Complete neutrality isn't an option, if you don't enforce rules then the community will be overtaken by its most hostile members, and then Twitter really will be in trouble.
Twitter is already in real trouble. The community is already overtaken by its most hostile members. They did not enforce the rules equally.
Twitter allowing a virtual and very public lynching when someone said #allLivesMatter in aid of a charity very clearly displays that Twitter considers a minority ideology more important than the maintaining a mass of users.
Twitter allowed itself to be steered by a vocal minority and is likely going to get punished for it by the silent majority. Same as recent US election.
In Israel there was an interesting case a few years ago. An adult woman called Riki Ovadia had invited 10-13 year olds to her apartment to have sex, repeatedly. Feminists actually insisted that the kids "took advantage" of her.
there are things in Islam - from death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs, et al that are incompatible w/ the US constitution.
I trust you'll be applying the same principles to the Christian Bible.
I've got not objections to that. Most people won't object to removing from society the following:
death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs
Self driving cars are coming, they're already here.
You can continue to shout that water isn't wet but it doesn't mean these cars aren't coming.
We've had self driving cars since the mid-nineties (see history of self driving cars on wikipedia). In spite of all the technology advances SDCS have not improved by much in the last two decades. What makes you think that they will improve in the next five years?
Today, about a third of all 19-year-olds are not licensed to drive, and the trend is heading downward.
That is because they are immature and stay with mommy or daddy who takes care of them. Once they are required to grow up they will very quickly realise what an advantage adults have with a drivers license.
Oh, wait. I see now that this "research" was lead by a university professor.
Your anti-intellectualism is why this country is going down a gold-plated crapper.
When you say 'anti-intellectualism' you are grouping "Womyns' studies" and "Physics Research" together.
I have no problem mocking the average social studies graduate who do 'research' that 'proves' a culture of rape, but that doesn't mean that I disregard real science.
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Because their decision actually is more important than yours. They're producing the next generation who you will want to care for you when you're needing medical care in your 70s.
You don't want to contribute to the next generation? Fine, no one is asking you to. However society has always catered for and helped those who produce the next generation because you and your generation will one day stop being a contributing member of society and you and your generation needs to be replaced by another contributing member of society.
Selfishly proclaiming that society should end with you is (like I said) selfish, but also stupid - no one really buys your arguments because most (everyone?) knows that the current population will one day be non-productive. People who have kids ensure that there will be a new population of productive people. You aren't ensuring shit.
You must be extremely right-wing to think anything he's done lately is a "moderate" position.
I'm not right-wing. I'm not even white. I'm merely wondering why those people who complained about his previous stance on immigration now complaining he won't follow through.
There's your problem right there. Actually believing anything that comes out of Trump's mouth. He's broken numerous campaign promises and he's not even in office yet.
I'm seeing more and more anti-Trumpers displaying annoyance that he appears to be adopting more moderate positions. Why? The anti-Trumps were unhappy that he wanted to deport illegal immigrants, now those very same people appear to be unhappy that he won't.
I can not even begin to tell you how dumb this idea is. Are you seriously going to haggle with the emergency staff, as they're about to treat your heart attack? What about when your s.o. finds a lump in their breasts/chest? What are you going to tell your kid, when they get lymphoma? "Sorry sweetie. You deserve the best, but we can only afford to send you to that guy that operates out of a dumpster."
The extremes do not an argument make. You can "prove" anything if you use only the extremes or outliers in your analysis. No one is talking about negotiation and/or haggling.
The problem with a hidden "pay-via-indirect-intermediary" trade is the lack of information at the point of trading. The market cannot reach any optimum if the $BUYER purchases and consumes $PRODUCT without knowing at the time of purchase how much $PRODUCT will cost. This is an advantage to $SUPPLIERS, as they can jack up prices and know that $INTERMEDIARY will, one way or another, get that price from $BUYER.
