With that SAME logic, banning (insert "harmful" practice or item) would reduce injury or death. Murder is illegal,
I dont really follow? Are you suggesting killing people shouldn't be illegal because some people do it even though it is illegal? Do you think the number of people murdered would be reduced if murder was legal?
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes went to parties promising to take the UK out of the EU.
Well arent you a dishonest little one!
You very well know the first past the post system pretty much ensures that those two parties command by far the majority of the votes almost no matter what.
Now what you failed to mention is that in a very unusual move, neither managed to command a majority.
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote
Ah yes, tyical Brexiter, everything is everyone else's fault.
YOU voted to have an incompetent government take us out of the EU, now own your fucking decision like a man.
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
We had a bote on leaving which leave won. We then had a general election in which neither of the big parties promoting leave managed to win. We certainly didn't have a vote moving the country away from a parliamentary democracy.
So who's the problem here, the Brexiteers, who simply expect the result of the referendum to be implemented, or the remainers who are attempting to subvert democracy simply because they didn't like the result?
The Brexiters.
Because they have the same delusion that you hare that a completely undefined result is "simple" to implement.
Notably, there's Speaker of the House John Bercow, who has a "Bollocks to Brexit" sticker on his car.
So you do then believe that wives are chattels of their husbands.
I expect your post will not surprise me. I've yet to speak to a Brexiter who isn't wildly misinformed.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying,
I love that you state something which is clearly false as a fact.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result.
Also false, as in you've been ignoring the arguments.
It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
Well, gee I wonder what's going to come first. 10 years time or the next 6 months. Oh wait it's obvious the next 6 months will be here first so we need to figure out how to sort out that mess first.
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations
That's because we can't without the EU's agreement and they won't do it unless were in the single market, and they won't let us in there without us aying the fees necessary to support it. Now we could certainly join that but then all we'd have managed to do is remove voting rights for ourselves.
in previous decades, bobbies didn't have to carry guns. Nowadays UK police they are armed and armored like US swat teams.
This is simply outright false. Almost no police are armed.
They chose
The results of a fraulent referendum us not the same as "the people choosing".
Driving on the road with one of these present will present and unlimited capacity for chaos because if something unexpected (or unprogrammed) happens, the car will do something unexpected. And that could be dangerous to everyone around.
Good point! This is why self driving cars will never work because they do unexpected things and humans never do. It must have been a self driving car I saw over a decade ago which suddenly hauled it over 3 lanes to the middle, pulled a u turn and then floored it back in the other direction. And that time bender got trashed on WD-40 at 2 in the afternoon and kept swerved his beaten up F150 between lanes.
They don't. Well some nitwits do, but youre falling into the trap that because some things are physically impossible other things must be too. But when it comes to self driving cars you're pretty wide of the mark.
First, self driving cars aren't limited by physics like space travel is.
Secondly, you're ignoring the advancs in computer vision. Whether you believe deep learning is the key to strong AI or not (it isn't), or whether you believe it's 100% novel never seen before (it isn't), it has advanced practical comuter visison by a very large amount.
Thirdly, you're ignoring the history and advances. In the 1980s the first vision and lidar systems were made and could drive a car successfully on a closed track with no traffic. Cool demo but too early to be useful. Fsatforward to now with huge advances in all aspects of computer vision (both learning based and geometric), huge improvements in sensors, vast increases in computing power and you now have driverless cars which have indesutable successfully driven around in real cities with traffic. As in they might not be perfect or even good enough yet, but they do actually verifiably work.
You're basically stating that you kow that all future advances from about now will cease and self driving cars will stop just on the cusp of getting useful. Seems unlkely to me.
Finally you're ignoring the shockingly bad quality of the average human driver. A self driving car is not and will never be a human driver but worse. Because they always will and always have done a number of things vastly better than humans they can afford to do a fair few things considerably worse and still have better accident rates overall.
