To boil down several interesting points. You brain is who you are, but your brain is shaped by your experiences which differ across varying races and ethnic backgrounds as they provide the context of the brains growth.
To say that you can find diversity based on race alone is ignorant.
To say that you can find diversity within the mind alone in ignorant.
Everything you see, do, hear, touch, feel, and experience makes you who you are, and those experiences and context are frequently (and sadly) dictated by appearance and ethnic background.
As for being able to look past that are you sure? Can you tell me about the pain of a Palestinian mother who watched her son die in Gaza and her rage at the Israelis for taking him? Can you know the joy of an adventurer who crested the summit of mt. Everest? Can you look into the eyes of the protesters at Tienanmen square and understand the stifling weight of oppression that drove them to the streets? That drove a common man to stand down a tank?
Of course not. To say that you can look past race is to say that you are looking past the forces that shaped them to be who they are. The mind can only reflect who they are AT THAT MOMENT, but to have a shot at understanding someone you have to look at where they come from.
I think what is driving this issue is the ballooning of student loan debt in recent years that some are speculating will be the next financial bubble to burst(up to something like 1.5 Trillion in recent years). This is especially scary as you cannot avoid student loan debt through bankruptcy. As a measure to ensure that the government can stop the hemorrhaging of money this might have an impact, but as a measure to help students all it will end up doing is make the competition for scholarships that much harder for poor students.
I do agree that an 18 year old can make their own decisions, but as far as education is concerned it may not be practical. An 18 year old should be mentally independent, but they are rarely financially independent, and as long as they are dependent on someone else for money in regards to their education they do have to respect that persons input. For the most part input is good, but not when people are labeled as dropouts for failing to get a university degree.
This pressures younger people into getting a degree when it would be better for them to go to trade school or a similar training program. Add to that the pressure to go to a well regarded (read: expensive) university and the pressure mounts to take out loans that they can't afford with the belief that obtaining such a degree is the only realistic way to be successful.
In that case you pointed out that state schools are a good option, but I found when I was applying for college in Missouri that my state schools didn't offer very good degrees in the field that I new I wished to pursue which led me to look to out of state schools, hoping to get by on my scholarships. I ended up in a very expensive private university, but with enough aid money to get by without taking on debt.
I think it unfair to blame the students for taking on debt when employers often times won't look seriously at candidates without a reputable degree, and then tell them that they are to blame to taking on debt in order to the get the degree that employers expect.
How about instead of enacting legislation that makes the college degree the new high school diploma we fix the problem with employers scalping their employee's wages to demonstrate false quarterly growth to their shareholders?
A good solution would be to tie the wage of the lowest paid worker to the highest by a ratio of 1:40 at minimum (reports say that a ratio as high as 1:20 has a large positive impact on moral). That would solve a hell of a lot more problems regarding gainful employment than any program targeting federal funding for universities.
That's all well and good, but if Linux developers say that they want to take the desktop then they will need to come to terms with the fact that users don't care about anything other than usability.
Speaking as a type 1 diabetic low blood sugar has a huge impact on my mood. I become extremely fidgety and unfocused when my sugars are running low. Then if my sugars continue to run low I become incredibly irritable. I have the opposite problems when my sugars are running high and I get lethargic. Maintaining an optimal sugar level is imperative to maintaining my health and my mood, and being able to check my sugars quickly and quietly at my desk would be a godsend, and a reason to buy the device on its own. If my insurance company would subsidize a wearable that monitors sugars I would be on my way to the store right now.
Granted that is for a segment of the population that has a true medical issue and perhaps a medical device would be better, but sugar monitoring without having to excuse myself from an event to go to the bathroom and take out an over sized testing kit to stab myself with a needle is a huge draw for this kind of device.
You cannot formulate a logical argument against something that is not based on logic.
If someone walked up to and said that the theory of general relativity was developed by goats, and refused to knowledge any evidence to the contrary, then they cannot be reasoned with because they have refused to see reason.
Creationism is not based on facts, evidence, or logical thinking, but by pure faith and conjecture. They believe creationism to be true because they believe the bible to be true. No where in that line of thought is there room for a logical debate.
I guess we were coming at the issue from the macro and the micro scale. I think you are absolutely right that capital owners expecting to decrease their reliance on labor will probably get a surprise. Especially if they try to scale up their in house IT to take on the challenge ( how many stores and how may kiosks? yikes! ). I guess at the worst they are trying to force the labor back out of their industry and into a factory in China so maybe they will end up having less reliance on labor with workers outside the company picking up the slack. Either way, for now the McDonalds example this is probably a ploy to force costs off the books so they can show their shareholders some bigger numbers.