If $BUYER has to directly see the price at point of purchase, even if they do not negotiate, then it's likely that they'll avoid that particular $SUPPLIER in the future. This has the effect of driving down price to what the market will bear. If $BUYER only sees the price a month later, disconnected from the act of actual trading, they do not connect particular $SUPPLIER to that price, and hence do not choose a different $SUPPLIER the next time around.
This means that if all the $SUPPLIERS want the price to stay at the same level, they have to collude. With the intermediary, there is no need to collude - they intermediary ensures that the price will be paid, and the $BUYER does not change intermediaries.
So, it's not a matter limited only to healthcare, but simple market economics that would apply to any commodity available only via an intermediary.
Divorce rates and unwed birth are much higher among the poor. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You are grouping two different statistics into a single statistic which you then proceed to misunderstand. Unwed birth is higher amount the poor. Divorce rate is higher among the middle class.
The reason for the former is because this new invention, the welfare-providing state, becomes the provider and no mate is needed. The reason for the latter is because another new invention (maintenance) means that the mate will provide for the offspring regardless of whether he is actually a mate or not (in some cases, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not).
The most logical choice for a poor woman (who has fewer options in getting a high-earning mate) is to have both the state and a mate contribute: be an unmarried 'single' mom and have a boyfriend/husband. This is the 'high unwed birth' statistic in the poor-class - the primary contributor to the child is the state and the secondary is the boyfriend/husband.
The most logical choice for a middle-class woman is to have a child with a middle-class mate; even if this means that she does not get the state contribution, it's highly likely that the middle-class father will contribute much more than the state will, so it's worth her effort. After securing a childhoods worth of income from her mate, it's in her best interest to find a new mate who will also contribute. In this way she has the primary contributor who will, under force if need be, contribute to the offspring and a secondary contributor as an added bonus. This is the 'high divorce rate' statistic.
Because I don't consume growth hormone residues in my diet, so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.
So, totally off-topic then? We're talking about babies and birth. You're talking about perceived health benefits.
Actually my hypothesis is that you're pretty dim. Reality matches.
It must be humiliating for you to get your predictions wrong when someone else, whom you call dim, gets their predictions correct. If your intelligence was as high as you appear to believe it is, you wouldn't have been so completely blind-sided by an electorate.
Reality: Fairly progressive website (/.) scored my comment +5 insightful.
So, you agree with every +5 post out there! This should be interesting.
I notice you still haven't provided any evidence for your original claim beyond a few upmods.
Which claim? That your predictions were wrong? That governments (literally) telling media that if the media doesn't censor, then the government will censor for them? FTFS:
"If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months
I'm sure this will work perfectly, and everybody will respond honestly and accurately based on whether the story is factual, rather than whether or not it follows the correct political opinion.
They want to do this because they think that the correct political opinion of the masses agrees with them. They also thought that the current political opinion of the masses agreed with them prior to the election, too. I think they may be in for a bit of a shock (again) when they discover that their ideals are not as widespread as they believe them to be.
The thing is, if you open with clearly false fantasies, people will quite rightly dismiss you as an idiot (as opposed to here where your username is sufficient).
Assuming you are correct, the fact that the majority of people aren't dismissing me as an idiot means that I did not open with false fantasies.
Remember: If reality differs from your hypothesis, it's not reality that is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Not being able to get a date is not quite the same as "dropping out of the relationship game".
Why do you care if young men don't want to commit? Your daughter having trouble being attracted to white knights?
Complete neutrality isn't an option, if you don't enforce rules then the community will be overtaken by its most hostile members, and then Twitter really will be in trouble.
Twitter is already in real trouble. The community is already overtaken by its most hostile members. They did not enforce the rules equally.
Twitter allowing a virtual and very public lynching when someone said #allLivesMatter in aid of a charity very clearly displays that Twitter considers a minority ideology more important than the maintaining a mass of users.
Twitter allowed itself to be steered by a vocal minority and is likely going to get punished for it by the silent majority. Same as recent US election.
They have admitted their cabs are a danger to society but they continue to run them anyway.
They have admitted no such thing.
Besides, they're running their self-driving cars during the middle of the night and they have a human driver behind the wheel.
