"None of this will even slightly slow down the overblown hysteria that accompanies the next twitch of the magnetic field."
"And then the next story comes out and the same old "sky is falling" garbage comes out again."
When every scientific effort documented in TFS is punctuated by this bullshit, it really makes me wonder why scientists even expended the effort to do a study in the first place.
In the face of mass ignorance and stupidity, trying to educate people seems so damn futile.
Oh, so it's a matter of how large a fraction of society is affected? The fraction you're not part of, I'd bet.
Every legality and illegality is a matter of public acceptance. Alcohol was illegal at one time, and then it was made legal again because that fraction of society grew large enough. The public stance on marijuana is another example of fractions changing laws.
Get the vast majority of people to support your stance, and make your illegal activity, legal. Until then, understand that people breaking the law to this extent will always represent a fraction of society, simply because the vast majority of citizens do not agree with the justification to break the law, and therefore do not engage in the illegal activity. That has to do with morals, not membership.
>When a 16-year old with no more than a side gig cutting laws can obtain a free checking and savings account, to include the debit/credit card, can someone please explain this "low-income" excuse?
Uh....
Minimum balance to have a free checking account with debit and credit card is either a minimum of $5000 cash in the account, otherwise it's $31 per month. Without a credit card drops down to $16/month, or a $4000 minimum balance. If you're disciplined and careful to limit the number of transactions per month to less then 12then the price drops to $5 per month or $2000 minimum balance. If you're a full time student or under 18, then you can have those fees waived.
These are the best rates that I'm aware of for banking here. Other places are either more expensive for less, or less expensive but come with some pretty significant drawbacks.
I can sorta understand where you're coming from with the 16 year old but what about a 22 year coming out old prison with no assets?
Those rates are absolutely insane. Find another bank. Or more importantly, understand why people prefer a credit union.
I just checked the fine print at my credit union. If you have at least 5 debit transactions a month (no maximum limit) and at least one direct deposit transaction a month, then your checking account is free (including debit/credit card). No minimum balance required. If you fail to meet those requirements, then they charge you $5/month. Not exactly fees that should alienate or deter a vast majority of low-income earners (how many of them own smartphones again?)
And banks aren't in the "asset" business. They're in the money business. If you have none, then the conversation is irrelevant. If you have some, step right up.
When a 16-year old with no more than a side gig cutting laws can obtain a free checking and savings account, to include the debit/credit card, can someone please explain this "low-income" excuse?
Perhaps instead of "low-income" you call it what it is; Citizens wanting to hide their legal status by being paid under every proverbial table.
Yeah, I like semi-anonymous transactions and privacy too, but they're not doing this for "high-privacy" Americans...
Just pass laws keeping Corp execs from serving on multiple boards and prohibit bonus structures. The system has been gamed and we need some different rules to shake up the top. Leaders are supposed to eat last.
Sounds simple enough, until you realize those passing laws are the corporate execs, or are controlled by them.
How else do you think we created this clusterfuck...
Well it's not going to cost me $50 a month. What is the point of having these services like youtube and hulu tv if they cost you just as much as a cable tv subscription if not more.
You're still asking to be provided the same 10 gallons of gasoline, so perhaps stop wondering why 10 gallons still costs the same regardless if you pump it into a truck, van, or car.
And the point of offering the same services over a different medium is capturing a larger audience. Makes sense when you consider the younger generation will happily spend $1000 on a smartphone and $100/month on the all-you-can-eat data plan to consume content and yet refuses to own a television because they're "too expensive". Try not to look to hard for logical financial arguments here. We jumped that shark long ago.
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
Addicts are abused the same way the world over. Don't want to be thrown over a barrel and abused? Then fix your addiction problem.
Yeah, it is that simple. No one needs the Boob Tube.
AI is targeting the educated mind, so Andreessen's recommendation is to go get an education??
You sound as if there's thing thing called "the educated mind" as if it's a single point. It's not, and never has been. Education is both a spectrum and a mass of diversity. AI is also a tool, not simply a replacement human. What makes you think AI isn't going to supplement human intelligence rather than just replace it?
One of the primary drivers behind automation is efficiency, but let's be honest about what that actually means; profits.
AI might be used to supplement human intelligence for some fields, but in the vast majority of them, automation and AI is being driven by the profit motive, so the end goal IS to replace the human, not supplement them.