We are not going to get a self-driving car which is better than a well trained, fully alert human driver any time soon. That isn't going to happen. Can we get a self driving car with a lower accident rate than the average human? My money says a strong yes. Because while self driving cars will always foul up and drive into something no human ever would, they have other plus points:
They do not get tired. They do not get angry. They feel no impatience. They do not forget how to drive in conditions they haven't seen for a year. They are not distraced by their boss being an asshole at work. They don't text or use a mobile phone. They do not yell at their kids. They do not rush because they are late. They do not get close to the car in front. They do not race off the lights. They never try to show off or exhibit dominance. They don't daydream onboring journeys. They don't accelerate at pedestrians. They don't try to squeeze through gaps which are too small. They don't floor it to make the orange light. They won't pull out without checking mirrors. They wont forget to indicate. They won't realise they've misread the stanav then haul ass over three lanes with no warning to get to the turnoff. They won't drive the wrong way down a one way street because "it's only a short distance". They won't go twice the speed limit then slam on the brakes when they see a speed camera (and for bonus points blame other people for it). They wont speed in fog because they take lessons from the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal.
Now I, like 80% of the population rate myself as well above average as a driver. I don't need to be replaced with a self driving car. Those other idiots? A self driving car can be well below perfection and still be a lot better.
Well that's a might fine example of puritanical thinking there. You're either RIGHT or WRONG. There are no shades of grey. Steal food to feed your starving family? Stealing is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity. Murder a bunch of people? Murder is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.
That's the kind of inane thinking it appears you've foud a way of applying to every day life. Go you!
They are too slow to remove the ones that don't work.
I disagree: I think them ruthlessly killing off "unpopular" products is actually harming adoption in general. I don't bother trying new google products since I don't want to get used to something when there's a 95% chance it'll disappear soon. I doubt I'm alone in this.
Not sure why this is modded as troll. Even presidents have been warning about the military industrial complex for ages. It's not even a partisan thing. Dislike of the MIC is something you see on both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes it is because the EU is not the arbiter of a race where we're seeing which global megacorp can win getting to the absive monopoly position fastest.
You're post was 100% on point, except that you should replace "social media" with "communities". This didn't start with social media, and it won't end with it either.
OK, yes. Social media is neutral and people do the radicalisation. I think my oint was more along the lines of that social media enables it because it avoids the need to have a sufficient geographical density of people to form a community.
But that cuts both ways, of course. For every new community of nutcases, there's a good worthwhile one as well.
So since you assign me as an asshole because I noted that the cultural appropriation bullshit is a left wing phenomenon,
OK, I'll grant you that. It's not a right winger poison. However it sounded very much like you were ascribing all internet hate mobs as a left wing phenomenon. If you weren't then I'll retract my insult along with offering an apology.
As for me being an asshole - yeah, I am a big one.
Congratulations! You managed to find some right dickheads on the internet. Well done. Up until now I though the internet contained only nice, reasonable people./s
What makes YOU the dickhead however is assigning some sort of political bias to it. Right wingers and left wingers have proven themeselves just as capable as each other as forming hate mobs.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with you. I mean your point about allowing people to unleash their inner arsehole without reprisals is certianly true. However, I do think that people are more plastic.
A classic example is of radicalisation of terrorists.
However even with more normal groups, people are affected strongly by their surronudings. Maybe it still requirea a bit of latent inner arsehole to be nurtured and grow, but just about all of us have that.
I don't think social media is evil or anything. I'm a firm believer in the idea that tools are neutral, but people are not. The best thing about the internet is that there's a community for everyone. The worst thing about the internet is that there's a community for everyone.
And I think some communities can really bring out the absolute worst in people, and the internet[*] allows what would be a niche withou enough local critical mass to grow.
Slashdot Mirror
With that SAME logic, banning (insert "harmful" practice or item) would reduce injury or death. Murder is illegal,
I dont really follow? Are you suggesting killing people shouldn't be illegal because some people do it even though it is illegal? Do you think the number of people murdered would be reduced if murder was legal?
Or you could listen to the voice of the British people in the 2017 parliamentary elections, in which 80% of the votes went to parties promising to take the UK out of the EU.
Well arent you a dishonest little one!
You very well know the first past the post system pretty much ensures that those two parties command by far the majority of the votes almost no matter what.
Now what you failed to mention is that in a very unusual move, neither managed to command a majority.
Parliament sabotaging the entire fucking process of leaving the EU combined with a Government incapable of negotiating affection in a brothel means that many people now think leaving wont work and want a third fucking vote
Ah yes, tyical Brexiter, everything is everyone else's fault.
YOU voted to have an incompetent government take us out of the EU, now own your fucking decision like a man.
My point is that we had a vote, then had a second vote.
