And the emoluments clause case was about to reach the stage where it would draw a lot of media attention before the shutdown started, but now the government shutdown is delaying the case, giving Trump another incentive to keep it going for as long as possible.
Yeah, who knows if it's the extensively studied phenomenon that virtually all scientists say it is, maybe it's really some batshit crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that has never had a shred of supporting evidence? Who the fuck knows.
I don't see why nuclear is the only solution when renewable + storage is on the verge of being cheaper than fossil fuels in $/kwh, and is far cheaper to build in the first place. How can land use be such a dire limitation when there's tidal power, offshore wind/solar, and rooftop solar?
But solving global warming would be much easier if people would drop their stupid illogical opposition to nuclear power. They're scared to death of extreme localized disasters from wildly unlikely scenarios, but show zero concern for the much more likely if slightly less damaging localized disasters from fossil fuels, or the inevitable slow-motion worldwide trainwreck of global warming that fossil fuel use creates.
I pointed out that this theory was wrong a few days ago, yet you continue to spew it. You can't buy a '50s-sized house for inflation-adjusted '50s house prices today. IOW, people aren't just choosing bigger houses and then bitching about the price.
You continue to attempt to use anecdotes and assertions as counterpoints to actual data. We can't and shouldn't try to count every time a conservative feels that their ideas are too terrible to share. They have free speech, not freedom from the social consequences of speech.
Also you don't read your own links. That NRA flag had to be removed not because it was an NRA flag but because it was an object outside of a window. If it were a Pride flag or a Care Bears banner it would've been treated the same way.
Have you ever heard of the concept of allowing a racist to speak so as to show the world his foolishness?
Oh yes, that was a terrible mistake. Debating terrible ideas doesn't help immunize people to it, people don't seem to need "immunizing," instead it spreads it to vulnerable populations who are almost impossible to "cure," and over the last few decades the world has tried it, with terrible consequences. If the "marketplace of ideas" school of thought had any merit, we would not have a renaissance of racism and an epidemic of fake news.
The same numbers we've been discussing show that many leftist professors have been shouted down - more than those on the right. Again I don't care about anecdotes, just real, hard data. Anecdotes are worthless. Imagine at least three anecdotes of a leftist professor being shouted down for each anecdote of a right-wing professor being shouted down that you can find, if you like anecdotes so much. That would be in line with the data.
Enlighten me on some options then. I'm not denying the truth of human nature, I just think humans should be restrained from acting on the darker parts of human nature.
Amazon actually had a similar problem [reuters.com]. In their case, the "women's" keyword counted against candidates. I don't see this as an insurmountable issue; as AI improves, it should actually be able to filter for the better candidates, regardless of gender, age, race, etc., and it won't need to take shortcuts, like assuming everyone in a zip code isn't a good fit.
That would be a fundamentally different form of AI from what's popular these days, which is algorithms generated through training on human-generated datasets - this is where they pick up human biases.
We have yet to figure out how to make corporate management act morally and responsibly. But expecting regular working class shmucks to be able to without help makes sense to you???
It should be much easier to get moral and responsible action from regular working class schmucks than a bunch of debauched psychopaths who have never had to take responsibility for their actions and can easily escape accountability in the future.
How about we acknowledge human nature and design our working environments around that? Does that really sound so bad?
Nonsense. If we acknowledge and accommodate human nature (by allowing sexual harassment in the workplace? Or allowing unrestrained sexism to create men's-only workplaces?) then we might as well legalize every horror we can imagine. We have laws because we want to live in a civilization and be safe from nature's limitless savagery.
Executives are capitalism's royalty, they live under special rules for the nobility rather than the iron law of wages like us peasants, it's that simple.
An interesting theory, it would hold together if housing prices had increased 1:1 with housing sizes, but they haven't. You can't get a '50s-sized house for inflation-adjusted '50's house prices today.
The leading theory that apologists for our dumpster fire of an economic system have come up with is that the 1% will be able to drive enough demand to employ the 99% who will not purchase much beyond the bare essentials of participating in the economy. I'm serious, that's the future they have to offer.
How convenient, when the numbers brutally squash the idea of censorship run amok, of course it's really a huge unquantifiable phenomenon which you assert is still bigger than whatever the numbers say.
By the way, when was the last time a leftist professor or lecturer was threatened and given a massive shoutdown of the sort that Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos routinely are subjected to?