And to be quite honest, the average educated mind is far more replaceable than you think. We keep talking about achieving "true" AI when all it will take is "good enough" AI to replace a lot of human-driven employment. A kiosk is all it takes to replace a cashier now, and that's hardly AI. Cashiers make up a large portion of the workforce, and certainly represent one of those key "stepping stone" professions that often funds the educated mind. Target human drivers next (which we are), and you're talking about another significant impact for employment.
If society is going to remove the stepping stones to success, they better be ready to accept the consequences and impact of mass unemployment.
The reality is that this has been happening for hundreds of years. It's not as if we just invented education in the last 50 years. Automation has been replacing jobs ever since we invented automation. If you think AI is just going to replace all jobs, you're really misunderstanding AI.
We are far more prone to underestimating future technology than "misunderstanding" it. 100 years ago we humans were barely getting ourselves off the ground with airplanes, and there wasn't a single human alive in 1919 that could have predicted a moon landing in 1969 or anything close to that capacity. I hope that gives you an idea of just how bad we humans can underestimate and not even remotely grasp what future technology is truly capable of, so don't continue making that mistake with AI.
"With bacteria and fungi alike, hospitals and local governments are reluctant to disclose outbreaks for fear of being seen as infection hubs."
Uh, they're "reluctant"?
if you have an outbreak in a particular area, then you fucking are an infection hub. Mandatory disclosure for shit like this should be the bare minimum to remove the ethical excuses and help prevent irrational decisions from perpetuating an outbreak.
And you're going to tell me we simply cannot use the Data here? Forget humans realizing there's an outbreak going on; we should have machines learning and alerting on this as they crawl through our electronic medical record systems all day. Yes, we likely know how fractured medical data warehouses still are, but could still likely be done at the major/regional hospital level that all run the same medical systems.
Put a few marketing dollars behind it, and you could likely get that data for free by crowd sourcing it. Perhaps voluntary disclosure of symptoms/illnesses in real time from the masses is a way to stay in front of an outbreak in a particular area. Of course, you would also have to validate those claims in some way, otherwise just like everything else crowd-enabled, it risks being abused to distort the truth.
"Simply put, fungi, just like bacteria, are evolving defenses to survive modern medicines."
Yeah, or one could peek back at history and consider this particular evolution could have been man-made as well. Stranger things have happened.
Police had to make the conscious decision to spend the money on the system. That means they were internally motivated to do so. That means they believe the general public is a potential threat. That includes a guy driving to work or a mother making a store run with her kids.
Ingrained or taught? My inherent question really does boil down to that. Do those inclined to put on a badge and gun for work every day naturally believe everyone around them is a criminal, or are they sold that line of chest-pounding unionized bullshit every time a data peddler walks in the door with a new surveillance toy?
I've interacted with and am friends with quite a few of them. Most cops punch in and punch out. They wear a gun as part of their job, and don't ever fire or practice with it unless ordered to, and physical exercise is hardly a priority. They're there to just do the shift and go home, and actually don't give two shits about anyone that doesn't come up on their screen or radio. In other words, they give a shit about those "greater good" issues about as much as the rest of us clock punchers. And I really don't believe the "everyone's a criminal" mantra is being pushed by anyone other than those out to sell something.
"and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"
No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.
Thank you for that clarification/correction.
Regardless of anyone's views on the topic at hand, eradicating bullshit and devaluing clickbait in mass media should remain a priority of any educated society who wishes to remain respected and informed.
Here's the thing - every computer out there is insecure. We basically don't have the knowledge on how to build a secure computer that most of the population can use while remaining connected to the Internet.
Here's the thing; the overwhelming majority of computers online today are not infected, proving that most of the population can in fact use a computer successfully while connected to the internet. We don't need to build the perfect environment. We simply need skilled people operating the existing ones, not ignorant children who refuse to learn. When IT professionals can operate a computer for years and not get infected, it becomes rather obvious who the problem is.
IT people are the worker bees of 2). Blaming the users for using faulty equipment is a waste of time.
Guns are dangerous. They are a tool that can be used responsibly or carelessly, but if a stupid person does something careless with a gun, I'm not going to label the gun defective just because you can do stupid and careless things with it. I'm going to blame the moron who didn't pay attention during gun safety class. Secure systems are a pipe dream, because we both know what happens even when you build the perfect "idiot-proof" system; society simply builds a better idiot.
