Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Why would we want that? Such a society would be paralyzed and unable to function. We every day have to depend on and have opinions about all sorts of things from the mundane to the profound that we haven't experienced first hand. Nobody can be experts in everything so we depend on information we get from others. Hopefully good quality information.
To be crude about it, you probably don't need to suck a dick to have an opinion about whether you are going to enjoy the experience.
The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments.
True. It's a math model and should be treated as such. Simulations can be very useful but it's important to know the limits and assumptions that go into the model.
What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
Not true. Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years. If the model predictions fits the data we gather well then we have reasonable confidence that it is accurately modeling the real world. Problem is that because the consequences of letting climate change run unchecked are potentially so severe (presuming the model is accurate) we cannot risk actually testing it fully so at some point we'll have to extrapolate and take actions. But we're going to find out at least the early predictions whether we want to or not because some changes are already too late to stop.
If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change."
No it really is not just a guess unless you think every hypothesis is "just a guess". A lot of the science in the field is simply documenting changes that absolutely ARE occurring, many of which were predicted by those same models that you are calling guesswork. The model makes predictions which absolutely can be checked.
The critics of this science have some valid points. Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown, there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants, and little attention is paid to the views of those who disagree with the consensus.
Most of the critics do not actually make or hold valid counter points. They mostly simply are seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias for various reasons. If they were serious about disputing the science the way to do that is present their own alternative testable hypothesis and back it up with data. The scientists are doing this and the critics by and large are not. Since the critics cannot be bothered to actually do the science their opinions (rightly) get ignored.
Simulations have serious limits.
Yes they do. That doesn't mean they are useless. I used to do simulations for a living in a previous job. There is a famous saying that "all models are wrong but some models are useful". If you insist on perfection in the climate models despite them giving you good and actionable data, you are completely missing the point. Newtonian physics isn't the most perfect model we have but it's still extremely useful and gives reasonably accurate testable predictions. A lot of the climate science is throwing off a lot of very useful data and we ignore it at our peril.
Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
Every Chipotle I've been in has very loud music that makes it difficult to have a simple conversation. My guess is they want the patrons to eat and get out as seating is limited.
I thought it was the e.coli and salmonella that made patrons eat and then leave...
It would not be at all surprising if the tape loop is quite deliberate:
Oh it's absolutely deliberate. Large consumer product and retail companies don't do stuff like that by accident. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a good choice but it's probably a deliberate one. To be fair, there is only so much budget for music choices and the people selecting the music probably don't have to listen to it all day long. (or if they do they need to get psychiatric help...)
Starbucks(along with most other retail establishments) has clearly gone to a lot of trouble to establish a particular 'feel'/'branding' in their interior and exterior design, staff uniforms, product graphic design, even what's printed on their paper cups and napkins and stuff.
Exactly which is why they are loathe to take needless risks with something as mundane as a playlist. It's not hard to come up with a 6 song on-brand playlist that won't turn off customers. Coming up with one that doesn't repeat for an 8 hour shift is considerably harder. And since the customers aren't usually in there for long, the employees get to suck it up.
... and even I have pondered what it would be like to hear the same loop for months on end, for 8+hours every day.
I've lived through that and it's maddening. The worst part is there is no need for it. It's just laziness and/or cheapness on the part of the people choosing the music. To this day there are some songs that get me triggered because I've heard them WAY too often.
I'd probably sabotage either the system or its playlist after a few weeks.
I worked at a place with a 6 track loop. After a few months I came in after hours, got a ladder and disabled the overhead speakers closest to my cubicle just to get some relief. I can't imagine working retail during the holiday season. You'd find me with a gun in my mouth after two weeks.
There's a simple solution for employees that no longer care to operate per the environment I created, find somewhere else to work
Oh it's adorable that you think employee opinions don't matter. You have never run a business have you? Piss off your employees and they'll run you out of business faster than you can say "Chapter 11 bankruptcy". Just because you have the legal right to do something as a business owner doesn't make it a good idea. Employee moral matters. More than you can imagine. If you care about the bottom line you do as much as you can to keep employee morale high because happy employees by and large make better employees. If you think otherwise you've never run a business.
