gatlin

Both are genocides, without qualification.

Some of us aren't as enthusiastic about the idea of giving these amoral companies access to our children, regardless of how polished the product is or how many times I reread the article. I hope I am qualified to dislike this service.

Chenquieh

My charitable read of the GP comment is that they are pointing out how ludicrous the stock increase is, but that's my reading. Side note, how much attention does your username usually garner you?

Because you won't always have it so lucky and also because other people deserve nice pay and working conditions too.

I will say nothing that incriminates me but I have broken plenty, plenty of laws in my life. And I have done unspeakably shitty things to people that were perfectly legal. Someone's criminal record is a different kind of CV to me, simple as.

The single best tool for rehabilitation, for the convict and the society around them, is meaningful activity. People hurt each other for reasons that are often as sympathetic as they are ultimately intolerable. I think it's wonderful that you had a great experience and shared it because the stigma needs to go. The inclination to follow the law may be tangentially related to a basic ability to follow directions, granted, but it doesn't make someone good or moral.

I think more highly of people who are honest about their emotions and express them, instead of pretending that the motivating force behind almost all of our personal behavior isn't "relevant." Emotional ≠ unproductive.

Almost as little as me, an American programmer.

You inserted detail here not present originally. I know anything said in a zoom worth remembering will be written down. Why not save some steps?

The narrative against him is his refusal to adopt better policies. He wants to be seen as supporting M4A but when it's all done and dusted, he doesn't. That alone will prevent me from giving him a second look. We must look to redistributive policies. If an M4A proposal has flaws, for instance, the discussion needs to be focused 100% on closing those specific gaps. Because the problem is poor distribution of wealth and resources and no sign this will change without intervention.

In my opinion a candidate must at bare minimum correctly identify issues and not be afraid to name the unbridled solutions.

For me you have justified precisely why I agree with the parent comment.

Okay well for others it's not. Did you mean to add to this?

Whatever it is, it demonstrably isn't targeted harassment of the people already in the throes of addiction, poverty, etc. Drugs result in violence because they are illegal, not the other way around. Portugal is oft cited but for good reason.

Really, I think we should sincerely and earnestly question what problem the police are presumed to solve. The most useful functions they serve in my area are to help direct traffic during construction, for which they absolutely do not need weapons. Otherwise the idea is that we will be safer if a handful of armed people drive around at their whim staring at pedestrians. They can't go back in time, nor do their methods demonstrate any hope of preventing anything. What do they do? edit: I should add, for anyone wondering what my positive contribution to this is, that the idea of a community taking measures to keep itself safe and peaceful is not a problem. But also that isn't what police do in theory or practice.

This advice is warm spirited and practical and I endorse taking actions to make oneself safer. But, also, it's disgusting that anyone should be harassed by police and feel unsafe walking where they live. That is a terrible status quo and the GP deserves better, full stop.

Give them real investment in the business, by way of shares or a vote or something. Next!

Tech people in my experience are highly susceptible to survivorship bias combined with a level of delusional Randian optimism to gird themselves against the truth that they are pawns in a sadistic machine.

And I don't know why you have to smear beliefs that differ from yours and the people holding them as "paranoid conspiracy." You can present your case without name calling (if you have one).

Why do you doubt that?

I suspect this was rhetorical but I'm feeling positive this morning. You're not stupid, many civic ideas I was raised to believe turned out to be folktales.

It's definitely an artifact of my personality but I don't get the sense they are unwilling, though I imagine they would be coerced anyway and you could certainly start a discussion about how meaningful their consent would be in that context.

I'm a broken record but the profit motive is what will always always always enable this: people depend on this machine for their livelihoods and are only personally responsible for a negligible, ignore-able portion of its activities. Path of least resistance in a world of friction is these companies will continue to act with an agenda even its employees might disagree with (if that isn't fault tolerance though idk what is!)

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitute for a more comprehensive argument, but: we have enough food for everyone on Earth - it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it: the commodification of food has guaranteed a huge amount of waste we can do nothing about because the market over-produces for big brained logistics reasons; and a bizarre web of property and tort law means it's even illegal to go diving into a dumpster for some of this wasted food, even if you're starving, because that's trespassing. And we wouldn't want a _lawless society_, would we? /s

The problem is is ultimately the concentration of power (in whatever form it takes, money or otherwise) in the hands of a few. EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been.

I'm getting some kind of paywall. It's all relative but in general if you're hoarding wealth beyond anything you could possibly ever make use of while the people around you want for necessities, you are behaving as an opponent and should not feign surprise at the treatment. Also until we are past capitalism, no, society is not turning on the wealthy (they're still wealthy)

Eh, even we think it's a reach to connect antikythera to George H W Bush like that.

Surely the simpler solution is to stop putting humans in cages. It's not clear that it benefits anyone anywhere.

This is not a troll, but a genuine call to question an assumption: what utility does policing have? I see no evidence that they present any kind of solution to economic or social issues of any kind. They will cage or hurt people or tear apart families to protect insured private property, never mind whatever "moral" aspersions we cast on a given instance of "crime," which is itself a wonderfully flexible and fluid term we bandy about like it has a fixed, equitable meaning.

Let's first scientifically test the wild, unproven assumption that we improve society by threatening each other with violence. I am skeptical, to put it mildly.

What happened this year which leads you to believe in a "black privilege," and why would such a topic need to be discussed at the exclusion of discussing white privilege?

How is that relevant to the parent comment?

> So people with homes and food don't commit crimes?

This position isn't advanced anywhere in the article, and certainly not by the excerpt you quoted.