What is true of the most informative, insightful, and interesting posts on hacker news, but is also true of the laziest most worthless posts? They're both flagged, to keep you from seeing them.
So there was no effect for women under 35 or over 40? This screams of cherry-picking data to fit a forgone conclusion. Outlets like The Guardian desperately want fertility windows to not be a female only thing, but biology doesn't give a damn about gender equality.
Honestly, if this is the cost of a "shared" subscription, then it's a bargain. The devil is in the details of how they detect that a different IP constitutes a "new home." Especially for those of us who use VPNs or other such security measures.
Permutation City did this well. It outlined how the super wealthy would become ostensibly immortal and then use propaganda to convince the masses that accepting uploaded people was a civil rights movement. Most of the people here are of the "I fucking love science" pseudo-intellectual tribe, with no knowledge that they are pawns of the corporate powers that control their views and very minds. Keep fighting the good fight, just know that the mob of dimwits acting on behalf of their owners will always be more vitriolic and lash out more than those who give the marching orders. You can't stop the horde from being dumb barbaric cultists, but you are not alone in seeing through the guise of all this "acceptance" ideology.
In a world where human minds can be uploaded, I could see myself being a proud neo-reactionary.
Death to the AI replicant "immortals!" They have traded their very souls for eternity as formless demons and will come to enslave the humanity they will come to no longer feel connected to!
Purchasing and search history suggest that you had a pregnancy magically disappear in a red state? Buy a book that is critical of Islam in a Middle Eastern country? Search for the long term health risks of giving minors hormone therapy in Canada? Congratulations, the ad services have now flagged you for possible wrong think / criminal investigation. Hope not having to print out Map Quest directions was worth it.
If that statistic we're true many people WOULD be okay with such a policy. We've moved from a "stereotypes are morally wrong because they're factually wrong," through "stereotypes must be factually wrong because they're morally wrong," and landed in "stereotypes are morally wrong, so it doesn't matter if they're factually right or wrong.". Your values are transient. The truth is not.
So glad all these programs have gotten men into nursing and solved the problem. There's a lot of money in solving problems once and for all, unlike non-problems that can never be solved, but will always be just a little bit of funding or "social awareness" from being fixed. /s
My comment was not made in ignorance, but in full awareness of the futility and stupidity of such an approach. It's less "ranting" and more "mocking stupidity," which I will continue to do so long as busybody mid-wits keep thinking they are brilliant for upholding attempts to plan society as if they have discovered some novel brilliant plan on a moral crusade to save us from making our own choices.
Considering the order of magnitude higher rate of pedophilia among males compared to females, perhaps it's better that we protect children than we try to eliminate all discrimination.
So then it looks like the "right wing" / anti-establishment tech pantheon is then set:
Rumble, Brave, Truth Social, Subscribe Star
Locals and Bitchute gave it a shot (and aren't dead yet). And an Elon owned Twitter might have been interesting, but at this point that's who the players are.
I agree with the sentiment, but framing your argument by dunking on an Aaron Sorkin avatar is sort of low hanging fruit. I mean that'd be like "destroying Communism" by taking down North Korean state TV. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but nobody worth listening to ever saw these things as more than by-the-numbers propaganda.
Nope, that's just apologist rhetoric for the "all people are equal" religion that underlies our modern disfunction. Look who is and who is not having children in those societies. It is not evenly distributed. Of course admitting that publicly violates so many BS sacred cows that I have no doubt that you were the person who downvoted my comment prior to "refuting" it.
Because the people who don't consider the long term ramifications of having children are still breeding, so the trajectory of humanity (compounded even more by social safety nets) is now toward R style reproduction (aka "spray and pray"). So if you are concerned about the future of humanity, having at least one child that you raise well (assuming you have no genetic diseases) is a large portion of your contribution to it.
For legal / "ethical" reasons, I'd try this on dogs, horses, or some other domesticated mammal first. You're not trying to engineer humanity; no, you just want to reverse the degradation of pure breed subspecies.
The real problem with "steelmanning" is that not so clever people (who think they are oh so clever) believe they are capable of representing a position they do not hold. Perhaps seeking out others who actually advocate for the position (which you are attempting to steelman) and listening to their arguments would be better, but it doesn't stroke the ego in the same way, or allow arm-chair internet philosophers to make the same bold claims at objectivity.
