You may be confusing the issue because you conflate the non-support of government subsidies for your pet "green" projects with "hate" when the motives are simply not wanting to waste more of the countries debt load on non-economic energy supplies. In short, you are just blathering environmentalist rhetoric about how Republicans want dirty water, and dirty air, when it's not at all true.
Renewable (especially photovoltaic) is already price-competitive with coal etc, and that's not even accounting for subsidies or the massive cost of defending oil supplies around the world (estimated to be at least $81B/yr for the US).
And If they don't love dirty water and dirty air then why do they keep voting for it?
. Repubs hate green energy because they view it in regressive. (Mindmills were around in the 15th century).
Proving once again that conservatism's arguments are stupid (although it doesn't really matter since they're just a cover for mustache-twirling villainy). How long ago do you think the first caveman burned a lump of coal or peat? The first known use of coal was in China 3000 years ago. Solar cells are a helluva lot newer than most, odd that they don't love photovoltaic...
Waste heat isn't the problem, it's the atmosphere's capability to retain heat which mostly comes from the sun. Human-generated waste heat is a gnat's fart in the Cat6 hurricane of the sun's heat.
It's probably the cherry-picking. Although the US did better than the EU in 2017, if you look at the last decade or more, they're on a similar reduction trend, and Asia (mostly China) has also reduced emissions sharply in recent years, although from a very high level.
There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.
Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.
Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.
A perfect example of the complete disconnect between skill/merit and "achievement." Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit. How is this good? And that's not even getting into the worst of it. Nobody's forced to buy Harry Potter, but people aren't exactly free to opt out of the basic necessities required to participate in the economy, unless they like hiding in a shack in the woods like the Unabomber. So those basic necessities, which are often controlled by an oligopoly or de-facto monopoly (telecoms, fuel, utilities) aren't exactly consensual choices. And thus neither is getting a job.
You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.
Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.
By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"
Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...
Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.
Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.
Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.
You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.
Easy solution: The CEO of a company that makes an uncommon antibiotic used to treat appendicitis should just jack their price sky fucking high for no reason whatsoever. Another problem solved by the free market!
"We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either" says the narrator in the video. So they're pro-union? Logically that's the only position remaining. They seem to be really bad at helping people unionize.
"We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either" says the narrator in the video. So they're pro-union? Logically that's the only position remaining. They seem to be really bad at helping people unionize.
Wal-Mart has an emergency hotline managers can call to report unionization attempts. If Amazon doesn't have one then they're just not trying very hard are they?
Those are all protocols that had a chance to establish themselves before Eternal September, and you'll note that although those are open protocols, they all rely on very much centralized systems in practice, especially DNS. If new basic Internet protocols were established today, they would look a lot more like Facebook, AMP and Whatsapp itself. If we can use open protocols and open-source client apps and settle for just enough centralization to keep the average Joes on board so that we nerds don't self-segregate our systems into obscurity, we should consider that a victory.
It'll mean bad luck for far more humans if just a few are hoarding enormous amounts of the planet's wealth. And there's nothing unlucky about being a millionaire instead of a billionaire. So I wish for the best luck for the greatest number of humans.
Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon. I certainly hope by 2040 there won't be 10,000 people who can afford this on their own. Ideally none should.
I'm not asking him to burn his life to the ground, not by a long shot. He could do what I asked and continue to be a billionaire, far beyond a millionaire. It would hurt him exactly none in practice, and far less than an unexpected car repair bill hurts any average person in relative finances.
Do you actually think you can just spend a wack of cash and dismantle a social network (does anyone think this?)? Has that EVER worked before?
It could be done. Signal is technically better than Whatsapp, it's not missing anything Whatsapp has except users, driven by network effects. With a big marketing push pointing out the privacy advantages and maybe getting celebrity endorsements, timed to go along with an unpopular change to Whatsapp (of which there are many coming), maybe with some raffle prizes for new users added in, the masses could be pushed onto Signal and eventually, as a result, off of Whatsapp, not literally overnight but over the course of a few weeks.
