People say that about the rich in America too. “Don’t tax them, they’ll leave and take all their money with them!”

But I dunno, maybe we shouldn’t let people get so rich we’re terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought…

But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren’t going to leave because they’re making less profit as long as “less profit” is more than “how much profit will I have if I leave”

Of course, now that they’ve completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.

That’s nepotism, totally different thing

/s

My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.

Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.

But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.

Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less

Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.

anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid

That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.

Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.

I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.

In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.

Some virus

Iirc the increase in pandemics has been an expected result of global warming.

For my money, there are three existential threats to the human species. You’ve already listed two: global warming and nuclear war. IMO the third is microplastics (although PFAS could be combined with microplastics to make a category I think we could reasonably call “forever chemicals”)

I’m all for officials verifying facts and stuff, but I’m pretty sure we all knew this just by looking at the dude.

I hate him saying “get your mind out of the gutter” as if even thinking about people who are gay is itself a perverted sexual act.

Gay people exist. Acknowledging this and discussing whether a piece of media is directed at them is not “mind in gutter” stuff.

I don’t want to go so far as to say this person is homophobic, but it sure does sound like some internalized homophobia, perhaps.

That’s a really great point and some interesting information. Thanks for sharing!

at least on a federal level

The FPTP spoiler effect isn’t going away any time soon.

You are 100% spot on. What we need are progressive candidates on the local level, were voting rules are determined, to push Rank Choice Voting. The Two Party System is a result of FPTP voting; take that away and implement RCV and the Two Party System will begin to crumble naturally.

same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another

To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it’s basing that model on what’s statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what’s actually there. What could go wrong?

Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”

Which was always the intent, more or less. It was just kind of a tradition amongst audio engineers to use it once in every film. It had nothing to do with the studios.

We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.

It’s a good joke, right?

The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.

All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

“Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)” isn’t free speech absolutism. It’s just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

Oddly, I thought that was one of the worst parts about Google+. I get your point though and I respect your opinion, I just thought it was interesting how we disagree 😄

Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that’s the case for the subreddit you’re looking at?

Makes a ton of sense. It only makes Google look bad when their users can’t actually view the results of their search. Imagine if the first page of a Google search was nothing but limited access stuff (paywalls, members only, etc) it would drive users to the competition really fast.