User education and training is what you also pay IT people for to "avoid incidents", which makes them more than mere worker bees batting clean-up. That said, effective training requires a willing and captive audience. The 21st century user community has turned into a trauma burn center full of ignorant children who can't stop putting their hand on the stove you've taught them about repeatedly, which is the reason the problem will stay lodged between the keyboard and the chair.
And that problem won't ever go away until people start getting fired for computer incompetence and blatant disregard of IT/Security training. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
It's generally not good for business when you refer to your customers as "stupid people".
You assume that the people who log onto YouTube and watch videos are Google/Alphabet's actual customers? That's naïve and cute, but grossly incorrect.
A required component of any streaming service is having viewers. If you don't cater to them, then it doesn't matter who the "real" customers are because your business is dead, so let's stop trying to split hairs here. Ad space is worthless without viewership.
And to be clear, the "stupid people" I was referring to are the content creators, who are even closer to the traditional definition of customers.
All the effort in the world isn't going to change the fact that women bear the physiological brunt of pregnancy, so they simply cannot "trust" that men have taken such a pill.
So gold digging whores putting pinholes in condoms and "forgetting" to take the pill doesn't ever happen, right?
And what man is trying to deceive a woman and secretly get her pregnant? You really must be some kind of special idiot. I've seen virgins with a better grasp of relationship dynamics.
Oh, so all those "people" behind bars are actually victims of the prison system?
Statistically, yes. Or are you suggesting that our criminal justice system is so accurate that the 98% of cases plead out guilty without full due process are all correct?
I'm glad you trust the cops so much.
I don't trust cops as much as I trust myself to follow the damn law, which is the easy way to avoid prison. The definition of victim is rather clear, and if you truly believe that the majority of people behind bars didn't earn that trip inside, you are seriously delusional.
It's rather clear how you end up in prison, and when the other 99.99% of the human race can manage to avoid it, it's hardly a system designed to entrap people unfairly. The main way you end up finding yourself on the bad end of a plea bargain is if you fucked up enough in the first place to get arrested.
This is stupid, we're literally talking about ensuring we've properly walled off a small city.
The only thing stupid here is using sheer size in an ignorant attempt to dismiss the justification.
The US prison system contains 2.3 million people. That's around five times the population of the entire state of Wyoming. These people are exploited as part of a for-profit prison system, with no real expectation of rehabilitation. If they were somehow rehabilitated, they would impose a negative impact on future profits; so of course this system is built to ensure a speedy return after release.
Oh, so all those "people" behind bars are actually victims of the prison system? What kind of idiot are you? They don't randomly pluck people from the street and put them in prison simply because "profits". You earn your way in.
We've already physically segregated them from the rest of society.
Yeah, logic tends to dictate that when you're dealing with murderers, rapists, and other psychopaths. Go figure.
You keep referring to them as "people", but many of them aren't. They're twisted animals who barely deserve to be locked up in a cage and fed. Amazing how we've eradicated the death penalty on moral grounds as society defends other rights. Fact: You can kill an unborn child far easier than a convicted mass murderer.
What the hell does it matter what phone calls they make? Do you think they're all making calls to stage jail breaks? They most likely just want to talk to their families and friends, trying to keep in touch with life on the other side.
They have a regular phone system in place for that, but hey, let's just assume that a population of 100% criminals is honest and trustworthy. I'm sure that'll work out well.
Even if they did break out, what are they going to do? Get caught again shortly after? Maybe not get caught again by adjusting to society and living a low-key life within the rules. If they did the latter, would anyone really care?
Let me know how you feel when one of them breaks out and kills a loved one. Obviously you need a reminder of exactly what the worst-case scenario is here.
It's too bad there's no way to block a cell phone signal without flooding the frequency range it uses! Strangely, I haven't heard Warden Faraday complain about rogue signals. I'm sure he just has the nicest inmates.;)
Strangely I haven't heard one taxpayer volunteer to raise their taxes to pay for your "easy" solution. I'm sure we would have the nicest prisons if money was no object.
I mean you wouldn't go on in stained sweatpants and a 6 month hobo beard.