For the record I have and do manage people and have been a business owner so I've seen all this first hand.
It's far worse in Japan. I don't know how staff there put up with it. Many shops in Japan have their own theme music. Actually a theme song, with lyrics.
That sounds awful. I used to work at a company in an engineering office that for some reason felt the need to have a 6 song rotation playing on the overhead speakers all day. I don't care how much you like a piece of music (and I didn't like these) you will be ready to burn the place down after enough repetitions of a song. After the literally 200th+ time I heard the theme song to Titanic I came in after hours and disabled the speaker above my cubicle just to get some relief. (No we weren't allowed to wear headphones)
why the hell is there a need to continuously blast music in a coffee shop, to begin with?
I would ask why some people feel the need to have earbuds blasting music into their skull for most of their waking hours. I think the answers are probably related. It creates an environment where people feel comfortable and/or familiar. It's why so many places play top 40 music from 20-30 years ago - it's the sound track their target customers grew up listening to. They play music because it creates a mood and it's what people expect. That matters.
For me I find background music or earbuds remarkably distracting and annoying if I'm trying to work. I don't mind it in a store as long as it isn't repetitive, loud, or obnoxious and is in character for the store I'm visiting. I find the two months of xmas music each year to be insipid and annoying and I feel bad for the employees who have to listen to the same tracks over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... Playing xmas music for the month of December I'm fine with but not before Thanksgiving and it should stop Dec 26.
or is the the coffee shop's attempt to try to do the same manipulations as clothes stores to try to maximize profits?
I don't think it's anything devious or underhanded but certainly if people are comfortable in a store they are more likely to spend money and time there. That relationship has been thoroughly studied and definitely exists.
Yes it is. Also a small market for various simulators. Unfortunately VR is likely to remain a comparatively small market. It's very useful for a few niche applications but broader use cases for the technology are generally lacking and likely to remain so. That's not to bash the technology (I used to work in the industry so I'm a fan) but just to temper expectations. Some people have been expecting VR to be the Next Big Thing for the last 30+ years and the reality of it seldom is quite what people expect and the practical use cases have remained few.
AR is still not quite there. But that's why they target at particular industries at this point.
AR has FAR broader potential applications and you are right that it still has a ways to go. That said, AR is already in your hands via your smartphone. I use astronomy apps that help identify stars by putting labeled information on the screen about whatever I'm pointing the phone at. I've used measurement overlay and heads up display apps and there are games that interact with the real world. Google translate has AR features that replace text in one language with text in another in real time. It's a lot easier to envision AR applications as enhancements to existing technology than VR applications which will necessarily be new.
What extensions do you use that wouldn't require access to the whole page?
Permissions are more than just access to the whole page. Host permissions, API permissions, permissions per tab, clipboard access, storage access, cookie access, etc. Relatively few extensions need access to all of these and few bother to ask.
I actually like that there is a lot of choices or overlap for ad blockers, javascript blockers, etc.
Sure but 120,000 choices? Let's keep it real. That's not choices, that's spam.
I agree that there is a ridiculous number of extensions but I'm not forced to install them.
Not the point. The point is that there is no reason for most of these to even exist unless a LOT of them are malware of one form or another.
So are these extensions up to something nefarious, or are they being forced to request this "all data / any web site" access because finer grained permissions aren't there?
My guess would be that they ask because they can and because most users will not pay enough attention to choose some other option even if one is provided - which it won't be. Never mind that with 120,000 (!?!) extensions a HUGE number of these have to be malware of some description. There just isn't that much need for that many different extensions.
a recent survey conducted by US cyber-security firm Duo Labs of over 120,000 Chrome extensions has revealed.
What possible utility could there be in 120,000 different extensions? Who in the name of Thor's ugly sweater is actually using these things? I use about 5 extension on my browser of choice (Firefox for me), all fairly popular and I really cannot see any circumstance where I would use more than 10. There is no sane argument for that many extensions without a huge number of them being malware.