You're right that the centralization of Signal is technically not ideal, but unfortunately it's necessary for a popular solution. Better distributed chat solutions existed before and after Whatsapp, for free back when Whatsapp cost money, but never caught on because of the convenience advantages possible with centralization. The phone-number linked lookup system makes adding new contacts and controlling spam and harassment a breeze. The centralized servers minimize connectivity difficulties on the user end. The average Joe would soon flee from something like Tox or Briar, back into the loving arms of something like Whatsapp or worse.
He has a hint of moral compass but not enough to act meaningfully on it (like, say, preventing a Facebook buyout in the first place). He didn't give up, or invest in Signal, any more than a small fraction of the money he's earned, and certainly not enough to blemish a multibillionaire's lifestyle if he should wish to have one. Also:
He clearly doesn't relish the spotlight this story will bring and is quick to underscore that Facebook "isn't the bad guy." ("I think of them as just very good businesspeople.")
There is zero conflict between being a bad guy and a good businessperson. Most bad guys are good businesspeople.
This is typical chickenshit 0.1%er morals and activism that amount to a gnat's fart in the hurricane-force wind of 0.1%er-driven destruction. The exact sort of thing Anand Giridharadas complains about in Winners Take All.
If he were somewhat more serious, he could, say, dump a few billion into promoting Signal around the world, thus killing off Whatsapp overnight, and at least fixing this particular problem he created. That might be a good start.
It is. They haven't fixed this new form of Google bombing in general. If it appears to have a far-left bias, it's because the planet is far-left compared to the US.
I don't run from these questions, I simply prefer to ignore them because they're silly post-truth questions.
In short, words have meanings and we share an objective reality. We can track their meanings through history and scrutinize attempted interpretations with logic in a politically impartial way. That way when someone tries to spin their meanings around on a dime to suit their own political purposes like the people complaining about "conservative" speech being censored are doing today, we can call them on their bullshit.
It's the same with the definitions of hate speech and harassment, they're not being used as legal terms, legal convictions are absolutely not necessary as it's a private company choosing what they wish to host on their platforms. There isn't nearly as much wiggle room for these terms as you'd like to think.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the graph on the page I linked here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Show me how the US trend is much better...or better at all.
http://www.climatechangenews.c...
"Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
You may be confusing the issue because you conflate the non-support of government subsidies for your pet "green" projects with "hate" when the motives are simply not wanting to waste more of the countries debt load on non-economic energy supplies. In short, you are just blathering environmentalist rhetoric about how Republicans want dirty water, and dirty air, when it's not at all true.
Renewable (especially photovoltaic) is already price-competitive with coal etc, and that's not even accounting for subsidies or the massive cost of defending oil supplies around the world (estimated to be at least $81B/yr for the US).
And If they don't love dirty water and dirty air then why do they keep voting for it?
. Repubs hate green energy because they view it in regressive. (Mindmills were around in the 15th century).
Proving once again that conservatism's arguments are stupid (although it doesn't really matter since they're just a cover for mustache-twirling villainy). How long ago do you think the first caveman burned a lump of coal or peat? The first known use of coal was in China 3000 years ago. Solar cells are a helluva lot newer than most, odd that they don't love photovoltaic...
Waste heat isn't the problem, it's the atmosphere's capability to retain heat which mostly comes from the sun. Human-generated waste heat is a gnat's fart in the Cat6 hurricane of the sun's heat.
And here we have it folks, the endgame of climate denialism/conspiracism - climate obstructionism disguised as climate defeatism.
It's probably the cherry-picking. Although the US did better than the EU in 2017, if you look at the last decade or more, they're on a similar reduction trend, and Asia (mostly China) has also reduced emissions sharply in recent years, although from a very high level.
There will always be a few with more/most. That's how it works, asshole.. Some few percentage of the population will always be smarter, or faster, or more inventive, or sexier.. These traits will help them get ahead.. They'll be able to send their children to better schools.. Those kids will do better. They will earn more.. And the cycle will continue.