If you want really brutal honesty, you'd advocate for that too.
I don't advocate for stained sweatpants and hobo beards because I wouldn't sport that look regardless of my relationship status. Hell, I wouldn't sport that look to change the oil in my car. If you enjoy sitting around wearing stained sweatpants sporting hobo beards, fine. Just be honest about it. Find that special soulmate that you can match stains with.
I can hardly believe we're even having this conversation anyway. Not sure why men would be dumb enough to lie about their height on a dating app. It's only one of our most obvious physical characteristics that you can't exactly exaggerate with the ease of a push-up bra.
That's false equivalence actually. Would you require men to not style their hair, color their hair, cut their beard, don't wear good clothes etc for the picture? Then why would want a make-up free selfie for women?
Style and clothing can improve a person's appearance, but the transformative power of make-up has been proven time and time again, both in real life and on the big screen.
And no, I don't "want" or need any of this (I don't even use Tinder), but if one gender is going to sit back and demand that men be accurate, then I say enforce brutal honesty and equality for ALL on dating apps. Make-up free selfies, weight verification, medical history validation. Yes, I'm certain that's the cure to the divorce rate; let's make dating even more impersonal than it has already become. Might as well start developing the bluetooth powered lie detector Tinder accessory.
Man, am I glad I don't have to deal with that shit.
Slashdot Mirror
"None of this will even slightly slow down the overblown hysteria that accompanies the next twitch of the magnetic field."
"And then the next story comes out and the same old "sky is falling" garbage comes out again."
When every scientific effort documented in TFS is punctuated by this bullshit, it really makes me wonder why scientists even expended the effort to do a study in the first place.
In the face of mass ignorance and stupidity, trying to educate people seems so damn futile.
Oh, so it's a matter of how large a fraction of society is affected? The fraction you're not part of, I'd bet.
Every legality and illegality is a matter of public acceptance. Alcohol was illegal at one time, and then it was made legal again because that fraction of society grew large enough. The public stance on marijuana is another example of fractions changing laws.
Get the vast majority of people to support your stance, and make your illegal activity, legal. Until then, understand that people breaking the law to this extent will always represent a fraction of society, simply because the vast majority of citizens do not agree with the justification to break the law, and therefore do not engage in the illegal activity. That has to do with morals, not membership.
>When a 16-year old with no more than a side gig cutting laws can obtain a free checking and savings account, to include the debit/credit card, can someone please explain this "low-income" excuse?
Uh....
Minimum balance to have a free checking account with debit and credit card is either a minimum of $5000 cash in the account, otherwise it's $31 per month. Without a credit card drops down to $16/month, or a $4000 minimum balance. If you're disciplined and careful to limit the number of transactions per month to less then 12then the price drops to $5 per month or $2000 minimum balance. If you're a full time student or under 18, then you can have those fees waived.
These are the best rates that I'm aware of for banking here. Other places are either more expensive for less, or less expensive but come with some pretty significant drawbacks.
I can sorta understand where you're coming from with the 16 year old but what about a 22 year coming out old prison with no assets?
Those rates are absolutely insane. Find another bank. Or more importantly, understand why people prefer a credit union.
I just checked the fine print at my credit union. If you have at least 5 debit transactions a month (no maximum limit) and at least one direct deposit transaction a month, then your checking account is free (including debit/credit card). No minimum balance required. If you fail to meet those requirements, then they charge you $5/month. Not exactly fees that should alienate or deter a vast majority of low-income earners (how many of them own smartphones again?)
And banks aren't in the "asset" business. They're in the money business. If you have none, then the conversation is irrelevant. If you have some, step right up.
Do you understand why "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is flawed? Well, your "Paid under every proverbial table." is exactly the same.
Do you understand that citizens living in a country illegally fail to meet the criteria of "nothing to hide"?
No, not "exactly" the same. At all. There's a reason we're talking about a small fraction of society here.
When a 16-year old with no more than a side gig cutting laws can obtain a free checking and savings account, to include the debit/credit card, can someone please explain this "low-income" excuse?
Perhaps instead of "low-income" you call it what it is; Citizens wanting to hide their legal status by being paid under every proverbial table.
Yeah, I like semi-anonymous transactions and privacy too, but they're not doing this for "high-privacy" Americans...
