Aurelius3

Damn, must have been a different time.

>do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement?

Like how western nations fund color revolutions and ideological shifts in countries where the majority of citizens are against such funding? Either accept that true liberal (free) democracy means foreign influence to the point of possibly destroying the democracy, or accept that both sides do it relentlessly in a game of power.

I think the age restrictions are bullshit as well, try this userscript: https://github.com/zerodytrash/Simple-YouTube-Age-Restrictio...

That wasin't a podcast episode, it was a radio talk show called opie and anthony that ran from 1995 to 2014, this call was likely from around 2005. The whole point of the radio talk show was to bring on funny comedians like burr and rogan, have them talk shit and be funny, do over the top studio stunts, bring in wacky guests off the street, etc. The two hosts were at the top of the "shock jock" business in America for over a decade, and this hilarious 8 minute video is a golden slice of that kind of content. If you take anything in that vid seriously you have a weak sense of humour and are easily missled, rogan killed in the vid and so did burr.

This would be ideal, but from what I understand this addon is built on the framework of mozilla's containers, which can not work in private browsing, which is a shame, I'm not sure why mozilla has set it up this way, although they likely have a good reason.

What do you mean by no search exactly? I think there is a disconnect between the person you replied to and the person that the person you replied to replied to. Discord has a pretty good search function for messages, attachments, and embeds in servers depending on date, author, etc. As for searching for servers to join they didin't have that before and you had to rely on third party aggregators, now they do, although I have never tried it out as I prefer joining servers who advertise themselves on their own websites individually.

What is the reason firefox containers can't be used in private browsing mode? I really want to use them but also want to clear all stored data after closing a window. So far I've just been using firefox nightly, firefox, and ungoogled chromium to give me a total of three maximum "containers"... Is there a better way to benefit from private browsing modes while allowing for more containers?

I agree on the diversified investment idea, but wouldn't also owning a home add even more diversity to ones portfolio? In a lot of these countries at the top of the wikipedia list it is possible to invest elsewhere as well as in a home.

>60 year credit plan

Don't be disingenuous, the fact that home ownership is high indicates that the housing is cheap, and cheap housing dosen't require a "60 year" credit plan to obtain. Indeed, I would wager it is the countries with lower home ownership rates that require a large mortage and high debt to pay off.

This article and the other articles on this subject by the author confuse me greatly. He claims that the housing is extremely affordable in all of these countries. The countries he mentioned as good examples or large improvements are Japan, Germany, France, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Yet the home ownership of all these countries is around the 60 ~ 65% mark according to wikipedia[1], In germany it is as low as 51%. And this number is for the entire country, This number would be even lower in the urban cities I would wager. If the housing was truly affordable then why is home ownership so low? Furthermore looking at the highest home ownership rates it is mainly ex socialist countries, China, India, smaller Asian countries, and some Caribbean countries. I would guess that the large push to create commie blocks then the subsequent liberalization and deregulation in ex socialist countries is a large factor in this. So if the author wanted examples of "Doing housing better" (subjective) he should have looked elsewhere.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...

I dislike the crying part as well, but I think I can see the reason Ceo's talk about themselves like that, they are paid to act a certain way and attract as much flack as possible to themselves rather then the company.

>To another commenter here, it does indeed sound like Poppers paraphrase, which is a thought terminating cliche that protects lazy minds from dissonance. When inclusion of authors and texts from unexpected* places was transgressive it added perspective, but now, it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth.

I have nothing to add, just want to say that you hit the nail on the head and this sentence in particular is enlightening.

A purely intolerant society would necessarily also have to have some tolerance, or else it would collapse upon itself when there is no acceptable in group. Thus a natural stable zone in between total tolerance and total intolerance exists. Karl Popper's and Richard Rorty's views on tolerance are only rationalizations which attempt to position democracies intolerance as somehow justifiable in the name of "tolerance". What is stopping an autocratic regime from stating the exact same thing? They are intolerant towards x group or y idea to preserve tolerance to w group or z idea. Truthfully humanity has a certain capacity for tolerance, as defined by a zone between total tolerance and total intolerance. This capacity may have increased over time (although I would argue for technological reasons, not for cultural of philosophical reasons), but it will never reach total intolerance or total tolerance. They have both deluded themselves in the hubristic and elitist view that our shifting of the tolerance zone is in some way a testament to an increase in potential tolerance or tolerance "capacity", and have come up with such schizophrenic arguments which claim that a tolerant society must be intolerant. While natural law continues to prove them wrong and they themselves prove their positions wrong.

An idea only worthy of medieval scholasticism. I would hope that as a society we have evolved from such a war like perspective on education, as if the student and the teacher are at odds and the teacher must triumph over the students in a final "educational" victory, when in reality the ideas are simply hamfisted and pushed onto the student, while no true learning or discussion exists.

>"Yes that's me, how could you tell?"