So if all the places people go in the digital commons (Facebook, Google, Youtube, Pinterest) ban certain kinds of speech do you have free speech?
Yes. Next question. You don't get to publish whatever you want in the newspaper or on TV. Why do you think Facebook or Google or any other private company's platform should be any different legally? That's not how it works. Free speech as a legal right ONLY applies to government prosecution and censorship.
I'd argue that some of these platforms are the modern parks and public spaces.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer then because you would be wrong. And you have a grave misapprehension about how free speech laws work in the real world. They are not public spaces and never were. And even if they were quackery is NOT protected speech no matter where you engage in it.
I don't like where this is headed and I am saddened that you're modded +5 insightful...
Quackery is not protected speech and never has been.
All censorship starts with good intentions (or at least what its authors think are good intentions).
1) Censorship is only illegal as it applies to the government. Private companies have NO legal obligation to give you a platform to say whatever idiotic thing you want and never have. You can say what you want but you have never had a legal right to say whatever you want in any location or platform you choose. The newspaper is under no obligation to print whatever fool thing you want to say and neither is Facebook or Pinterest or Twitter or Instagram if it runs contrary to their interests. I fail to see any compelling interest Pinterest might have in promoting quackery that could conceivably result in liability for them. 2) Spreading provably false psuedo-science as "information" that demonstrably leads to the sickness & deaths isn't protected free speech under any legal framework. The only reason it doesn't get prosecuted is because it is difficult to tie the action to a specific instance of harm. Anti-vaxxers are engaging in quackery which is quite illegal and definitely not protected speech.
Who decides what information is good then? Think for one second.
Scientists and doctors backed up by appropriate government agencies staffed by experts in the field. This question is EXACTLY why we have the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, etc. It's their mission to prevent quackery and they do it very well. Pretending that nobody is worthy to decide what is good data is idiotic.
I also don't think that social pressure like this changes any minds.
I don't care about changing minds. I care about changing behavior. They can think whatever they want but when their behavior it harms others I draw the line. The problem is biggest when they don't vaccinate their children. I think children should be prohibited from attending school unless they have been vaccinated. (with appropriate exceptions only for verified medical reasons) If you opt out of vaccination then you are a threat to the health of others and that's not ok. I don't need them to feel good about it. I consider not vaccinating your children a form of child abuse and if they get sick from a disease that you could have vaccinated for then that parent should be liable.
We should actually reason with people/explain the position on how vaccines save lives and what controls there are if something goes wrong with a vaccine.
You cannot reason with an illogical fearful person working from a false premise and bad data. These are not people who are going to listen to anything you have to say.
But I think the jihad against anti-vaxxers does more harm than good. Instead, we should help people get vaccinations and help them learn why we promote them so that it's safe to change their minds, rather than trying to make them feel under attack.
The evidence is already out there and they aren't listening. Why on earth do you think that people who are going out of their way to ignore the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective are going to suddenly start just because you talk to them in a calm tone.
Yes, it's stupid and harmful, but they're people who don't know any better and this sort of reaction is also harmful.
Every pediatrician I've ever come in contact with discusses the topic endlessly. It's been explained to them by people who know and they don't believe the evidence.
Oh bullshit. A private company squashing factually wrong information that results in people becoming sick and dying is hardly a slippery slope to the elimination of free speech. Anti-vaxxers are the slow equivalent of people shouting fire in a movie theater. They are causing needless panic and should be liable for the harm the lies they spread cause.
Sure it's just pintrest and possibly facebook; but what if google decided to weigh in with their opinon on the matter?
I hope they do. Anti-vaxxers are hurting people and it needs to stop as soon as possible.
The slippery slope might be a fallacious argument, but it's not always wrong.
I remember reading somewhere that the stripes were a product of evolution. Apparently, it is to confuse their primary predator, the lion. Since lions see only in black and white, the stripes are designed to confuse and disorient the lion.
Yes that is one theory. However it hasn't really been objectively verified. Kind of hard to do a double blind study on something like that if you get what I'm saying. That theory might be true or it might be completely irrelevant to how it happened. Most zebras are not killed by lions so it's quite plausible that lions did not create a significant evolutionary pressure regarding the stripes.