Just pass laws keeping Corp execs from serving on multiple boards and prohibit bonus structures. The system has been gamed and we need some different rules to shake up the top. Leaders are supposed to eat last.
Sounds simple enough, until you realize those passing laws are the corporate execs, or are controlled by them.
How else do you think we created this clusterfuck...
Well it's not going to cost me $50 a month. What is the point of having these services like youtube and hulu tv if they cost you just as much as a cable tv subscription if not more.
You're still asking to be provided the same 10 gallons of gasoline, so perhaps stop wondering why 10 gallons still costs the same regardless if you pump it into a truck, van, or car.
And the point of offering the same services over a different medium is capturing a larger audience. Makes sense when you consider the younger generation will happily spend $1000 on a smartphone and $100/month on the all-you-can-eat data plan to consume content and yet refuses to own a television because they're "too expensive". Try not to look to hard for logical financial arguments here. We jumped that shark long ago.
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
Addicts are abused the same way the world over. Don't want to be thrown over a barrel and abused? Then fix your addiction problem.
Yeah, it is that simple. No one needs the Boob Tube.
iTunes fucking sucks ass.
Don't underestimate Apples ability to make this three times worse.
After all, no one could have predicted the consumer-raping clusterfuck that is Apple I/O.
AI is targeting the educated mind, so Andreessen's recommendation is to go get an education?? You sound as if there's thing thing called "the educated mind" as if it's a single point. It's not, and never has been. Education is both a spectrum and a mass of diversity. AI is also a tool, not simply a replacement human. What makes you think AI isn't going to supplement human intelligence rather than just replace it?
One of the primary drivers behind automation is efficiency, but let's be honest about what that actually means; profits.
AI might be used to supplement human intelligence for some fields, but in the vast majority of them, automation and AI is being driven by the profit motive, so the end goal IS to replace the human, not supplement them.
And to be quite honest, the average educated mind is far more replaceable than you think. We keep talking about achieving "true" AI when all it will take is "good enough" AI to replace a lot of human-driven employment. A kiosk is all it takes to replace a cashier now, and that's hardly AI. Cashiers make up a large portion of the workforce, and certainly represent one of those key "stepping stone" professions that often funds the educated mind. Target human drivers next (which we are), and you're talking about another significant impact for employment.
If society is going to remove the stepping stones to success, they better be ready to accept the consequences and impact of mass unemployment.
The reality is that this has been happening for hundreds of years. It's not as if we just invented education in the last 50 years. Automation has been replacing jobs ever since we invented automation. If you think AI is just going to replace all jobs, you're really misunderstanding AI.
We are far more prone to underestimating future technology than "misunderstanding" it. 100 years ago we humans were barely getting ourselves off the ground with airplanes, and there wasn't a single human alive in 1919 that could have predicted a moon landing in 1969 or anything close to that capacity. I hope that gives you an idea of just how bad we humans can underestimate and not even remotely grasp what future technology is truly capable of, so don't continue making that mistake with AI.
Everyone file a lawsuit against these attorneys for misrepresentation and outrageous legal fee's exceeding what is considered a "reasonable fee."
No one seems to understand that this is an illegal business practice on behalf of attorneys!
Fortunately, I found a million lawyers who readily admit that this is an illegal business practice.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get a single fucking one of them to take the case to court.
"With bacteria and fungi alike, hospitals and local governments are reluctant to disclose outbreaks for fear of being seen as infection hubs."
Uh, they're "reluctant"?
if you have an outbreak in a particular area, then you fucking are an infection hub. Mandatory disclosure for shit like this should be the bare minimum to remove the ethical excuses and help prevent irrational decisions from perpetuating an outbreak.
And you're going to tell me we simply cannot use the Data here? Forget humans realizing there's an outbreak going on; we should have machines learning and alerting on this as they crawl through our electronic medical record systems all day. Yes, we likely know how fractured medical data warehouses still are, but could still likely be done at the major/regional hospital level that all run the same medical systems.
Put a few marketing dollars behind it, and you could likely get that data for free by crowd sourcing it. Perhaps voluntary disclosure of symptoms/illnesses in real time from the masses is a way to stay in front of an outbreak in a particular area. Of course, you would also have to validate those claims in some way, otherwise just like everything else crowd-enabled, it risks being abused to distort the truth.