Yes runaway inequality will lead us to a hyper-unequal hell unless we stop it with measures such as progressive taxation, as was done in the New Deal era. Thanks for reminding everyone.
Society rewards achievement. Those who achieve more will be rewarded.. Nobody forced anyone else to buy a Harry Potter book.. People bought them consensually because they WANTED to. So, she's a billionaire now... She didn't make it because she's a shitty writer.. Apparently enough people think she's a FANTASTIC writer... They rewarded her with their money.
A perfect example of the complete disconnect between skill/merit and "achievement." Apparently the free market thinks that J.K. Rowling is the greatest writer in human history, and Logan Paul or Kim Kardashian are more productive than most of the humans alive right now. Clearly this is horseshit. How is this good? And that's not even getting into the worst of it. Nobody's forced to buy Harry Potter, but people aren't exactly free to opt out of the basic necessities required to participate in the economy, unless they like hiding in a shack in the woods like the Unabomber. So those basic necessities, which are often controlled by an oligopoly or de-facto monopoly (telecoms, fuel, utilities) aren't exactly consensual choices. And thus neither is getting a job.
You go figure out a system that doesn't strip people of their basic human rights and that deals with the "problem" of reward for performance and you'll win the goddamn Nobel peace prize.
Oh noes, sounds hard, better stick to the status quo of runaway inequality leading us to a class of idle space royalty ruling over a planet of slums! Just kidding, many other systems work better, including tightly regulated capitalism with income redistribution.
By the way, you are a fucking hypocrite.. You all are.. I know for a fact that given the choice (with only a $1 difference in price) you would spend the $1 more to have a brain surgeon who trained at Harvard operate on you versus some asshole who trained at "Insert Shitty State School Name Here"
Well, being willing to spend even $1 more for something to obtain a better quality product will eventually send that $1 all the way to the top where it will concentrate. That is until you cunts can introduce what you are really after.. Equality of Misery...
Hahaha what a horseshit hypothetical scenario. In real life, price increases much more sharply than skill, that Harvard doctor would be 10x+ more expensive than the "shitty state school doctor" (good job hiding your snobbish elitism BTW, I barely noticed). So I might well not choose the Harvard doctor.
Wealth concentration can be stopped by governments, and can maximize happiness for the most people, rather than our current situation of making most people as miserable and stressed as possible to maximize the happiness of an elite few - an incredibly wasteful tradeoff.
Hahaha you think anyone can be rich now? Economic mobility is long dead, the best predictor of income today isn't your skills but your father's income. There are no more opportunities to become rich today than there were for peasants to become royalty through a coup or military conquest 300 years ago. The royalty of old could only dream of the level of inequality and unaccountability that benefits our new capitalist hyper-royalty.
I do wish that someday, after we've invented Star Trek-level technologies like warp drive and fusion power and ideally some kind of teleportation, everyone should be able to go to the moon. But in our era? Fuck no! Hideous inequality that devastates society is required for any one person to be able to afford to go to the moon. The number of people who could afford such a thing is a gauge of how sick a society is. Thus I wish that nobody should be able to go except in a publicly funded effort for the benefit of the public, such as the original moon landing. What's actually psychopathic is to wish that anyone should be able to extract enough money from their society to be able to afford such a thing at this time.
You're the biggest idiot and loser of them all, you lick the gilded jackboot that stomps on the face of humanity.
VR version included here:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Easy solution: The CEO of a company that makes an uncommon antibiotic used to treat appendicitis should just jack their price sky fucking high for no reason whatsoever. Another problem solved by the free market!
Engineering, prepare to receive torrent in cargo bay 1!
"We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either" says the narrator in the video. So they're pro-union? Logically that's the only position remaining. They seem to be really bad at helping people unionize.
Fuckin' hell, wrong tab, ignore...