I haven't carried paper money in years and do perfectly well.
I have people working for me that cannot get a credit card or debit card of any description. Exactly what do you propose they do? I don't use much cash myself but what works for me doesn't apply to everyone.
You don't need an expensive computer, all you need is a debit/credit card.
A) Not everyone can get credit or debit cards. About 15 million adults in the US do not have a bank account. Among black or hispanic between 15-20% of households don't have a bank account much less a credit card. And this is in the wealthiest country on the planet. Go to a country like China and credit/debit cards are very rare outside of large cities. B) A computer is involved in literally every credit/debit card transaction and I assure you that it is expensive. Just because you use plastic doesn't remove the computer from the equation - it just makes it one computer instead of two.
I fail to see how carrying around a thin piece of plastic is less convenient than having a pocket full of metal and paper.
It's not that plastic is less convenient, it's that for a lot of people it doesn't carry much if any added benefit. Virtually everyone carries a wallet of some description. Carrying cash is every bit as easy as carrying a piece of plastic once you are carrying a wallet. Cash transactions are a lot more straightforward in a lot of cases. Cash is accepted almost everywhere, does not require any special accounts, works even when the power is out, etc. It's (usually) quick, it's easy, and it's reliable. Going cashless comes with very real costs which as modest as they might seem to you or me, some people cannot afford or simply do not want.
I've also been to some restaurants where they do not accept credit cards. Go to a farmer's market and start waiving around a credit card sometime. A few vendors accept them but most of the vendors are still cash only.
From your negativity, I can only assume you've been holding out on switching to going cashless, but if you try it you'll never both with cash again.
Not at all. I rarely use cash myself. I might use $40 in cash in a typical month at most and I find that to be something of an irritation. I'm just well aware that going cashless is simply not going to happen for a lot of people any time in the near future. I have several employees who work for me who cannot get credit cards (bad credit) and don't have enough money to bother with a bank account so they don't have a debit card either. Not everyone is as lucky or capable as you and me. Cashless is fine but expecting everyone to do it is just not realistic.
It isn't really an individual technology but the masterful way in which they were combined and the economic concepts applied that makes it so impressive.
The "economic concepts applied"? That might sound brilliant to someone who is ignorant of the economics involved. Bitcoin is basically a techie love letter to going back to the gold standard and it fails for many of the same reasons with a few new problems thrown in. Plus it's organized like a multi-level marketing scheme (fraud?) with the people that got in early reaping most of the advantages. If you think Bitcoin is a brilliant take on economics you don't understand the economics involved.
Frankly it scaled beyond what anyone could dream of with a beta protocol.
Bitcoin is wildly popular with speculators and people hoping to avoid legal scrutiny and some libertarians with a hard on against fiat currency. It's consuming ridiculous amounts of energy, is far more expensive per transaction than the dollar, is accepted almost nowhere, has enormous exchange rate volatility, and is utterly useless for most people most of the time. But other than that it has "scaled beyond...".
If they are known to exist and "disabled", the most easy thing is to put an adhesive sticker on their lens.
Is that all? Now I just have to start carrying stickers on every flight and intentionally disabling a part of the aircraft every time I board. That sounds like a great plan! Not inconvenient or burdensome at all. I'm sure the airlines will be thrilled about people putting stickers all over their airplane that they then need to clean off.
(yes that was sarcasm for the Sheldon Cooper clones reading this)
Slashdot Mirror
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Why would we want that? Such a society would be paralyzed and unable to function. We every day have to depend on and have opinions about all sorts of things from the mundane to the profound that we haven't experienced first hand. Nobody can be experts in everything so we depend on information we get from others. Hopefully good quality information.
To be crude about it, you probably don't need to suck a dick to have an opinion about whether you are going to enjoy the experience.
The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments.
True. It's a math model and should be treated as such. Simulations can be very useful but it's important to know the limits and assumptions that go into the model.
What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.