As well as, thank you for the well thought out posts, and I apologize if my ramblings tended too far towards rants.
I think it's worth noting for clarity's sake that I am thinking in terms of the long term scalability.
Automated systems scale far better than hiring more people, so you would be right that in the short term jobs would be lost to automation, but the scalability of automated systems will allow the industries it affects to grow faster and cheaper supporting more jobs in the long term. Its a lot less expensive to hire 3 people and install 2 kiosks than hire 5 people.
Further we have to look at the aggregate value of an automated system. That system supports more than one industry. They have to be manufactured, delvered, installed, maintained etc. That has an impact on far more people than one low payed employee, and while it doesn't pay the full wage of the ones it does support it does help them grow.
I see what you are saying, but you are ignoring the main point of my argument.
Paying engineers to design a system scales better than paying more people to do that job. My point was that it is never a straight x:y jobs ratio. If McDonalds lays off 10,000 people in favor of automation then that increases the incentive for the company that made the kiosks to create more and market them to more companies. In the long term this will generate more jobs that can be supported through more automation.
I my original example with agriculture I was making the point that despite far less people being farmers there are far more jobs in agriculture than when we had tenant farmers. Why? How can less people be farming, but the agriculture industry be growing?
Its because you are able to increase efficiency to the point that it offsets the inefficiency of using more people.
Yes more people can work in an industry and the industry still gain efficiency because the efficiency gained through automating a task can offset the inefficiency of employing more people. If 100 burger flippers have and efficiency of x and 110 other assorted supporters of automation technology have efficiency 2x then you have gained efficiency by increasing the number of people involved.
Both the amount of labor and the efficiency can be increased. The situation that you present only applies if we accept that McDonalds will show no growth of product sales as a result of their move towards automation, and McDonalds is not a company that acts without cost benefit analysis.
Sure it increases efficiency. That $100k is being payed by another company to develop those kiosks which will then be manufactured to scale, and will also be sold to other companies that adopt self serve options.
That $100k engineer is doing far more than replacing 5 $20k cashiers he is developing a commercially viable product that can be sold to far more companies than McDonalds. This isn't an x:y scenario where jobs are being replaced by other jobs. As I said in my original post jobs are being replaced by a whole new industry. The self serve technology industry in this case, and just like the agricultural industry it has the potential to employ far more people over the long term while increasing the efficiency of the markets that the new industry serves.
In the original comment it seemed that he was suggesting that automation creates markets that in turn create jobs.
In the case of agriculture the tractor revolutionized food production and led to the eviction of tenant farmers and fueled the flight to the cities that saw the turn of 80% of people living in rural areas to 2%.
In the example of agriculture the tractor eliminated farmer jobs, but it created a market for tractors and other farming equipment as well as heavy industrial infrastructure like large grain silos to house the abundance of crops. With automation came efficiency and with efficiency came scale and with scale came large industries and jobs. Just because people don't work on farms as much anymore doesn't mean that the agriculture industry doesn't support a net increase in employment. More people are employed in agriculture than ever before and you have the tractor and automation to thank for that.
In the case of McDonalds these kiosks will reduce the number of jobs that McDonalds directly supplies, but how many McDonalds are there worldwide and how many kiosks will they need? I imagine quite a few jobs will be created to create, ship, support, and maintain those kiosks which could very well lead to a net increase in the people employed both directly and indirectly by McDonalds. Furthermore they will be supporting much higher payed positions in IT and manufacturing.
The real hit in this decision isn't the number of jobs, but the loss of entry level jobs. Our economy is still unstable and employers are more sketchy than ever at hiring employees without a work history. The damage will be when younger workers can't find work because they have no experience and can't get experience because all the entry level positions are automated.
"The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply"
This is not the relevant question at all. During a hostage situation the use of force is far more likely to escalate the situation into one that would result in the death of hostages. A better solution would be to see if the hostage takers could be talked down. This is normally the first response of any decent policing unit.
As you yourself point out negotiation is relevant for small bank robbers, and it is also true for large hostage situations. Attempting to minimize casualties by sacrificing hostages for the "greater good" is not the behavior that I want from my law enforcement.
Can we pass a law that says any politician passing a law must first be investigated by an independent organization to see if that politician is breaking that law?