"We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either" says the narrator in the video. So they're pro-union? Logically that's the only position remaining. They seem to be really bad at helping people unionize.
Wal-Mart has an emergency hotline managers can call to report unionization attempts. If Amazon doesn't have one then they're just not trying very hard are they?
Those are all protocols that had a chance to establish themselves before Eternal September, and you'll note that although those are open protocols, they all rely on very much centralized systems in practice, especially DNS. If new basic Internet protocols were established today, they would look a lot more like Facebook, AMP and Whatsapp itself. If we can use open protocols and open-source client apps and settle for just enough centralization to keep the average Joes on board so that we nerds don't self-segregate our systems into obscurity, we should consider that a victory.
It'll mean bad luck for far more humans if just a few are hoarding enormous amounts of the planet's wealth. And there's nothing unlucky about being a millionaire instead of a billionaire. So I wish for the best luck for the greatest number of humans.
Only the very richest people on the planet will be able to afford the energy cost of travelling to the moon. I certainly hope by 2040 there won't be 10,000 people who can afford this on their own. Ideally none should.
I'm not asking him to burn his life to the ground, not by a long shot. He could do what I asked and continue to be a billionaire, far beyond a millionaire. It would hurt him exactly none in practice, and far less than an unexpected car repair bill hurts any average person in relative finances.
Do you actually think you can just spend a wack of cash and dismantle a social network (does anyone think this?)? Has that EVER worked before?
It could be done. Signal is technically better than Whatsapp, it's not missing anything Whatsapp has except users, driven by network effects. With a big marketing push pointing out the privacy advantages and maybe getting celebrity endorsements, timed to go along with an unpopular change to Whatsapp (of which there are many coming), maybe with some raffle prizes for new users added in, the masses could be pushed onto Signal and eventually, as a result, off of Whatsapp, not literally overnight but over the course of a few weeks.
You're right that the centralization of Signal is technically not ideal, but unfortunately it's necessary for a popular solution. Better distributed chat solutions existed before and after Whatsapp, for free back when Whatsapp cost money, but never caught on because of the convenience advantages possible with centralization. The phone-number linked lookup system makes adding new contacts and controlling spam and harassment a breeze. The centralized servers minimize connectivity difficulties on the user end. The average Joe would soon flee from something like Tox or Briar, back into the loving arms of something like Whatsapp or worse.
He has a hint of moral compass but not enough to act meaningfully on it (like, say, preventing a Facebook buyout in the first place). He didn't give up, or invest in Signal, any more than a small fraction of the money he's earned, and certainly not enough to blemish a multibillionaire's lifestyle if he should wish to have one. Also:
He clearly doesn't relish the spotlight this story will bring and is quick to underscore that Facebook "isn't the bad guy." ("I think of them as just very good businesspeople.")
There is zero conflict between being a bad guy and a good businessperson. Most bad guys are good businesspeople.
This is typical chickenshit 0.1%er morals and activism that amount to a gnat's fart in the hurricane-force wind of 0.1%er-driven destruction. The exact sort of thing Anand Giridharadas complains about in Winners Take All.
If he were somewhat more serious, he could, say, dump a few billion into promoting Signal around the world, thus killing off Whatsapp overnight, and at least fixing this particular problem he created. That might be a good start.
It is. They haven't fixed this new form of Google bombing in general. If it appears to have a far-left bias, it's because the planet is far-left compared to the US.
I don't run from these questions, I simply prefer to ignore them because they're silly post-truth questions.
In short, words have meanings and we share an objective reality. We can track their meanings through history and scrutinize attempted interpretations with logic in a politically impartial way. That way when someone tries to spin their meanings around on a dime to suit their own political purposes like the people complaining about "conservative" speech being censored are doing today, we can call them on their bullshit.
It's the same with the definitions of hate speech and harassment, they're not being used as legal terms, legal convictions are absolutely not necessary as it's a private company choosing what they wish to host on their platforms. There isn't nearly as much wiggle room for these terms as you'd like to think.