adamcstephens

Am I the only one that thinks this entire situation is a bad sign for our future?

Did they pay the contractors to design it too?

Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon.

Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.

I’m pro-wolves because they are a keystone species that keeps the entire ecosystem in check.

I’d happily let predators into my urban area, cause the deer and geese cause their own damage. If some house cats get eaten, that’s not so bad for the native bird population either.

Ranchers don’t like it when wolves kill livestock.

Consistency is the reason to store, not amount. The sun doesn’t shine at night and the turbines don’t spin without wind (which also is more likely at night). Modern society is built on always available electricity, and some things absolutely require them (eg a data center).

I grew up in Kent too, and this is the first I’d heard this side as well.

I agree that the abstraction and scale of the federal government is unhealthy. We need to give more power back to local communities to solve problems for themselves.

The Republicans were only trying to avoid expansion of slavery, not elimination of it. They fought to maintain the Union, not abolition.

Only later did they free the slaves, and as an act of war more than freedom.

It’s some hubris to think that America brought peace to a wicked world. Especially when at the same time we gloss over the millions of people killed directly or indirectly by American policies and actions during our time in power. We'll never know if the third world and non-aligned movements would have produced a stable alternative, since they competed with American capitalism and thus were destroyed by America.

We did some noble things in the 1940s for sure. Since then, what would you say has been “staggering good”?

History is told by the victors, but that doesn’t make their actions just.

As long as we ignore the violent things done by our country for the past few hundred years, it will continue to poison our society. Reparations for slavery could be one approach, but it doesn’t account for enough of the pain we’ve caused.

Genocide, slavery, civil war, imperial conquest, overthrowing democracies in favor of repressive regimes, to today’s bombing of people in other countries with drones. We don’t discuss these things because they’re painful, conflict with the narrative of ourselves we’ve been told, and are drowned out in modern media because both “sides” agree with the policies.

America is bloodthirsty because we always have been, and have taken no meaningful steps to change it.

Perhaps, but is different enough that it would be a significant migration cost.

Thanks, I agree with the comment that this is a big nothing. If anything I’m annoyed as a user because I already think search is too monetized in the store.

Perhaps don’t temper the political discussion, but what are other solutions that could engage the people in those militias? Some of them are unassailable I’m sure, but not all. For example, less power in DC and more locally could go a long way to appeasing most people.

This proposal gives more people in some areas more than they have now, at the expense of what others _have now_. I fully support equal representation as just, but you can’t ignore that people will react negatively. They are millions of people who are our neighbors.

I found the article a good thought experiment. But that’s all I think it is. This proposal seemingly has low probability of happening anyway, as it would remove its own set of power now from the people who would have to pass it. :)

I used Verizon Prepaid for a while, but ended up getting annoyed at the lower prioritization. Even in a somewhat busy shopping area my data would barely function, let alone any sort of large event. If Visible is anything like that, I wouldn’t probably recommend it. I ended up joining a friend’s Verizon postpaid family. It’s more expensive, but I’m willing to pay it for reliable service.

I’m not sure I’ve ever used 22GB in a month, but throttling to 256k is awful.

If they’re using their monopoly power to disadvantage a competitor while leveraging that disadvantage to compete against Facebook, it is definitely anticompetitive and could get them sued by the government and Facebook. It does conflict with them ramping up their own ad business if it’s anticompetitive.

Giving users privacy is indeed a good thing, but Apple is not an ethical company so I’m not sure why they should get the benefit of the doubt. Without inside information into the reasoning, it is wrong to assume they are doing this for peoples privacy. They could just as easily be doing it for selfish reasons.

I think they forgot one counter argument; there are a lot of guns in the US and they’re more likely to be owned by people who would viciously oppose this move. Oh and everybody is told the other side is literally Hitler, so this will just reinforce one sides perception of that belief.

Without weighing in on the merits of the proposal, it is a bold plan in a time which we need bold plans that change systems. The status quo sets our future on a very risky path in my opinion.

Any expansion from a company claiming to protect our privacy should be viewed with skepticism. That they’re disadvantaging a competitor in the process is likely illegal under antitrust laws.

Disclaimer: I didn’t read the article because it’s behind a paywall. I’ll stand by it not mattering for the purposes of this discussion though.

If they’re anticompetitive, as you seem to allow, then they should definitely not be treated separately. If Apple is purposefully undermining their competitors to build their own business they should be held to account. Charge the companies and charge the individuals. The threat of jail time will force the decision makers to consider their decisions.

If you consider misleading headlines to be misinformation, then you must have very few sources you trust. By this definition the NY Times, the Washington Post and pretty much every “trusted” source of news provides misinformation.

This presumed that private corporations have rights. I’d posit that they do not. They are legal, government created entities, which is different than the individual persons the Bill of Rights was written for. Furthermore, why would we want to grant the power to limit speech to private corporations when we don’t allow governments to do so? The latter is a democratically elected group while the former is almost the complete opposite.

These corporations are as big as governments, but y’all want to give them the rights of individuals. Only they’re run like top-down oligarchies with little to no accountability for their actions.

Israel steals land from the Palestinians. The entire creation of the state of Israel was the taking of land from the Palestinians and giving it to Israel, which continues today through the illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

And belief neoliberalism is starting to crack, which is why there was such widespread negativity to this announcement. People have realized that neoliberalism is just a way to funnel wealth and power into the hands of the few, and surprise they don’t like that.

It only takes a handful of non locals to move in and start showing up at council meetings. Don’t of this blame solely on locals.

Sure, but this didn’t seem like the place to discuss replacing the market economy with one which exists in equilibrium with the planet.

SPACs should be banned. They’re a vehicle for perpetuation of the market as a gambling platform, while undermining the transparency requirements of the market.

The more neutral sites that go behind paywalls, the more people will turn to sensationalist sites which remain free. This divides the knowledge of the people, sorting the well off and the not into different news buckets.

Advertising-based is awful in itself, but I don't view this is a positive improvement.

This is one of my complaints about light themes too. The previous GitHub light theme has decent contrast and is what I’ve used when using a light theme.

Funded by the Gates foundation. Yeah I’m with you.

Ok, you’re right. They’re both hostile countries. They both fund the destruction of others, whether that’s through terrorism or stealing of land.

We should stop selling bombs to everyone in the region, and pull all of our support. If they want to fight each other, let them. As long as the US blindly supports Israel, they will feel empowered to continue not being peaceful. We won’t though, since Israel is the beachhead of the petrodollar into the region. Just like no US president will stop giving weapons to the Saudis.

Israel is like my chihuahua that is only tough when she is on the leash. Let her off the leash and she is much less vicious to other dogs.