Maybe life in prison will teach some of these half wits that writing overly broad laws isn't a good idea.
"who they treat as a virtual enemy, every time Stanford wants to build *anything*"
As someone who lives in University City, MO home of Washington University I can understand the ire placed on universities.
They are non profit organizations that makes massive profits and buy up all the land and houses that would be taxed and then remove them from the tax pool. In University City over 15% of the land is owned by a university that makes 2.1 billion dollars a year in profit, but refuses to pay taxes which strangles the city budget.
We could also ban political contributions because that's like bribery.
In all seriousness I do remember an argument against this type of crap in congress that basically said this was a regulation of taste, and if you ban things that are similar to child pornography couldn't you also ban images of women with small breasts because they evoke thoughts of children? (paraphrase)
The more I see this kind of stuff about Google being forced to modify search results based on dumb things like 'right to be forgotten' the more I can't help but feel that Google's results just might not be reliable enough anymore. I know that right to be forgotten is only a European thing but I still can't help but get the feeling that I am no longer getting the best results for my search.
Although it brings bile to the back of my throat I think it may be time to see how Bing lines up against Google.
It is not true that you need sugars or you will die. Your body can function without any intake of carbohydrates because the only organ in the body that requires glucose to function is the brain. Every other part can power itself off of fatty acids, and the liver can turn fatty acids into glucose.
If I was to just start drinking water and intake no carbs my blood sugars would drop to about 60 where it would stabilize as the body starts converting its fats into glucose.
In practice this can be rather dangerous because depending on the person you can go into keytone acidosis, but the food pyramid with the carbs at the bottom is a myth. you can function just fine with tiny amounts of carbs every day.
A long history of jurisprudence that existed long before the internet was invented or even widely adopted. When that happens I think instead of trying to force modern technology to conform with outdated laws we should instead look at why our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution.
The government having the ability to unreasonably search your information of any kind allows them to build a narrative about your behavior using cherry picked evidence. At the drop of a hat your entire history, and every little mistake along the way can be used to demonize even the greatest saint. It was by using tactics like this that corrupt governments would silence dissent. Kings would craft a narrative to discredit opposition and lock them away never to be seen again.
This is the behavior that our country has engaged in, and regardless of whether your "papers and effects" are emails, downloads, or letters the consequences of a government spying on those communications are the same: that the government can use your entire life to criminalize you when you are not in fact a criminal. That is what you should be looking at, not jurisprudence from judges that are mostly tech illiterate or that predated the technology that it is being used as precedent to rule on.
I wonder what being able to say you are wired to google fiber does to the resale value of your home? Being able to advertise google fiber access must be a huge incentive for certain home buyers and I bet you could recoup that $300 instantly just in resale value.
It's a trend in our lawmakers that make them so sensitive to being anti anything that they come up with weird circuitous laws to ban things that they don't like or have donations to eliminate.
In this case lawmakers were attempting to protect small mom and pop style dealerships from the Detroit auto industries shady business practices, but I bet they didn't want to seem "anti capitalism" for regulating the pricing of cars to ensure that the dealers weren't dumping cars to drive out the competition. So instead we get a crazy law that bans direct sales. Because its much harder to construe that as anti something, and the politicians can always fire back with a similar "anti mom and pop stores" nonsense.
For a more modern example look at abortion laws. In my great state the politicians are too afraid to go one way or the other so they come up with bullshit like waiting times. In order for a woman to get an abortion she has to wait three days. No reason. She just has to. This is because someone couldn't get an anti abortion law passed so they settled for attempting to shame the woman into keeping the child with arbitrary regulations and rules.
Same across every regulatory statute as well. We rarely ban any activity out right, but instead mire in a quicksand of impenetrable regulations and taxes.
That makes a lot of sense. I completely forgot the historical context with the Detroit auto industries push for direct sales being the impetus for this kind of legislation in the first place.
Still, one would think that a city famous for their auto city would be in favor of passing laws that would benefit the auto industry.
I don't know what GamerGate was when it started. It may have been a positive movement, it may have been a staged attack by a small minority, it might have been about boiling discontent against games journalism which has been corrupt since 1970.
What it is now is the worst dregs of the internet and their corrupt counterparts having a shit slinging match to see who can hit the bottom of the barrel fastest. There are no good actors here. They have moved on to other things, and left the garbage to rot.
Slashdot Mirror
To boil down several interesting points. You brain is who you are, but your brain is shaped by your experiences which differ across varying races and ethnic backgrounds as they provide the context of the brains growth.