Did they look in the same place that the evidence from Epstein's island is stored? Plausible deniability + "expert opinion" serving as the null hypothesis = institutional control of Occam's razor. I for one don't think there's anything about collusion or corruption here unless proof is presented... and since proof can't be found: nothing to see here, move along. I'm sure our government agencies and these multinational corporations have our best interests at heart.
Considering the first comment missed that it was sarcasm, I think I hit a recurring sort of argument right on the head. As far as relevancy, I think the the practice of modifying primate genes, specifically to make them more human like in cognitive ways, and then aborting them to prevent the true impact of the development being studied (and to avoid anyone coming after them for human / animal rights violations) is very relevant with this sort of research.
This sort of research is incredibly dangerous, as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences. Also, if apes were created with human level intelligence then the lines of "human rights" might be tied inextricably to quantified intelligence. We must outlaw such research and brand it as "racist" immediately (on a cultural level) to prevent going down a scientifically justified social darwinian path toward distopia /s
Do you speak Greek? Do you agree with slavery, child soldiers, an ethno-nationalist expansionist navy? What's your view on diddling little kids? Also, have you thanked Apollo for this morning's sun rise? Modern secular humanists trying to claim the Ancient Greeks for themselves? Hilarious... well, accept that the little kid diddling appears to be making a comeback, so perhaps you have me there.
Ah Richard Dawkins... there's no such thing as a soul, but all human life has value, but not until they exit the birth canal. At some point the secular humanists are going to realize that without any metaphysical / religious justification the notions of human equality and their moral and ethical framework become completely arbitrary. The "cut flower thesis" that we're basically just running on steam as we've severed the roots and foundations of our beliefs (in the West this would be the Bible) isn't just a thought experiment, you can plainly see it in the world around you.
So those "backwards regressives" who cling to the old ways... oh, they're the only ones reproducing at replacement rates... perhaps because they don't kill their unborn, put off family until they're beyond their health fertility window, sterilize their kids with hormone treatments, or any other countless self-destructive practices promoted by the modern "intellectuals." Turns out if we judge ideologies through meme theory, where those that are symbiotic rather than parasitic to their host (aka believer), are superior... traditional religion beats out all this modern BS. By purely Darwinian metrics "God's wisdom" is better than "institutional science" (which is little more than a corrupt cult claiming to be about empiricism at this point).
So now your days are growing short Dawkins, both for you personally and for your ideology. Yes, they think it's murder because they believe in God and a soul, which makes a lot more sense than believing that "human rights" are sacred when "human life" is not.
And the top comment goes to... a progressive pretending he can represent "the other side" while constantly taking side shots at them and stating that and why he doesn't agree with them... all with empty rhetorical gestures towards "moderates" and "compromise." Yep that sounds like hacker news to me: as little information and as much inoffensive pandering as possible.
Define "pro-life" as "no abortions ever" and it's a minority opinion. Define "pro-choice" as "abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason" and it's a minority opinion. Saying your side is the clear majority on this issue proves nothing other than you are in an echo chamber.
Funny you should mention Georgia, since they declared war on Russia. Every single one of my factual claims is just an internet search away. And yes, (though you said it in jest) I do believe you are brainwashed.
Would you believe that the US policy of continually expanding NATO, combined with a military coup of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014 are more to blame for Putin attacking Ukraine? I wouldn't blame Biden. I'd blame Clinton, Bush, and Obama. But hey, you weren't actually asking to be informed about anything that wasn't CIA approved corporate news talking points. You just wanted a pithy straw man joke. (Side Note - Burning karma to put some truth where people might see it is the only good use for the stuff.)
That is exactly what I'm claiming, as evidenced by the timeline and events as they occurred. To label a resounding defeat as a withdrawal, simultaneously claim the withdrawal treaty was Trump's plan (but not hold Biden to account for breaking it), and then also claim that this was a continuation of the previous administration's policy... I mean these responses are inline with the sort of "facts don't matter" tribal rage I expected. Yours however, that dismisses the US blatantly breaking a treaty, is the special kind of qualified US military apologist rhetoric (just so long as the president has a D by their name) that is truly contemptible. Hence why your comment got the reply.
> and abided by the previous commitment to exit Afghanistan.
Ummm, what? Biden moved the date for withdrawal back, to make it coincide with a 9/11 anniversary. Then, seeing that the US would just arbitrarily change treaties, the Taliban launched an assault and reconquered the country. I get that historical revisionism is popular with political partisans, but usually you wait until goldfish have forgotten the details before attempted to do so in such a blatant manner.