"Simply put, fungi, just like bacteria, are evolving defenses to survive modern medicines."
Yeah, or one could peek back at history and consider this particular evolution could have been man-made as well. Stranger things have happened.
Police had to make the conscious decision to spend the money on the system. That means they were internally motivated to do so. That means they believe the general public is a potential threat. That includes a guy driving to work or a mother making a store run with her kids.
Ingrained or taught? My inherent question really does boil down to that. Do those inclined to put on a badge and gun for work every day naturally believe everyone around them is a criminal, or are they sold that line of chest-pounding unionized bullshit every time a data peddler walks in the door with a new surveillance toy?
I've interacted with and am friends with quite a few of them. Most cops punch in and punch out. They wear a gun as part of their job, and don't ever fire or practice with it unless ordered to, and physical exercise is hardly a priority. They're there to just do the shift and go home, and actually don't give two shits about anyone that doesn't come up on their screen or radio. In other words, they give a shit about those "greater good" issues about as much as the rest of us clock punchers. And I really don't believe the "everyone's a criminal" mantra is being pushed by anyone other than those out to sell something.
But the general trend is against privacy. Police assume everyone is a criminal who has just not been caught yet. The presumption of innocence is dead.
Do police really care to believe that, or is it more like they're being sold that steaming pile of FUD from the data peddlers?
Rule #1 when solving for Why: Follow the fucking money.
And assuming everyone is a criminal is the kind of delusional shit that creates bad cops.
It's the few folks using it to screw over the rest of humanity. How to "outsmart" these few should be the question.
It's not a person or people you're looking to destroy.
It's a human trait.
It's called Greed.
And we humans are infected with it.
Good luck finding a cure. Haven't found one in a few thousand years of warmongering, fighting over what's yours and mine on this rock.
"and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"
No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.
Thank you for that clarification/correction.
Regardless of anyone's views on the topic at hand, eradicating bullshit and devaluing clickbait in mass media should remain a priority of any educated society who wishes to remain respected and informed.
Here's the thing - every computer out there is insecure. We basically don't have the knowledge on how to build a secure computer that most of the population can use while remaining connected to the Internet.
Here's the thing; the overwhelming majority of computers online today are not infected, proving that most of the population can in fact use a computer successfully while connected to the internet. We don't need to build the perfect environment. We simply need skilled people operating the existing ones, not ignorant children who refuse to learn. When IT professionals can operate a computer for years and not get infected, it becomes rather obvious who the problem is.
IT people are the worker bees of 2). Blaming the users for using faulty equipment is a waste of time.
Guns are dangerous. They are a tool that can be used responsibly or carelessly, but if a stupid person does something careless with a gun, I'm not going to label the gun defective just because you can do stupid and careless things with it. I'm going to blame the moron who didn't pay attention during gun safety class. Secure systems are a pipe dream, because we both know what happens even when you build the perfect "idiot-proof" system; society simply builds a better idiot.
User education and training is what you also pay IT people for to "avoid incidents", which makes them more than mere worker bees batting clean-up. That said, effective training requires a willing and captive audience. The 21st century user community has turned into a trauma burn center full of ignorant children who can't stop putting their hand on the stove you've taught them about repeatedly, which is the reason the problem will stay lodged between the keyboard and the chair.
And that problem won't ever go away until people start getting fired for computer incompetence and blatant disregard of IT/Security training. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
It's generally not good for business when you refer to your customers as "stupid people".
You assume that the people who log onto YouTube and watch videos are Google/Alphabet's actual customers? That's naïve and cute, but grossly incorrect.
A required component of any streaming service is having viewers. If you don't cater to them, then it doesn't matter who the "real" customers are because your business is dead, so let's stop trying to split hairs here. Ad space is worthless without viewership.
And to be clear, the "stupid people" I was referring to are the content creators, who are even closer to the traditional definition of customers.
All the effort in the world isn't going to change the fact that women bear the physiological brunt of pregnancy, so they simply cannot "trust" that men have taken such a pill.
So gold digging whores putting pinholes in condoms and "forgetting" to take the pill doesn't ever happen, right?
And what man is trying to deceive a woman and secretly get her pregnant? You really must be some kind of special idiot. I've seen virgins with a better grasp of relationship dynamics.
Oh, so all those "people" behind bars are actually victims of the prison system?