To say that you can find diversity based on race alone is ignorant.
To say that you can find diversity within the mind alone in ignorant.
Everything you see, do, hear, touch, feel, and experience makes you who you are, and those experiences and context are frequently (and sadly) dictated by appearance and ethnic background.
As for being able to look past that are you sure? Can you tell me about the pain of a Palestinian mother who watched her son die in Gaza and her rage at the Israelis for taking him? Can you know the joy of an adventurer who crested the summit of mt. Everest? Can you look into the eyes of the protesters at Tienanmen square and understand the stifling weight of oppression that drove them to the streets? That drove a common man to stand down a tank?
Of course not. To say that you can look past race is to say that you are looking past the forces that shaped them to be who they are. The mind can only reflect who they are AT THAT MOMENT, but to have a shot at understanding someone you have to look at where they come from.
Context is important.
I think what is driving this issue is the ballooning of student loan debt in recent years that some are speculating will be the next financial bubble to burst(up to something like 1.5 Trillion in recent years). This is especially scary as you cannot avoid student loan debt through bankruptcy. As a measure to ensure that the government can stop the hemorrhaging of money this might have an impact, but as a measure to help students all it will end up doing is make the competition for scholarships that much harder for poor students.
I do agree that an 18 year old can make their own decisions, but as far as education is concerned it may not be practical. An 18 year old should be mentally independent, but they are rarely financially independent, and as long as they are dependent on someone else for money in regards to their education they do have to respect that persons input. For the most part input is good, but not when people are labeled as dropouts for failing to get a university degree.
This pressures younger people into getting a degree when it would be better for them to go to trade school or a similar training program. Add to that the pressure to go to a well regarded (read: expensive) university and the pressure mounts to take out loans that they can't afford with the belief that obtaining such a degree is the only realistic way to be successful.
In that case you pointed out that state schools are a good option, but I found when I was applying for college in Missouri that my state schools didn't offer very good degrees in the field that I new I wished to pursue which led me to look to out of state schools, hoping to get by on my scholarships. I ended up in a very expensive private university, but with enough aid money to get by without taking on debt.
I think it unfair to blame the students for taking on debt when employers often times won't look seriously at candidates without a reputable degree, and then tell them that they are to blame to taking on debt in order to the get the degree that employers expect.
How about instead of enacting legislation that makes the college degree the new high school diploma we fix the problem with employers scalping their employee's wages to demonstrate false quarterly growth to their shareholders?
A good solution would be to tie the wage of the lowest paid worker to the highest by a ratio of 1:40 at minimum (reports say that a ratio as high as 1:20 has a large positive impact on moral). That would solve a hell of a lot more problems regarding gainful employment than any program targeting federal funding for universities.
That's all well and good, but if Linux developers say that they want to take the desktop then they will need to come to terms with the fact that users don't care about anything other than usability.
Speaking as a type 1 diabetic low blood sugar has a huge impact on my mood. I become extremely fidgety and unfocused when my sugars are running low. Then if my sugars continue to run low I become incredibly irritable. I have the opposite problems when my sugars are running high and I get lethargic. Maintaining an optimal sugar level is imperative to maintaining my health and my mood, and being able to check my sugars quickly and quietly at my desk would be a godsend, and a reason to buy the device on its own. If my insurance company would subsidize a wearable that monitors sugars I would be on my way to the store right now.
Granted that is for a segment of the population that has a true medical issue and perhaps a medical device would be better, but sugar monitoring without having to excuse myself from an event to go to the bathroom and take out an over sized testing kit to stab myself with a needle is a huge draw for this kind of device.
No.
You cannot formulate a logical argument against something that is not based on logic.
If someone walked up to and said that the theory of general relativity was developed by goats, and refused to knowledge any evidence to the contrary, then they cannot be reasoned with because they have refused to see reason.
Creationism is not based on facts, evidence, or logical thinking, but by pure faith and conjecture. They believe creationism to be true because they believe the bible to be true. No where in that line of thought is there room for a logical debate.
I guess we were coming at the issue from the macro and the micro scale. I think you are absolutely right that capital owners expecting to decrease their reliance on labor will probably get a surprise. Especially if they try to scale up their in house IT to take on the challenge ( how many stores and how may kiosks? yikes! ). I guess at the worst they are trying to force the labor back out of their industry and into a factory in China so maybe they will end up having less reliance on labor with workers outside the company picking up the slack. Either way, for now the McDonalds example this is probably a ploy to force costs off the books so they can show their shareholders some bigger numbers.