We had a bote on leaving which leave won. We then had a general election in which neither of the big parties promoting leave managed to win. We certainly didn't have a vote moving the country away from a parliamentary democracy.
So who's the problem here, the Brexiteers, who simply expect the result of the referendum to be implemented, or the remainers who are attempting to subvert democracy simply because they didn't like the result?
The Brexiters.
Because they have the same delusion that you hare that a completely undefined result is "simple" to implement.
Notably, there's Speaker of the House John Bercow, who has a "Bollocks to Brexit" sticker on his car.
So you do then believe that wives are chattels of their husbands.
If all it takes to invalidate a national referendum is that 20% of the Nay voters sign an online petition, then who controls the society?
All it should take to invalidate a referendum is a ruling that it was fraudlent.
Oh wait that did happen!
So tell me who does control society if we let it be ruled by fraud?
I expect your post will not surprise me. I've yet to speak to a Brexiter who isn't wildly misinformed.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying,
I love that you state something which is clearly false as a fact.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result.
Also false, as in you've been ignoring the arguments.
It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
Well, gee I wonder what's going to come first. 10 years time or the next 6 months. Oh wait it's obvious the next 6 months will be here first so we need to figure out how to sort out that mess first.
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations
That's because we can't without the EU's agreement and they won't do it unless were in the single market, and they won't let us in there without us aying the fees necessary to support it. Now we could certainly join that but then all we'd have managed to do is remove voting rights for ourselves.
in previous decades, bobbies didn't have to carry guns. Nowadays UK police they are armed and armored like US swat teams.
This is simply outright false. Almost no police are armed.
They chose
The results of a fraulent referendum us not the same as "the people choosing".
Not only that but the concentration of votes very closely matches the high concentrations of remain voters in the original referendum.
Don't be retarded.
He supports Brexit so you're probably asking to much of him.
Driving on the road with one of these present will present and unlimited capacity for chaos because if something unexpected (or unprogrammed) happens, the car will do something unexpected. And that could be dangerous to everyone around.
Good point! This is why self driving cars will never work because they do unexpected things and humans never do. It must have been a self driving car I saw over a decade ago which suddenly hauled it over 3 lanes to the middle, pulled a u turn and then floored it back in the other direction. And that time bender got trashed on WD-40 at 2 in the afternoon and kept swerved his beaten up F150 between lanes.
Bloody robots.
All things are possible?
They don't. Well some nitwits do, but youre falling into the trap that because some things are physically impossible other things must be too. But when it comes to self driving cars you're pretty wide of the mark.
First, self driving cars aren't limited by physics like space travel is.
Secondly, you're ignoring the advancs in computer vision. Whether you believe deep learning is the key to strong AI or not (it isn't), or whether you believe it's 100% novel never seen before (it isn't), it has advanced practical comuter visison by a very large amount.
Thirdly, you're ignoring the history and advances. In the 1980s the first vision and lidar systems were made and could drive a car successfully on a closed track with no traffic. Cool demo but too early to be useful. Fsatforward to now with huge advances in all aspects of computer vision (both learning based and geometric), huge improvements in sensors, vast increases in computing power and you now have driverless cars which have indesutable successfully driven around in real cities with traffic. As in they might not be perfect or even good enough yet, but they do actually verifiably work.
You're basically stating that you kow that all future advances from about now will cease and self driving cars will stop just on the cusp of getting useful. Seems unlkely to me.
Finally you're ignoring the shockingly bad quality of the average human driver. A self driving car is not and will never be a human driver but worse. Because they always will and always have done a number of things vastly better than humans they can afford to do a fair few things considerably worse and still have better accident rates overall.
We are not going to get a self-driving car which is better than a well trained, fully alert human driver any time soon. That isn't going to happen. Can we get a self driving car with a lower accident rate than the average human? My money says a strong yes. Because while self driving cars will always foul up and drive into something no human ever would, they have other plus points:
They do not get tired. They do not get angry. They feel no impatience. They do not forget how to drive in conditions they haven't seen for a year. They are not distraced by their boss being an asshole at work. They don't text or use a mobile phone. They do not yell at their kids. They do not rush because they are late. They do not get close to the car in front. They do not race off the lights. They never try to show off or exhibit dominance. They don't daydream onboring journeys. They don't accelerate at pedestrians. They don't try to squeeze through gaps which are too small. They don't floor it to make the orange light. They won't pull out without checking mirrors. They wont forget to indicate. They won't realise they've misread the stanav then haul ass over three lanes with no warning to get to the turnoff. They won't drive the wrong way down a one way street because "it's only a short distance". They won't go twice the speed limit then slam on the brakes when they see a speed camera (and for bonus points blame other people for it). They wont speed in fog because they take lessons from the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal.
