

You can’t treat any existing mental health issues while people are living on the street developing new ones.
You can’t treat any existing mental health issues while people are living on the street developing new ones.
Lmao, what is this list?! ICE comes in with guns and the authors advice is to “print red cards” to “resist” them. How detached from reality can you get? There is not one single useful action on this list!
Especially infuriating is the “LGBTQ neighbors in danger? Call the police!” Motherfucker, who do you think is the danger?!
Ah yes, because criminals are subhumans who should be exterminated like the cockroaches they are. And if we can’t take the trash out back like we should we can at least make it not our problem and make sure the cockroaches aren’t in our backyard. That’s what you’re saying right?
Terrible idea unless the shop is run by people you want dead/disappeared, at which point they’re probably friends with the police anyways. Doesn’t matter how easily disproved, they’ve repeatedly shown that doesn’t really matter.
Also, not sure what the legal ramifications are as this is essentially just SWATting…
China is half a world away and isn’t directly involved in my day to day. The harms that China can do to me are significantly less than those American businesses.
It’s not about trust, it’s about accurate threat modeling.
Homicide rate is far less than other countries.
People are jailed and murdered in the US over “speech” all the time.
It seems like your “us is far better” is based purely on vibes… Unless you’ve got some numbers you’d like to share?
I used to have that issue, the secret for me was that I needed to explicitly look for wide shoes (Xw as in 10.5w) my current shoes are going on 2 years now :D
The USA has the highest incarcerated population in the world. Per capita it’s about 2-4x the list of “authoritarian” states that usually get referenced.
Do you want to do a quick compare on the rates of extrajudicial killings as well?
I don’t know what better quantitative measurement for “authoritarian” are than life and liberty. Do you have better ones?
That’s not how anything works!?!?! It was 100% captured in the petroleum, even if the process of petroleum->plastic straw is 99% efficient you’re adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
And it’s nowhere near that efficient! Cracking alone is 65-86% efficient with probably a minimum of 2 other processing steps of similar efficiency (SWAG of 27-64% final efficiency). The waste isn’t all greenhouse gasses, but a good amount is…
Exactly! You only have to boil so much before it starts a feedback loop and boils itself off. It’s efficiency is genius! Say it with me: “the solution to pollution is dilution.”
I mean, let’s assume that we somehow regulate AI so that people have to pay to use copyrighted works for training (as absurd as that is).
ISBNDB approximates there to be 158,464,880 published books in existence.
Meta’s annual income was ~156 billion last year.
Assuming a one time purchase scenario and a $20 average cost that’s ~3.2 billion dollars. ~2% of their annual revenue.
Or you could assume assuming a $0.2 annual license (similar to a lot of technology licenses), or a 0.002 per “stream” (which I. This instance would be ‘use of data to train model’)
I agree with most of what you said, but if you buy into a lot of the economic paradigms your arguments are based on you must also realize that those require the copyrighted works must be paid for and it’s not unreasonable to do so.
Which was 3 pages long and 2 paragraphs…
Nah my dude. That’s just the minimal amount of skepticism one needs when dealing with any sort of statistical results, something the author is clearly lacking (intentional or otherwise).
The authors central claim is “Americans are now healthier” and then throws a school or red herrings unrelated to health like murder rate, vehicular deaths, etc. Safety =/= health even though they are both components of “life expectancy”, obfuscating the difference is misleading at best, malicious and manipulative at worst and needs to be called out as such.
I don’t think it’s crazy in the slightest and see no reason why it “would never work”, it’s just not a conservative idea. Why did you feel the need to minimize it so?
Not the intention. How would you prefer I had responded?
The argument is when there are more than 2 options a majority of people would not have selected the “winner” over any of the other individual losers. Therefore majority rule is an illusion, democracy is self-contradictory!!!
However, by reducing the options to just 2 you no longer have the same result and “democracy” is more “self-consistent”. You can do this in a fair/Democratic way by “simulating” the pairwise interactions (IE ranked choice voting, pairwise majority rule, etc.) or by establishing a false dichotomy (2 party systems, left v right spectrum, etc.).
This is not ‘not a thing’ but it’s a really old idea and is largely solved (ie. Distributed networks like the social media platform we are currently on, or stuff like this).
However, the claim isn’t entirely misplaced as modern social institutions refuse to implement any of those methods because it would be against their best interests as those in power are deeply unpopular (yes, especially your favourites whoever that may be). So yes almost all “Democratic” systems you interact with on a daily basis are inherently self-contradictory on the most cursory of examinations, but they dont have to be.
Yeah, the longer it takes the worse it gets. That’s one of the points the parent meme is getting across. But that response tells me you missed what I was saying.
Reread and try again.
So the idea is a law mandating tech companies advocate for eco-terrorism?