Not true. Presuming the model is accurate it should be making testable predictions about what will happen as the climate chances in the coming years. If the model predictions fits the data we gather well then we have reasonable confidence that it is accurately modeling the real world. Problem is that because the consequences of letting climate change run unchecked are potentially so severe (presuming the model is accurate) we cannot risk actually testing it fully so at some point we'll have to extrapolate and take actions. But we're going to find out at least the early predictions whether we want to or not because some changes are already too late to stop.
If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change."
No it really is not just a guess unless you think every hypothesis is "just a guess". A lot of the science in the field is simply documenting changes that absolutely ARE occurring, many of which were predicted by those same models that you are calling guesswork. The model makes predictions which absolutely can be checked.
The critics of this science have some valid points. Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown, there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants, and little attention is paid to the views of those who disagree with the consensus.
Most of the critics do not actually make or hold valid counter points. They mostly simply are seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias for various reasons. If they were serious about disputing the science the way to do that is present their own alternative testable hypothesis and back it up with data. The scientists are doing this and the critics by and large are not. Since the critics cannot be bothered to actually do the science their opinions (rightly) get ignored.
Simulations have serious limits.
Yes they do. That doesn't mean they are useless. I used to do simulations for a living in a previous job. There is a famous saying that "all models are wrong but some models are useful". If you insist on perfection in the climate models despite them giving you good and actionable data, you are completely missing the point. Newtonian physics isn't the most perfect model we have but it's still extremely useful and gives reasonably accurate testable predictions. A lot of the climate science is throwing off a lot of very useful data and we ignore it at our peril.
Tesla still has a long way to go, but when Ford recalls nearly 2 million vehicles.... I dunno...I guess when Ford recalls 2 million vehicles I'm glad I drive a Chrysler.
You are aware that Chrysler is generally at or near the bottom of the quality rankings and that they have numerous huge recalls of their own... right?
So Ford just recalled 1.8 million vehicles which nearly equals their annual production of 1.9 million vehicles.
Umm... You might want to check your figures. Ford sells more than that in the US alone each year with global production around 6 million per year.
Every Chipotle I've been in has very loud music that makes it difficult to have a simple conversation. My guess is they want the patrons to eat and get out as seating is limited.
I thought it was the e.coli and salmonella that made patrons eat and then leave...
It would not be at all surprising if the tape loop is quite deliberate:
Oh it's absolutely deliberate. Large consumer product and retail companies don't do stuff like that by accident. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a good choice but it's probably a deliberate one. To be fair, there is only so much budget for music choices and the people selecting the music probably don't have to listen to it all day long. (or if they do they need to get psychiatric help...)
Starbucks(along with most other retail establishments) has clearly gone to a lot of trouble to establish a particular 'feel'/'branding' in their interior and exterior design, staff uniforms, product graphic design, even what's printed on their paper cups and napkins and stuff.
Exactly which is why they are loathe to take needless risks with something as mundane as a playlist. It's not hard to come up with a 6 song on-brand playlist that won't turn off customers. Coming up with one that doesn't repeat for an 8 hour shift is considerably harder. And since the customers aren't usually in there for long, the employees get to suck it up.
... and even I have pondered what it would be like to hear the same loop for months on end, for 8+hours every day.
I've lived through that and it's maddening. The worst part is there is no need for it. It's just laziness and/or cheapness on the part of the people choosing the music. To this day there are some songs that get me triggered because I've heard them WAY too often.
I'd probably sabotage either the system or its playlist after a few weeks.
I worked at a place with a 6 track loop. After a few months I came in after hours, got a ladder and disabled the overhead speakers closest to my cubicle just to get some relief. I can't imagine working retail during the holiday season. You'd find me with a gun in my mouth after two weeks.
There's a simple solution for employees that no longer care to operate per the environment I created, find somewhere else to work
Oh it's adorable that you think employee opinions don't matter. You have never run a business have you? Piss off your employees and they'll run you out of business faster than you can say "Chapter 11 bankruptcy". Just because you have the legal right to do something as a business owner doesn't make it a good idea. Employee moral matters. More than you can imagine. If you care about the bottom line you do as much as you can to keep employee morale high because happy employees by and large make better employees. If you think otherwise you've never run a business.