When's the last time a leftist professor dabbled in racism/ethno-nationalism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia etc? No conservative is getting censored because they called for small government or loose gun laws. These people engage in specific forms of bigotry which are considered hate speech in many countries. I find it difficult to consider such censorship in any quantity to be a bad thing. You'll also note that there are no leftist celebrity political provocateurs trying to talk at arch-conservative colleges from which they're likely to be disinvited for the purpose of fabricating a narrative of censorship run amok on conservative campuses. That's a major factor, calculated bad-faith behavior from professional intolerant asshats on the right is responsible for the lion's share of the "censorship" activity.
The existence of any cases of censorship isn't what's fake - the right-wing narrative around it, which is the idea that it's a meaningfully-sized problem mostly affecting conservatives, is what's fake. It's a miniscule problem that mostly affects people on the left.
About 0.3% of women and 0.1% of men are raped per year, totaling up to at least 15% of American women and 3% of American men having been raped in their lifetimes - and the numbers are worse in most countries.
Now there are about 20 million college/university students in the US and less than 100 suffer some kind of censorship per year, which works out to 0.000005% at most.
Do you think that even 10% of college students have suffered some kind of censorship? If we assume 100 students are censored per year (higher than the real numbers), that would be 0.000005% of the student body, and due to limited human lifespans the number would always be orders of magnitude less than the rape number. And it only applies to tertiary education students rather than all humans, so you have to scale it down to 60% of the rape number - say that 0.000003% of Americans suffer some kind of college campus censorship each year.
So the US population gender split is within 1%, call it even, and say that 0.4% of the US population is raped per year, while 0.000003% suffers some kind of college campus censorship. That means that rape is over 133,000 times bigger of a problem than college campus censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
And the emoluments clause case was about to reach the stage where it would draw a lot of media attention before the shutdown started, but now the government shutdown is delaying the case, giving Trump another incentive to keep it going for as long as possible.
"Chemtrails" perhaps? Who the fuck knows.
Yeah, who knows if it's the extensively studied phenomenon that virtually all scientists say it is, maybe it's really some batshit crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that has never had a shred of supporting evidence? Who the fuck knows.
GMO baked-in toxins,
That's a very efficient way to emergency-jettison any scientific credibility you might've had.
Um, you know this is the same tech that generates more than 1/8th of Earth's electricity with the least deaths per petawatt-hour, right?
Gordon Freeman is going to need the giant anime sword of crowbars for this one!
I don't see why nuclear is the only solution when renewable + storage is on the verge of being cheaper than fossil fuels in $/kwh, and is far cheaper to build in the first place. How can land use be such a dire limitation when there's tidal power, offshore wind/solar, and rooftop solar?
But solving global warming would be much easier if people would drop their stupid illogical opposition to nuclear power. They're scared to death of extreme localized disasters from wildly unlikely scenarios, but show zero concern for the much more likely if slightly less damaging localized disasters from fossil fuels, or the inevitable slow-motion worldwide trainwreck of global warming that fossil fuel use creates.
Well even if you're the post-privacy type, you become much more vulnerable to identity theft for one thing...
*Richard Attenborough voice*
Welcome...to Jurassic Gardens.
(Insert John Williams score here)
I'm sure some DeepFakes-like system will make that possible within a few years.
I pointed out that this theory was wrong a few days ago, yet you continue to spew it. You can't buy a '50s-sized house for inflation-adjusted '50s house prices today. IOW, people aren't just choosing bigger houses and then bitching about the price.
I wonder if this includes all the information deleted by Daniel Domscheit-Berg?
You continue to attempt to use anecdotes and assertions as counterpoints to actual data. We can't and shouldn't try to count every time a conservative feels that their ideas are too terrible to share. They have free speech, not freedom from the social consequences of speech.
Also you don't read your own links. That NRA flag had to be removed not because it was an NRA flag but because it was an object outside of a window. If it were a Pride flag or a Care Bears banner it would've been treated the same way.
If Ben Shapiro's background-level of racism isn't strong enough for your senses, check out his statements on the Israeli-Palenstinian conflict.
Milo's over-the-top sexism and transphobia are legendary.
Have you ever heard of the concept of allowing a racist to speak so as to show the world his foolishness?
Oh yes, that was a terrible mistake. Debating terrible ideas doesn't help immunize people to it, people don't seem to need "immunizing," instead it spreads it to vulnerable populations who are almost impossible to "cure," and over the last few decades the world has tried it, with terrible consequences. If the "marketplace of ideas" school of thought had any merit, we would not have a renaissance of racism and an epidemic of fake news.
