years when the entire House gets re-elected, only one of the three Senate classes is up for re-election while the other two-thirds of the Senate are "safe". This makes the Senate control less subject to public opinion - when everyone from one party is fired up and getting out the vote in a certain election year, there are a bunch of seats where that doesn't even matter, and maybe in two years the winds will be blowing in the completely opposite direction.

Class 1 is up for re-election in 2024. It has 10 Republicans in it - and 23 Democrats (well, 20, plus the three Independents - Bernie, Sinema, and Angus King - who all caucus with the Democrats). It's going to be really hard for Democrats to pick up even one seat, especially considering that seven of the ten Republicans from that class are from Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Nebraska, where in each case a Republican win is pretty much assured.

(The other three, incidentally, are from Missouri, Florida, and Indiana, which are a little bit less of a lock for Republicans but still pretty heavily lean to the right.)

How far up does a countries air space go? we keep seeing news about downing balloons at around 60,000 ft and it doesn't seem like anyone is claiming they violated a countries air space. It would be quite provocative to violate US airspace and they don't seem to be doing that so how far up is "ours".

farley3k wrote:

How far up does a countries air space go? we keep seeing news about downing balloons at around 60,000 ft and it doesn't seem like anyone is claiming they violated a countries air space. It would be quite provocative to violate US airspace and they don't seem to be doing that so how far up is "ours".

FAA regulates up to 60,000ft. Above that you no longer need air traffic control permission to use the airspace.

Space starts at 100km. Technically anything under that should be considered national airspace, but there's a much lower limit to how far up a country can assert control of that airspace.

The FAA considers anything up to FL 600 (Flight Level 600 or 60,000 ft) to be regulated airspace.

Anything above that is basically the Wild West mostly because there aren't really any civilian aircraft that fly at that altitude.

Few military aircraft can operate at that altitude or above, essentially only the SR-71 Blackbird. The F-22 was used to shoot down the balloons because it's the only fighter we have in service that can operate above 50,000 feet (it's exact flight ceiling is classified).

Thanks.

Not sure if this belongs here, but any advice if I’m getting doxxed and death threats by some incel Nazi idiots? Like a dumbass I linked some personal details to a Reddit account which I used to make fun of a terrible Nazi meme.

Tonight I got a “hey I live in your area” comment along with some comment about killing me in Minecraft. Fortunately, I think they just know my general info and not my exact address, but I’m afraid that they could track me from some of my gaming accounts that can be traced to my real name. I also figure the whole “in Minecraft” will make the cops laugh at me reporting a death threat so I’m not even sure it’s worth going to the authorities.

I guess I figured these dumbasses wouldn’t be so dogged over a throwaway comment but damn they are persistent. My inner investigative analyst is impressed.

Just ignore it, do not engage, and they will shortly move on to the next shiny thing.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Just ignore it, do not engage, and they will shortly move on to the next shiny thing.

Thanks. I’m not trying to act like a martyr but goddamn I’ve never been on the receiving end of this level of abuse. I have a whole new appreciation for what some speakers and thinkers have to go through.

Can anyone explain why SCOTUS made an actual ruling in the recent gerrymandering decision rather than punting it as "non-justiciable" like the previous one?

Mixolyde wrote:

Can anyone explain why SCOTUS made an actual ruling in the recent gerrymandering decision rather than punting it as "non-justiciable" like the previous one?

From a layman's perspective it looks like Roberts is trying to salvage the legacy of him and his kangaroo court.

Maybe he should have thought about that and spoken out when the Trump admin was ramming through blatantly partisan hacks into the court, or when Turtle-f*cker was spearheading the denial of Obama nominating Garland for an entire damn year.

Sorry Roberts, too late. You presided over arguably the most partisan SCOTUS line-up in US history without batting an eyelash. That is your legacy.

Farscry wrote:

Maybe he should have thought about that and spoken out when the Trump admin was ramming through blatantly partisan hacks into the court, or when Turtle-f*cker was spearheading the denial of Obama nominating Garland for an entire damn year.

Sorry Roberts, too late. You presided over arguably the most partisan SCOTUS line-up in US history without batting an eyelash. That is your legacy.

I mean, true, but let's not tell him that so we can milk it for all the actually decent rulings we can.

JLS wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Can anyone explain why SCOTUS made an actual ruling in the recent gerrymandering decision rather than punting it as "non-justiciable" like the previous one?

From a layman's perspective it looks like Roberts is trying to salvage the legacy of him and his kangaroo court.

Too late for that. Not only has the damage to his legacy been done, but the Sheldon Whitehouse papers make it clear how ideologically corrupt he was even before the illegitimate justices were installed.

The only thing consistent about this court is how inconsistent it is.

I'm confused about the supreme court ruling about student loans. I thought they ruled in bidens favor a couple months ago. Was there something else about student loans they ruled on?

Today they basically ruled the Student Loan Forgiveness program that was going to wipe out $10K of student loan debt is unconstitutional because the program was not approved by Congress. They put it back on the legislature, saying that the executive branch does not have the power to do it unilaterally. So it is dead.

Supposedly the Biden admin is going to announce some other relief measures, we'll just have to wait and see.

thanks for clarifying, I'm not sure what i saw a while ago about supreme court and student loans. Oh well.

Yo, how the hell did we go from John Calvin's... uh.... "fairly strict" theological tradition to the Presbyterian Church in the US, generally known as the "cool with the gays" church?

Because Presbyterianism was hugely influenced by Calvin, and I know a lot can happen in some 4-500ish years, but that's a LOT of change.

AUs_TBirD wrote:

I'm an architect, and we've noticed the recent slowdown. Friends with relevant knowledge have reported that applications for new building permits have collapsed this year.

Please forgive the lack-of-knowledge ignorance, but beyond broad-strokes "economic activity," can anyone explain why is this a bad thing? I understand developers only make money when they build new stuff, much as a shark dies if it stops swimming, but in my experience, buildings do not evaporate.

Can renovation + infrastructure improvements not serve as well?

Are you talking about housing? If your population is shrinking, sure. If your population is growing, where are all those new humans going to live? Not to mention housing is not constant, houses are rendered uninhabitable every day. Without new houses being built to replace those, supply shrinks.