It's not like there are many cyclists around that time.
If they keep testing on public roads, there soon won't be any cyclists.
Hey, you can't rape the willing...lol.
It's not willing if consent is impossible.
there are things in Islam - from death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs, et al that are incompatible w/ the US constitution.
I trust you'll be applying the same principles to the Christian Bible.
I've got not objections to that. Most people won't object to removing from society the following:
death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs
What was your point?
Self driving cars are coming, they're already here.
You can continue to shout that water isn't wet but it doesn't mean these cars aren't coming.
We've had self driving cars since the mid-nineties (see history of self driving cars on wikipedia). In spite of all the technology advances SDCS have not improved by much in the last two decades. What makes you think that they will improve in the next five years?
Today, about a third of all 19-year-olds are not licensed to drive, and the trend is heading downward.
That is because they are immature and stay with mommy or daddy who takes care of them. Once they are required to grow up they will very quickly realise what an advantage adults have with a drivers license.
85 IQ people drive.
And yet a computer cannot. A computer fails at tasks that an 85 IQ person can do.
Oh, wait. I see now that this "research" was lead by a university professor.
Your anti-intellectualism is why this country is going down a gold-plated crapper.
When you say 'anti-intellectualism' you are grouping "Womyns' studies" and "Physics Research" together.
I have no problem mocking the average social studies graduate who do 'research' that 'proves' a culture of rape, but that doesn't mean that I disregard real science.
I choose not to have kids, they choose to have them. Why should their lifestyle decision be more important than mine?
Because their decision actually is more important than yours. They're producing the next generation who you will want to care for you when you're needing medical care in your 70s.
You don't want to contribute to the next generation? Fine, no one is asking you to. However society has always catered for and helped those who produce the next generation because you and your generation will one day stop being a contributing member of society and you and your generation needs to be replaced by another contributing member of society.
Selfishly proclaiming that society should end with you is (like I said) selfish, but also stupid - no one really buys your arguments because most (everyone?) knows that the current population will one day be non-productive. People who have kids ensure that there will be a new population of productive people. You aren't ensuring shit.
You must be extremely right-wing to think anything he's done lately is a "moderate" position.
I'm not right-wing. I'm not even white. I'm merely wondering why those people who complained about his previous stance on immigration now complaining he won't follow through.
Do you have an answer to this?
There's your problem right there. Actually believing anything that comes out of Trump's mouth. He's broken numerous campaign promises and he's not even in office yet.
I'm seeing more and more anti-Trumpers displaying annoyance that he appears to be adopting more moderate positions. Why? The anti-Trumps were unhappy that he wanted to deport illegal immigrants, now those very same people appear to be unhappy that he won't.
So people will flock to the hospitals across town because they are cheaper?
I did not say that. Why do you think that that will happen?
I can not even begin to tell you how dumb this idea is. Are you seriously going to haggle with the emergency staff, as they're about to treat your heart attack? What about when your s.o. finds a lump in their breasts/chest? What are you going to tell your kid, when they get lymphoma? "Sorry sweetie. You deserve the best, but we can only afford to send you to that guy that operates out of a dumpster."
The extremes do not an argument make. You can "prove" anything if you use only the extremes or outliers in your analysis. No one is talking about negotiation and/or haggling.
The problem with a hidden "pay-via-indirect-intermediary" trade is the lack of information at the point of trading. The market cannot reach any optimum if the $BUYER purchases and consumes $PRODUCT without knowing at the time of purchase how much $PRODUCT will cost. This is an advantage to $SUPPLIERS, as they can jack up prices and know that $INTERMEDIARY will, one way or another, get that price from $BUYER.
If $BUYER has to directly see the price at point of purchase, even if they do not negotiate, then it's likely that they'll avoid that particular $SUPPLIER in the future. This has the effect of driving down price to what the market will bear. If $BUYER only sees the price a month later, disconnected from the act of actual trading, they do not connect particular $SUPPLIER to that price, and hence do not choose a different $SUPPLIER the next time around.