For the record I have and do manage people and have been a business owner so I've seen all this first hand.
It's far worse in Japan. I don't know how staff there put up with it. Many shops in Japan have their own theme music. Actually a theme song, with lyrics.
That sounds awful. I used to work at a company in an engineering office that for some reason felt the need to have a 6 song rotation playing on the overhead speakers all day. I don't care how much you like a piece of music (and I didn't like these) you will be ready to burn the place down after enough repetitions of a song. After the literally 200th+ time I heard the theme song to Titanic I came in after hours and disabled the speaker above my cubicle just to get some relief. (No we weren't allowed to wear headphones)
why the hell is there a need to continuously blast music in a coffee shop, to begin with?
I would ask why some people feel the need to have earbuds blasting music into their skull for most of their waking hours. I think the answers are probably related. It creates an environment where people feel comfortable and/or familiar. It's why so many places play top 40 music from 20-30 years ago - it's the sound track their target customers grew up listening to. They play music because it creates a mood and it's what people expect. That matters.
For me I find background music or earbuds remarkably distracting and annoying if I'm trying to work. I don't mind it in a store as long as it isn't repetitive, loud, or obnoxious and is in character for the store I'm visiting. I find the two months of xmas music each year to be insipid and annoying and I feel bad for the employees who have to listen to the same tracks over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... Playing xmas music for the month of December I'm fine with but not before Thanksgiving and it should stop Dec 26.
or is the the coffee shop's attempt to try to do the same manipulations as clothes stores to try to maximize profits?
I don't think it's anything devious or underhanded but certainly if people are comfortable in a store they are more likely to spend money and time there. That relationship has been thoroughly studied and definitely exists.
VR is already a (small) market in video games.
Yes it is. Also a small market for various simulators. Unfortunately VR is likely to remain a comparatively small market. It's very useful for a few niche applications but broader use cases for the technology are generally lacking and likely to remain so. That's not to bash the technology (I used to work in the industry so I'm a fan) but just to temper expectations. Some people have been expecting VR to be the Next Big Thing for the last 30+ years and the reality of it seldom is quite what people expect and the practical use cases have remained few.
AR is still not quite there. But that's why they target at particular industries at this point.
AR has FAR broader potential applications and you are right that it still has a ways to go. That said, AR is already in your hands via your smartphone. I use astronomy apps that help identify stars by putting labeled information on the screen about whatever I'm pointing the phone at. I've used measurement overlay and heads up display apps and there are games that interact with the real world. Google translate has AR features that replace text in one language with text in another in real time. It's a lot easier to envision AR applications as enhancements to existing technology than VR applications which will necessarily be new.
What extensions do you use that wouldn't require access to the whole page?
Permissions are more than just access to the whole page. Host permissions, API permissions, permissions per tab, clipboard access, storage access, cookie access, etc. Relatively few extensions need access to all of these and few bother to ask.
I actually like that there is a lot of choices or overlap for ad blockers, javascript blockers, etc.
Sure but 120,000 choices? Let's keep it real. That's not choices, that's spam.
I agree that there is a ridiculous number of extensions but I'm not forced to install them.
Not the point. The point is that there is no reason for most of these to even exist unless a LOT of them are malware of one form or another.
So are these extensions up to something nefarious, or are they being forced to request this "all data / any web site" access because finer grained permissions aren't there?
My guess would be that they ask because they can and because most users will not pay enough attention to choose some other option even if one is provided - which it won't be. Never mind that with 120,000 (!?!) extensions a HUGE number of these have to be malware of some description. There just isn't that much need for that many different extensions.
More than a third of all Google Chrome extensions ask users for permission to access and read all their data on any website
But we were assured that Google takes our privacy seriously! Glad to see Google is really on top of this.
a recent survey conducted by US cyber-security firm Duo Labs of over 120,000 Chrome extensions has revealed.
What possible utility could there be in 120,000 different extensions? Who in the name of Thor's ugly sweater is actually using these things? I use about 5 extension on my browser of choice (Firefox for me), all fairly popular and I really cannot see any circumstance where I would use more than 10. There is no sane argument for that many extensions without a huge number of them being malware.
