Maybe there should be four buttons:
Which could be used for more filtering options.
Or maybe a separate agreement/disagree metric. I wouldn’t mind seeing the consensus on a topic separate from the measure of usefulness.
It’s just that it’s boring. I’d rather have an interesting debate. Downvoting everything you simply disagree with just leads to groupthink forums.
And then getting downvoted by people who just disagree with your opinion. I’m one of the Reddit refugees so I don’t know if we brought that with us or Lemmy was like that before but it’s sad to see.
What. I was in the middle of something. What do you want? You know what? Nevermind, I’m just going to go back to what I was doing.
Reagan was the literal actor hired to play president by a group of Machiavellian assholes, many of whom were also behind the scenes of both Bushes, Nixon, and lots of Republican Congress members. Not disagreeing that Reagan is where they really got traction on their dreams of power, but Reagan wasn’t the architect.
I said “option” to retreat not “duty” which is an important distinction I think. And there’s also the option of other reasonable force. I don’t think killing to protect my TV is reasonable, but fighting back possibly even causing injury might be. If I lived in a place where the intruder wasn’t likely to be armed, I’d probably whack his hand with broom handle, and I wouldn’t even feel bad if I broke his wrist because some use of force to keep a stranger from entering my house is warranted. When it comes to lethal force though the standard should be higher, which is why I prefer the self-defense/defense of others test. Did the guy have good reason to think the person breaking in was an imminent danger, that he might be armed and therefore escalation to firing a gun was reasonable? I don’t pretend to know, but I think that’s the test that should be used. That test should take into account that it was his house being broken in to, and that there was another person present he might have wanted to protect, because that definitely affects your perception of danger. We don’t need a set of principles that say you automatically get a pass when it’s your house, I think it’s better to look at each case individually.
Do Renaults often figure into your thinking? ;)
No disagreement. I’m a commie pinko by American standards, which is to say slightly left by European standards. I support gun regulation but it won’t solve the proliferation until we face up to this weird fetishization of guns we have.
I do not agree with the castle doctrine. It’s too easily used to justify lethal force when retreat is an option, however self-defense is a valid justification and from the description given I think that’s completely plausible. An unknown person breaking the glass and potentially armed could be a threat. It sucks that a guy who possibly did nothing wrong has to defend himself in an investigation, but we should have a high bar on lethal actions for civilians and cops (the standard should be higher for cops).
Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.
Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
“against your Christian religion”. Fixed that for you.
Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.
He’s the male Gwyneth Paltrow selling brain pills instead of Goop. He promotes alt-right and far-right conspiracies. He told people not to get the COVID vaccine. If he just interviewed people – even people from all sides – I’d be fine with it. Problem is he promotes dangerous conspiracies and usually ignores fact checking. He’s using his influence and authority to do harm. And worst of all, I think he just does it for the ratings.
I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
Sure, but on a per delivery basis that should be like $1.00? And yes, they need to make a profit, so the fee should be $1.10?
I have created several variants of [email protected] and then change to a local account after install.
In defense of Zuckerberg – and there’s something I never thought I’d say – they changed the name of the company so that they could introduce new brands. They were not dumb enough to rebrand the successful products. It’s just now Facebook by Meta.
Humans are good decision makers, we’re just not good at paying attention for long periods of time. Which is why I think self-driving cars will eventually be better, but they aren’t yet. And those are expert systems (I refuse to call them AI) trained on a well-curated and limited set of data for a limited and specific purpose. Which is an important difference over the generalized generative models. More data does not make systems, especially more unsorted data.
But here’s another important difference: I can grab the wheel at any time and take over. If we are going to give these systems decision making authority there needs to be an obvious and intuitive override.
Early hominids interbred. Modern humans are a result of that mixing.
If you call them PanoPods you can probably get venture capital funding and then just go buy a train and paint it with a cool design.