Statistically, yes. Or are you suggesting that our criminal justice system is so accurate that the 98% of cases plead out guilty without full due process are all correct?
I'm glad you trust the cops so much.
I don't trust cops as much as I trust myself to follow the damn law, which is the easy way to avoid prison. The definition of victim is rather clear, and if you truly believe that the majority of people behind bars didn't earn that trip inside, you are seriously delusional.
It's rather clear how you end up in prison, and when the other 99.99% of the human race can manage to avoid it, it's hardly a system designed to entrap people unfairly. The main way you end up finding yourself on the bad end of a plea bargain is if you fucked up enough in the first place to get arrested.
Needless to say, my sympathy wanes.
This is stupid, we're literally talking about ensuring we've properly walled off a small city.
The only thing stupid here is using sheer size in an ignorant attempt to dismiss the justification.
The US prison system contains 2.3 million people. That's around five times the population of the entire state of Wyoming. These people are exploited as part of a for-profit prison system, with no real expectation of rehabilitation. If they were somehow rehabilitated, they would impose a negative impact on future profits; so of course this system is built to ensure a speedy return after release.
Oh, so all those "people" behind bars are actually victims of the prison system? What kind of idiot are you? They don't randomly pluck people from the street and put them in prison simply because "profits". You earn your way in.
We've already physically segregated them from the rest of society.
Yeah, logic tends to dictate that when you're dealing with murderers, rapists, and other psychopaths. Go figure.
You keep referring to them as "people", but many of them aren't. They're twisted animals who barely deserve to be locked up in a cage and fed. Amazing how we've eradicated the death penalty on moral grounds as society defends other rights. Fact: You can kill an unborn child far easier than a convicted mass murderer.
What the hell does it matter what phone calls they make? Do you think they're all making calls to stage jail breaks? They most likely just want to talk to their families and friends, trying to keep in touch with life on the other side.
They have a regular phone system in place for that, but hey, let's just assume that a population of 100% criminals is honest and trustworthy. I'm sure that'll work out well.
Even if they did break out, what are they going to do? Get caught again shortly after? Maybe not get caught again by adjusting to society and living a low-key life within the rules. If they did the latter, would anyone really care?
Let me know how you feel when one of them breaks out and kills a loved one. Obviously you need a reminder of exactly what the worst-case scenario is here.
It's too bad there's no way to block a cell phone signal without flooding the frequency range it uses! Strangely, I haven't heard Warden Faraday complain about rogue signals. I'm sure he just has the nicest inmates. ;)
Strangely I haven't heard one taxpayer volunteer to raise their taxes to pay for your "easy" solution. I'm sure we would have the nicest prisons if money was no object.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world.
Style and clothing is equally transformative.
As is shaving.
I mean you wouldn't go on in stained sweatpants and a 6 month hobo beard.
If you want really brutal honesty, you'd advocate for that too.
I don't advocate for stained sweatpants and hobo beards because I wouldn't sport that look regardless of my relationship status. Hell, I wouldn't sport that look to change the oil in my car. If you enjoy sitting around wearing stained sweatpants sporting hobo beards, fine. Just be honest about it. Find that special soulmate that you can match stains with.
I can hardly believe we're even having this conversation anyway. Not sure why men would be dumb enough to lie about their height on a dating app. It's only one of our most obvious physical characteristics that you can't exactly exaggerate with the ease of a push-up bra.
5-footer spotted.
There's a minimum height to be able to see over the wave of bullshit and identify those perpetuating double standards.
It's considerably higher than five feet.
That's false equivalence actually. Would you require men to not style their hair, color their hair, cut their beard, don't wear good clothes etc for the picture? Then why would want a make-up free selfie for women?
Style and clothing can improve a person's appearance, but the transformative power of make-up has been proven time and time again, both in real life and on the big screen.
And no, I don't "want" or need any of this (I don't even use Tinder), but if one gender is going to sit back and demand that men be accurate, then I say enforce brutal honesty and equality for ALL on dating apps. Make-up free selfies, weight verification, medical history validation. Yes, I'm certain that's the cure to the divorce rate; let's make dating even more impersonal than it has already become. Might as well start developing the bluetooth powered lie detector Tinder accessory.
Man, am I glad I don't have to deal with that shit.