Now I, like 80% of the population rate myself as well above average as a driver. I don't need to be replaced with a self driving car. Those other idiots? A self driving car can be well below perfection and still be a lot better.
....that autonomous driving is going to work? I mean, have you actually used software?
Why do people think antonomous driving won't work? Have you seen humans behind the wheel of a car? Truly terrifying.
To be fair half the stuff on the list was just rolled into other products.
Yeah I was pretty disappointed by the site when I saw that. Something called a different name hasn't been killed off.
A complete contradiction.
Well that's a might fine example of puritanical thinking there. You're either RIGHT or WRONG. There are no shades of grey. Steal food to feed your starving family? Stealing is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity. Murder a bunch of people? Murder is wrong and you're going to hell to be tortured for all eternity.
That's the kind of inane thinking it appears you've foud a way of applying to every day life. Go you!
They've always had the best backwards compatibility of any OS.
No they've always had the best backwards compatibility of any OS you've used. But you've not used OS/390.
They are too slow to remove the ones that don't work.
I disagree: I think them ruthlessly killing off "unpopular" products is actually harming adoption in general. I don't bother trying new google products since I don't want to get used to something when there's a 95% chance it'll disappear soon. I doubt I'm alone in this.
I don't normally agree with mych you day, but this is right on the money. Also made me laugh. MOD ARENT UP!
When you ask the AI to end poverty, you may not get the answer you were hoping for.
Well the answer I was hoping for is that I don't have to actually do anything.
Not sure why this is modded as troll. Even presidents have been warning about the military industrial complex for ages. It's not even a partisan thing. Dislike of the MIC is something you see on both sides of the political spectrum.
That's the EU in a nutshell.
Yes it is because the EU is not the arbiter of a race where we're seeing which global megacorp can win getting to the absive monopoly position fastest.
You're post was 100% on point, except that you should replace "social media" with "communities". This didn't start with social media, and it won't end with it either.
OK, yes. Social media is neutral and people do the radicalisation. I think my oint was more along the lines of that social media enables it because it avoids the need to have a sufficient geographical density of people to form a community.
But that cuts both ways, of course. For every new community of nutcases, there's a good worthwhile one as well.
So since you assign me as an asshole because I noted that the cultural appropriation bullshit is a left wing phenomenon,
OK, I'll grant you that. It's not a right winger poison. However it sounded very much like you were ascribing all internet hate mobs as a left wing phenomenon. If you weren't then I'll retract my insult along with offering an apology.
As for me being an asshole - yeah, I am a big one.
So what are you whinging about then?
Congratulations! You managed to find some right dickheads on the internet. Well done. Up until now I though the internet contained only nice, reasonable people. /s
What makes YOU the dickhead however is assigning some sort of political bias to it. Right wingers and left wingers have proven themeselves just as capable as each other as forming hate mobs.
So many wonderful subcultures have been culturally appropriated and destroyed by mainstream invasion.
There are also subcultures that have died off because no one new came in.
Remember that white girl who wore the Chinese dress to prom?
First, no, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Second, what? Chinese culture isn't a subculture. There are more chinese people than westerners.
Yep what D&D deserately needs is to keep out anyone new who might be interested. Don't worry I won't be joining your game group.
No. Social media doesn't turn people hateful.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with you. I mean your point about allowing people to unleash their inner arsehole without reprisals is certianly true. However, I do think that people are more plastic.
A classic example is of radicalisation of terrorists.
However even with more normal groups, people are affected strongly by their surronudings. Maybe it still requirea a bit of latent inner arsehole to be nurtured and grow, but just about all of us have that.
I don't think social media is evil or anything. I'm a firm believer in the idea that tools are neutral, but people are not. The best thing about the internet is that there's a community for everyone. The worst thing about the internet is that there's a community for everyone.
And I think some communities can really bring out the absolute worst in people, and the internet[*] allows what would be a niche withou enough local critical mass to grow.
[*] Do we count forums as social media?