So if all the places people go in the digital commons (Facebook, Google, Youtube, Pinterest) ban certain kinds of speech do you have free speech?
Yes. Next question. You don't get to publish whatever you want in the newspaper or on TV. Why do you think Facebook or Google or any other private company's platform should be any different legally? That's not how it works. Free speech as a legal right ONLY applies to government prosecution and censorship.
I'd argue that some of these platforms are the modern parks and public spaces.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer then because you would be wrong. And you have a grave misapprehension about how free speech laws work in the real world. They are not public spaces and never were. And even if they were quackery is NOT protected speech no matter where you engage in it.
I don't like where this is headed and I am saddened that you're modded +5 insightful...
Quackery is not protected speech and never has been.
All censorship starts with good intentions (or at least what its authors think are good intentions).
1) Censorship is only illegal as it applies to the government. Private companies have NO legal obligation to give you a platform to say whatever idiotic thing you want and never have. You can say what you want but you have never had a legal right to say whatever you want in any location or platform you choose. The newspaper is under no obligation to print whatever fool thing you want to say and neither is Facebook or Pinterest or Twitter or Instagram if it runs contrary to their interests. I fail to see any compelling interest Pinterest might have in promoting quackery that could conceivably result in liability for them.
2) Spreading provably false psuedo-science as "information" that demonstrably leads to the sickness & deaths isn't protected free speech under any legal framework. The only reason it doesn't get prosecuted is because it is difficult to tie the action to a specific instance of harm. Anti-vaxxers are engaging in quackery which is quite illegal and definitely not protected speech.
Who decides what information is good then? Think for one second.
Scientists and doctors backed up by appropriate government agencies staffed by experts in the field. This question is EXACTLY why we have the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, etc. It's their mission to prevent quackery and they do it very well. Pretending that nobody is worthy to decide what is good data is idiotic.
I also don't think that social pressure like this changes any minds.
I don't care about changing minds. I care about changing behavior. They can think whatever they want but when their behavior it harms others I draw the line. The problem is biggest when they don't vaccinate their children. I think children should be prohibited from attending school unless they have been vaccinated. (with appropriate exceptions only for verified medical reasons) If you opt out of vaccination then you are a threat to the health of others and that's not ok. I don't need them to feel good about it. I consider not vaccinating your children a form of child abuse and if they get sick from a disease that you could have vaccinated for then that parent should be liable.
We should actually reason with people/explain the position on how vaccines save lives and what controls there are if something goes wrong with a vaccine.
You cannot reason with an illogical fearful person working from a false premise and bad data. These are not people who are going to listen to anything you have to say.
But I think the jihad against anti-vaxxers does more harm than good. Instead, we should help people get vaccinations and help them learn why we promote them so that it's safe to change their minds, rather than trying to make them feel under attack.
The evidence is already out there and they aren't listening. Why on earth do you think that people who are going out of their way to ignore the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective are going to suddenly start just because you talk to them in a calm tone.
Yes, it's stupid and harmful, but they're people who don't know any better and this sort of reaction is also harmful.
Every pediatrician I've ever come in contact with discusses the topic endlessly. It's been explained to them by people who know and they don't believe the evidence.
This is how society loses its freedom of speech.
Oh bullshit. A private company squashing factually wrong information that results in people becoming sick and dying is hardly a slippery slope to the elimination of free speech. Anti-vaxxers are the slow equivalent of people shouting fire in a movie theater. They are causing needless panic and should be liable for the harm the lies they spread cause.
Sure it's just pintrest and possibly facebook; but what if google decided to weigh in with their opinon on the matter?
I hope they do. Anti-vaxxers are hurting people and it needs to stop as soon as possible.
The slippery slope might be a fallacious argument, but it's not always wrong.
It's definitely wrong in this case.
... or the adaptation worked out as intended
There is no intent to natural selection. It happens but it's not a process with a design.
I think the next step is to see if the same applies to smaller animals. take a cat, paint a white stripe down its back and see what happens...