This means that if all the $SUPPLIERS want the price to stay at the same level, they have to collude. With the intermediary, there is no need to collude - they intermediary ensures that the price will be paid, and the $BUYER does not change intermediaries.
So, it's not a matter limited only to healthcare, but simple market economics that would apply to any commodity available only via an intermediary.
Divorce rates and unwed birth are much higher among the poor. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You are grouping two different statistics into a single statistic which you then proceed to misunderstand. Unwed birth is higher amount the poor. Divorce rate is higher among the middle class.
The reason for the former is because this new invention, the welfare-providing state, becomes the provider and no mate is needed. The reason for the latter is because another new invention (maintenance) means that the mate will provide for the offspring regardless of whether he is actually a mate or not (in some cases, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not).
The most logical choice for a poor woman (who has fewer options in getting a high-earning mate) is to have both the state and a mate contribute: be an unmarried 'single' mom and have a boyfriend/husband. This is the 'high unwed birth' statistic in the poor-class - the primary contributor to the child is the state and the secondary is the boyfriend/husband.
The most logical choice for a middle-class woman is to have a child with a middle-class mate; even if this means that she does not get the state contribution, it's highly likely that the middle-class father will contribute much more than the state will, so it's worth her effort. After securing a childhoods worth of income from her mate, it's in her best interest to find a new mate who will also contribute. In this way she has the primary contributor who will, under force if need be, contribute to the offspring and a secondary contributor as an added bonus. This is the 'high divorce rate' statistic.
If mothers consume dairy products with hormone residues their babies will be bigger, hence the increased need for C sections...
But you aren't either mother or baby. All you are doing is virtue-signalling.
Because I don't consume growth hormone residues in my diet, so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.
So, totally off-topic then? We're talking about babies and birth. You're talking about perceived health benefits.
rGBH hormone residues fed to make cows produce more milk being consumed by humans.
So glad I'm vegan.
Why?
Except here it will be robots jumping out of the windows.
Incorrect! Everyone knows that robots use suicide booths (with the quarter tied to a string so they can yank it back). Bite my shiny metal...
Your hypothesis:
Actually my hypothesis is that you're pretty dim. Reality matches.
It must be humiliating for you to get your predictions wrong when someone else, whom you call dim, gets their predictions correct. If your intelligence was as high as you appear to believe it is, you wouldn't have been so completely blind-sided by an electorate.
Reality: Fairly progressive website (/.) scored my comment +5 insightful.
So, you agree with every +5 post out there! This should be interesting.
I notice you still haven't provided any evidence for your original claim beyond a few upmods.
Which claim? That your predictions were wrong? That governments (literally) telling media that if the media doesn't censor, then the government will censor for them? FTFS:
"If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months
Oh Noes!!! All those 'backers' won't have large cheap pool of labour anymore! Whatever shall we do?
Assuming you are correct
Trust me, I am.
Remember: If reality differs from your hypothesis, it's not reality that is wrong.
Exactly. So why invent fantasies then?
Your hypothesis:
The thing is, if you open with clearly false fantasies, people will quite rightly dismiss you as an idiot
Reality: Fairly progressive website (/.) scored my comment +5 insightful.
Reality is disagreeing with your hypothesis here.
I'm sure this will work perfectly, and everybody will respond honestly and accurately based on whether the story is factual, rather than whether or not it follows the correct political opinion.
They want to do this because they think that the correct political opinion of the masses agrees with them. They also thought that the current political opinion of the masses agreed with them prior to the election, too. I think they may be in for a bit of a shock (again) when they discover that their ideals are not as widespread as they believe them to be.
The thing is, if you open with clearly false fantasies, people will quite rightly dismiss you as an idiot (as opposed to here where your username is sufficient).
Assuming you are correct, the fact that the majority of people aren't dismissing me as an idiot means that I did not open with false fantasies.
Remember: If reality differs from your hypothesis, it's not reality that is wrong.
Translation: "If you do not censor anti-government statement, we will censor you".