The same numbers we've been discussing show that many leftist professors have been shouted down - more than those on the right. Again I don't care about anecdotes, just real, hard data. Anecdotes are worthless. Imagine at least three anecdotes of a leftist professor being shouted down for each anecdote of a right-wing professor being shouted down that you can find, if you like anecdotes so much. That would be in line with the data.
Enlighten me on some options then. I'm not denying the truth of human nature, I just think humans should be restrained from acting on the darker parts of human nature.
Amazon actually had a similar problem [reuters.com]. In their case, the "women's" keyword counted against candidates. I don't see this as an insurmountable issue; as AI improves, it should actually be able to filter for the better candidates, regardless of gender, age, race, etc., and it won't need to take shortcuts, like assuming everyone in a zip code isn't a good fit.
That would be a fundamentally different form of AI from what's popular these days, which is algorithms generated through training on human-generated datasets - this is where they pick up human biases.
We have yet to figure out how to make corporate management act morally and responsibly. But expecting regular working class shmucks to be able to without help makes sense to you???
It should be much easier to get moral and responsible action from regular working class schmucks than a bunch of debauched psychopaths who have never had to take responsibility for their actions and can easily escape accountability in the future.
How about we acknowledge human nature and design our working environments around that? Does that really sound so bad?
Nonsense. If we acknowledge and accommodate human nature (by allowing sexual harassment in the workplace? Or allowing unrestrained sexism to create men's-only workplaces?) then we might as well legalize every horror we can imagine. We have laws because we want to live in a civilization and be safe from nature's limitless savagery.
Executives are capitalism's royalty, they live under special rules for the nobility rather than the iron law of wages like us peasants, it's that simple.
An interesting theory, it would hold together if housing prices had increased 1:1 with housing sizes, but they haven't. You can't get a '50s-sized house for inflation-adjusted '50's house prices today.
The leading theory that apologists for our dumpster fire of an economic system have come up with is that the 1% will be able to drive enough demand to employ the 99% who will not purchase much beyond the bare essentials of participating in the economy. I'm serious, that's the future they have to offer.
How convenient, when the numbers brutally squash the idea of censorship run amok, of course it's really a huge unquantifiable phenomenon which you assert is still bigger than whatever the numbers say.
By the way, when was the last time a leftist professor or lecturer was threatened and given a massive shoutdown of the sort that Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos routinely are subjected to?
When's the last time a leftist professor dabbled in racism/ethno-nationalism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia etc? No conservative is getting censored because they called for small government or loose gun laws. These people engage in specific forms of bigotry which are considered hate speech in many countries. I find it difficult to consider such censorship in any quantity to be a bad thing. You'll also note that there are no leftist celebrity political provocateurs trying to talk at arch-conservative colleges from which they're likely to be disinvited for the purpose of fabricating a narrative of censorship run amok on conservative campuses. That's a major factor, calculated bad-faith behavior from professional intolerant asshats on the right is responsible for the lion's share of the "censorship" activity.
I haven't been able to find a video but I did find this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
That Sears guy is pretty smart.
Here's how I get real: Show me the source for your "real numbers."
You say you're not a right-winger, but you do a perfect job of spreading far-right propaganda:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The existence of any cases of censorship isn't what's fake - the right-wing narrative around it, which is the idea that it's a meaningfully-sized problem mostly affecting conservatives, is what's fake. It's a miniscule problem that mostly affects people on the left.
About 0.3% of women and 0.1% of men are raped per year, totaling up to at least 15% of American women and 3% of American men having been raped in their lifetimes - and the numbers are worse in most countries.
Now there are about 20 million college/university students in the US and less than 100 suffer some kind of censorship per year, which works out to 0.000005% at most.
Do you think that even 10% of college students have suffered some kind of censorship? If we assume 100 students are censored per year (higher than the real numbers), that would be 0.000005% of the student body, and due to limited human lifespans the number would always be orders of magnitude less than the rape number. And it only applies to tertiary education students rather than all humans, so you have to scale it down to 60% of the rape number - say that 0.000003% of Americans suffer some kind of college campus censorship each year.
So the US population gender split is within 1%, call it even, and say that 0.4% of the US population is raped per year, while 0.000003% suffers some kind of college campus censorship. That means that rape is over 133,000 times bigger of a problem than college campus censorship.
You heard it on Slashdot first folks: math is subjective.