They've tried that and it results in amorous skunks with bad French accents.
Since lions see only in black and white,
Lions see color just fine. Not quite the same as us but definitely not black and white.
I remember reading somewhere that the stripes were a product of evolution. Apparently, it is to confuse their primary predator, the lion. Since lions see only in black and white, the stripes are designed to confuse and disorient the lion.
Yes that is one theory. However it hasn't really been objectively verified. Kind of hard to do a double blind study on something like that if you get what I'm saying. That theory might be true or it might be completely irrelevant to how it happened. Most zebras are not killed by lions so it's quite plausible that lions did not create a significant evolutionary pressure regarding the stripes.
I haven't carried paper money in years and do perfectly well.
I have people working for me that cannot get a credit card or debit card of any description. Exactly what do you propose they do? I don't use much cash myself but what works for me doesn't apply to everyone.
You don't need an expensive computer, all you need is a debit/credit card.
A) Not everyone can get credit or debit cards. About 15 million adults in the US do not have a bank account. Among black or hispanic between 15-20% of households don't have a bank account much less a credit card. And this is in the wealthiest country on the planet. Go to a country like China and credit/debit cards are very rare outside of large cities.
B) A computer is involved in literally every credit/debit card transaction and I assure you that it is expensive. Just because you use plastic doesn't remove the computer from the equation - it just makes it one computer instead of two.
I fail to see how carrying around a thin piece of plastic is less convenient than having a pocket full of metal and paper.
It's not that plastic is less convenient, it's that for a lot of people it doesn't carry much if any added benefit. Virtually everyone carries a wallet of some description. Carrying cash is every bit as easy as carrying a piece of plastic once you are carrying a wallet. Cash transactions are a lot more straightforward in a lot of cases. Cash is accepted almost everywhere, does not require any special accounts, works even when the power is out, etc. It's (usually) quick, it's easy, and it's reliable. Going cashless comes with very real costs which as modest as they might seem to you or me, some people cannot afford or simply do not want.
I've also been to some restaurants where they do not accept credit cards. Go to a farmer's market and start waiving around a credit card sometime. A few vendors accept them but most of the vendors are still cash only.
From your negativity, I can only assume you've been holding out on switching to going cashless, but if you try it you'll never both with cash again.
Not at all. I rarely use cash myself. I might use $40 in cash in a typical month at most and I find that to be something of an irritation. I'm just well aware that going cashless is simply not going to happen for a lot of people any time in the near future. I have several employees who work for me who cannot get credit cards (bad credit) and don't have enough money to bother with a bank account so they don't have a debit card either. Not everyone is as lucky or capable as you and me. Cashless is fine but expecting everyone to do it is just not realistic.
It isn't really an individual technology but the masterful way in which they were combined and the economic concepts applied that makes it so impressive.
The "economic concepts applied"? That might sound brilliant to someone who is ignorant of the economics involved. Bitcoin is basically a techie love letter to going back to the gold standard and it fails for many of the same reasons with a few new problems thrown in. Plus it's organized like a multi-level marketing scheme (fraud?) with the people that got in early reaping most of the advantages. If you think Bitcoin is a brilliant take on economics you don't understand the economics involved.
Frankly it scaled beyond what anyone could dream of with a beta protocol.
Bitcoin is wildly popular with speculators and people hoping to avoid legal scrutiny and some libertarians with a hard on against fiat currency. It's consuming ridiculous amounts of energy, is far more expensive per transaction than the dollar, is accepted almost nowhere, has enormous exchange rate volatility, and is utterly useless for most people most of the time. But other than that it has "scaled beyond...".
If they are known to exist and "disabled", the most easy thing is to put an adhesive sticker on their lens.
Is that all? Now I just have to start carrying stickers on every flight and intentionally disabling a part of the aircraft every time I board. That sounds like a great plan! Not inconvenient or burdensome at all. I'm sure the airlines will be thrilled about people putting stickers all over their airplane that they then need to clean off.
(yes that was sarcasm for the Sheldon Cooper clones reading this)