As well as, thank you for the well thought out posts, and I apologize if my ramblings tended too far towards rants.
I think it's worth noting for clarity's sake that I am thinking in terms of the long term scalability.
Automated systems scale far better than hiring more people, so you would be right that in the short term jobs would be lost to automation, but the scalability of automated systems will allow the industries it affects to grow faster and cheaper supporting more jobs in the long term. Its a lot less expensive to hire 3 people and install 2 kiosks than hire 5 people.
Further we have to look at the aggregate value of an automated system. That system supports more than one industry. They have to be manufactured, delvered, installed, maintained etc. That has an impact on far more people than one low payed employee, and while it doesn't pay the full wage of the ones it does support it does help them grow.
I see what you are saying, but you are ignoring the main point of my argument.
Paying engineers to design a system scales better than paying more people to do that job. My point was that it is never a straight x:y jobs ratio. If McDonalds lays off 10,000 people in favor of automation then that increases the incentive for the company that made the kiosks to create more and market them to more companies. In the long term this will generate more jobs that can be supported through more automation.
I my original example with agriculture I was making the point that despite far less people being farmers there are far more jobs in agriculture than when we had tenant farmers. Why? How can less people be farming, but the agriculture industry be growing?
Its because you are able to increase efficiency to the point that it offsets the inefficiency of using more people.
Yes more people can work in an industry and the industry still gain efficiency because the efficiency gained through automating a task can offset the inefficiency of employing more people. If 100 burger flippers have and efficiency of x and 110 other assorted supporters of automation technology have efficiency 2x then you have gained efficiency by increasing the number of people involved.
Both the amount of labor and the efficiency can be increased. The situation that you present only applies if we accept that McDonalds will show no growth of product sales as a result of their move towards automation, and McDonalds is not a company that acts without cost benefit analysis.
Employ more people to serve even more.
Sure it increases efficiency. That $100k is being payed by another company to develop those kiosks which will then be manufactured to scale, and will also be sold to other companies that adopt self serve options.
That $100k engineer is doing far more than replacing 5 $20k cashiers he is developing a commercially viable product that can be sold to far more companies than McDonalds. This isn't an x:y scenario where jobs are being replaced by other jobs. As I said in my original post jobs are being replaced by a whole new industry. The self serve technology industry in this case, and just like the agricultural industry it has the potential to employ far more people over the long term while increasing the efficiency of the markets that the new industry serves.
In the original comment it seemed that he was suggesting that automation creates markets that in turn create jobs.
In the case of agriculture the tractor revolutionized food production and led to the eviction of tenant farmers and fueled the flight to the cities that saw the turn of 80% of people living in rural areas to 2%.
In the example of agriculture the tractor eliminated farmer jobs, but it created a market for tractors and other farming equipment as well as heavy industrial infrastructure like large grain silos to house the abundance of crops. With automation came efficiency and with efficiency came scale and with scale came large industries and jobs. Just because people don't work on farms as much anymore doesn't mean that the agriculture industry doesn't support a net increase in employment. More people are employed in agriculture than ever before and you have the tractor and automation to thank for that.
In the case of McDonalds these kiosks will reduce the number of jobs that McDonalds directly supplies, but how many McDonalds are there worldwide and how many kiosks will they need? I imagine quite a few jobs will be created to create, ship, support, and maintain those kiosks which could very well lead to a net increase in the people employed both directly and indirectly by McDonalds. Furthermore they will be supporting much higher payed positions in IT and manufacturing.
The real hit in this decision isn't the number of jobs, but the loss of entry level jobs. Our economy is still unstable and employers are more sketchy than ever at hiring employees without a work history. The damage will be when younger workers can't find work because they have no experience and can't get experience because all the entry level positions are automated.
I can think of a few ways, but the best would be to not manufacture in China.
"The relevant question then becomes how much force to apply"
This is not the relevant question at all. During a hostage situation the use of force is far more likely to escalate the situation into one that would result in the death of hostages. A better solution would be to see if the hostage takers could be talked down. This is normally the first response of any decent policing unit.
As you yourself point out negotiation is relevant for small bank robbers, and it is also true for large hostage situations. Attempting to minimize casualties by sacrificing hostages for the "greater good" is not the behavior that I want from my law enforcement.
Can we pass a law that says any politician passing a law must first be investigated by an independent organization to see if that politician is breaking that law?
