Jordrok

There really is nothing more ironic than using a meme to disparage other people who share a certain idea (aka. a meme).

Ok, and I would argue that anyone who values the second topic over the first has their priorities seriously out of whack and needs to do some soul searching.

This is the entire point of the article - that inadequate testing can lead to inaccurate results. The point isn't that "the device is biased and therefore its makers are bad people", it's to highlight a clear-cut case where cutting costs by doing such limited testing leads to negative outcomes.

How's this for an argument: hyper-fixating on the word "race" in this context completely derails productive conversations about the importance of testing medical devices on a diverse range of subjects and instead turns it into yet another stupid culture war. Would the article have been substantially different if the phrase "skin color bias" had been substituted for "racial bias"? No! Absolutely not! So let's all calm the fuck down and stop getting so bent out of shape that someone had the audacity to use the 'r' word!

Who exactly is brewing up anger here? The only people I see getting angry are the ones in these comments who are so easily triggered by the word "race".

You are heavily, heavily overreacting here. Take a breath.

> This isn't poor grammar, this is a syntactically broken sentence

Absolute nonsense! Sure, "containing" is more precise in conveying the idea, but "surrounding" still results in a perfectly valid sentence that the average human being can comprehend. Pretending otherwise is just being obtuse.

What is the point of shifting the focus here? Are you trying to justify Nazism?

I would disagree. The mark of truly profound writing is the ability to portray an idea in such a way that it forces the reader to question their pre-existing beliefs and potentially change their mind.

So many pretentious words strung together in this article and not a single one of them explaining exactly what the "need" is that he's referencing in the title "The West needs to grow up". It's one gigantic exercise in begging the question, that clearly the attitudes and values of the past were better and everything modern is "wrong".

This sort of stuff only seems profound if you already agree with the premise and are searching for validation of those beliefs. Otherwise it just sounds like your standard "Old Man Yells at Cloud Using Flowery Language".

Honestly, I think it says more about how distorted your worldview has become that your first instinct is to go hunting for some little factoid to use to confirm your pre-existing bias against " the mainstream media", no matter how irrelevant, incorrect, or out-of-context that fact may be.

Yet another reason why requiring phone numbers for account creation/verification is an awful, user-hostile idea. I've always hated services that do this.

If this law is purely about the safety concerns raised by bystanders being within 8 feet, then why does it explicitly only apply to RECORDING within 8 feet? It does absolutely nothing to prevent bystanders from coming within 8 feet. It only becomes a crime if they pull out a phone and start recording. The "safety" argument is a blatant red herring.

I'll give you a hint: the results would have been the same on any other day. Clearly you're only interested in having your opinions validated. I'm sorry that reality is so disappointing to you.

I just took a glance at Google News and I see multiple articles with headlines like "The last city in Luhansk has fallen to Russia. What does that mean for Ukraine?", "With latest capture, Russia edges closer to complete control over Ukraine's Donbas", "Ukrainian forces withdraw from Lysychansk, their last holdout in key region".

What exactly are you complaining about? Be honest, how closely have you been paying attention to this issue and how various sources cover it? It seems that so many people are only capable of ingesting the very first headline, declaring their knowledge complete, and then ignoring any further information. How is this the fault of the media?

You're missing the point. Reddit is not and never has banned subreddits purely for being conservative. That's a persecution fantasy that lives entirely in your head.

Tell that to /r/conservative where I am banned from for even attempting to present an alternate viewpoint. Dissent is literally forbidden by the subreddit's rules.

Are you kidding me? This is what qualifies as being "informed" to you? The rantings of some random podcast host who did a weekend of "research" on a topic he obviously knows nothing about? I watched that whole video and it was one of the most vapid, substance-free, piles of bullshit I've ever heard.

I seriously question the quality of your judgement and your capacity for critical thought if that video is what is inspired your original comment.

> I mean nobody who is informed still believes that Hellen Keller's story was anything other than a manipulative scam by her supposed "teacher."

Um......what?

I just did a quick search and all I could find were articles from ~2021 referencening some weird TikTok conspiracy theory that seemed to be akin to the semi-sarcastic "birds aren't real" meme. Are you being serious here?

That's part of the problem itself. In most cases there ARE no communications about why an account was terminated, and it's impossible to get any unless you have enough influence to cause a messy public incident on Twitter.

> It’s pretty obvious and has been for quite some time that the ultimate goal here is for a central bank digital currency (CBDC), and stories like this as well as the UST collapse play right into that hand.

I'm not really sure why you would say this. If anything, I would say that stories like these point much more strongly towards an entirely crypto-less future. Who is going to trust the crypto ecosystem as a whole after all these collapses?

> I feel like it is even possible that Wall Street is BEHIND the collapse of these stablecoins. They couldn’t pay for better press to help convince the public that a CBDC is necessary for the future. I suspect the CBDCs are already ready to go, but their last step is convincing the public they need one.

And now you're swerving into full-on conspiracy theory speculation territory. Get a grip, man!

Is he really though? You say this as if the twitter acquisition is over and done, and Free Speech has been saved by Musk doing......what exactly? So far we have so few details about what his plans for the platform are (or if he even has any) that everyone is free to project their own ideal outcome onto his actions. Let's wait a bit and see what happens before declaring him the savior of free speech.

> (Also, let's give the previous U.S. president credit where credit is due; he might have a repulsive personality, but at least he didn't start any foolish wars! So there's that, too.)

I always find it so amusing when the best thing anyone can say about our previous White House occupant is what he DIDN'T do (and not for lack of trying!). As if a pet rock or farm animal couldn't have accomplished the same feat.

I came here to make this exact same comment, but I'm not surprised someone else beat me to it!

Maybe Papers Please and Undertale would make better examples.

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention to sales numbers, but I can't really recall ever hearing anyone refer to Odyssey as anything other than a success.

You have a very warped definition of the word "bully".

I suppose you could call them weapons of environmental destruction.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions about me. I'm not even sure what the problem you're referring to here is. I was just impressed by what a concise, convincing argument in favor of masks you inadvertently made!

> displays such as mask wearing are low-effort, low-cost, require little to no compromise or change in one's lifestyle and behavior

If only we could have convinced more of the rabid anti-maskers of this. Sadly they were too busy virtue-signalling about how the tyrannical government was stripping away their essential liberties.

Not necessarily. I would argue that plenty of people bathe and wear clean clothes more for their own comfort rather than that of others. The fact that these things can be interpreted as status signals has nothing to do with the motivation for taking these actions in the first place.