Maybe life in prison will teach some of these half wits that writing overly broad laws isn't a good idea.
"who they treat as a virtual enemy, every time Stanford wants to build *anything*"
As someone who lives in University City, MO home of Washington University I can understand the ire placed on universities.
They are non profit organizations that makes massive profits and buy up all the land and houses that would be taxed and then remove them from the tax pool. In University City over 15% of the land is owned by a university that makes 2.1 billion dollars a year in profit, but refuses to pay taxes which strangles the city budget.
We could also ban political contributions because that's like bribery.
In all seriousness I do remember an argument against this type of crap in congress that basically said this was a regulation of taste, and if you ban things that are similar to child pornography couldn't you also ban images of women with small breasts because they evoke thoughts of children? (paraphrase)
The more I see this kind of stuff about Google being forced to modify search results based on dumb things like 'right to be forgotten' the more I can't help but feel that Google's results just might not be reliable enough anymore. I know that right to be forgotten is only a European thing but I still can't help but get the feeling that I am no longer getting the best results for my search.
Although it brings bile to the back of my throat I think it may be time to see how Bing lines up against Google.
It is not true that you need sugars or you will die. Your body can function without any intake of carbohydrates because the only organ in the body that requires glucose to function is the brain. Every other part can power itself off of fatty acids, and the liver can turn fatty acids into glucose.
If I was to just start drinking water and intake no carbs my blood sugars would drop to about 60 where it would stabilize as the body starts converting its fats into glucose.
In practice this can be rather dangerous because depending on the person you can go into keytone acidosis, but the food pyramid with the carbs at the bottom is a myth. you can function just fine with tiny amounts of carbs every day.
"CAST Research on Application Software Health (CRASH)"
Is this what computer science has come to? Nested acronyms?
For fucks sake keep your names short and to the point.
A long history of jurisprudence that existed long before the internet was invented or even widely adopted. When that happens I think instead of trying to force modern technology to conform with outdated laws we should instead look at why our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution.
The government having the ability to unreasonably search your information of any kind allows them to build a narrative about your behavior using cherry picked evidence. At the drop of a hat your entire history, and every little mistake along the way can be used to demonize even the greatest saint. It was by using tactics like this that corrupt governments would silence dissent. Kings would craft a narrative to discredit opposition and lock them away never to be seen again.
This is the behavior that our country has engaged in, and regardless of whether your "papers and effects" are emails, downloads, or letters the consequences of a government spying on those communications are the same: that the government can use your entire life to criminalize you when you are not in fact a criminal. That is what you should be looking at, not jurisprudence from judges that are mostly tech illiterate or that predated the technology that it is being used as precedent to rule on.
I wonder what being able to say you are wired to google fiber does to the resale value of your home? Being able to advertise google fiber access must be a huge incentive for certain home buyers and I bet you could recoup that $300 instantly just in resale value.
It's a trend in our lawmakers that make them so sensitive to being anti anything that they come up with weird circuitous laws to ban things that they don't like or have donations to eliminate.
In this case lawmakers were attempting to protect small mom and pop style dealerships from the Detroit auto industries shady business practices, but I bet they didn't want to seem "anti capitalism" for regulating the pricing of cars to ensure that the dealers weren't dumping cars to drive out the competition. So instead we get a crazy law that bans direct sales. Because its much harder to construe that as anti something, and the politicians can always fire back with a similar "anti mom and pop stores" nonsense.
For a more modern example look at abortion laws. In my great state the politicians are too afraid to go one way or the other so they come up with bullshit like waiting times. In order for a woman to get an abortion she has to wait three days. No reason. She just has to. This is because someone couldn't get an anti abortion law passed so they settled for attempting to shame the woman into keeping the child with arbitrary regulations and rules.
Same across every regulatory statute as well. We rarely ban any activity out right, but instead mire in a quicksand of impenetrable regulations and taxes.
That makes a lot of sense. I completely forgot the historical context with the Detroit auto industries push for direct sales being the impetus for this kind of legislation in the first place.
Still, one would think that a city famous for their auto city would be in favor of passing laws that would benefit the auto industry.
I don't know what GamerGate was when it started. It may have been a positive movement, it may have been a staged attack by a small minority, it might have been about boiling discontent against games journalism which has been corrupt since 1970.
What it is now is the worst dregs of the internet and their corrupt counterparts having a shit slinging match to see who can hit the bottom of the barrel fastest. There are no good actors here. They have moved on to other things, and left the garbage to rot.