lawnchair_larry

You’d think, right?

Apparently you can pay them some of the highest salaries in the world, make their meals, do their laundry, give them unlimited time off, and they will still find a reason to complain.

Then again it’s the NYT, who has been completely overtaken by activists.

We can’t let our kids and our dogs out in the yard to play. This is hugely valuable to some people, and it’s why they chose the neighborhoods that they did. You probably got to do that as a kid.

Nothing to do with rent seeking. The only thing increased property value does is make property tax and excise tax go up. Nobody cares about that. We don’t want a condo building dropped on both sides of us. Who would?

Has nothing to do with rent seeking. Density ruins neighborhoods.

What makes you think we would see better outcomes if workers had more power than managers?

I hate how the term privilege is thrown around these days, but man, this bizarre narrative reeks of privilege and some marxist fantasy.

Bezos is in his position because of his competency. He built the thing. Democracy is not a virtue in a workplace.

This is extremely ideological to the point of simply being untrue. The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one. Unions are a huge tradeoff and better as a last resort.

They are doing it right now.

Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.

Only someone who knows nothing about the rest of the world would say this.

If you’re talking about the SuperMicro reporting, this isn’t the case. It wasn’t nitpicking, it was a garbage story that was thoroughly debunked.

They do that too

ground.news is even better imo

The FAANG employee is in high demand and therefore has implicit leverage, the call center employee does not. Whether one thinks they should or not does not matter, because the economics won’t allow it.

I claimed zero of those things, so maybe you misread the comment.

Do you think it's wrong to target a terrorist?

The obvious answer is because diversity trumps qualifications, and Silicon Valley companies are desperate to get their diversity numbers up.

As you’re aware, this isn’t a claim that pedophilia does no harm. Keep looking.

This is an extremely dangerous and absolutely insane line of reasoning that is causing incredible harm to young people. You don’t have gender dysphoria because you hung out with girls as an 11 year old.

Based on what he was accused of? You want all of your friends to ditch you based on an accusation? Regardless of the Epstein thing, this is not a take that you have given much thought.

I could accuse you right now of touching 5 year olds in the park, and by your own claim, you would want all of your friends to abandon you.

Your whole rationale about power imbalances doesn’t even make sense in this context. He is writing unix tools, not running a daycare.

Feel free to quote or link the passage where he says it does no harm. If you cannot find one, you’ll issue an apology to RMS for falsely defaming him, right? That’s what it’s called when you claim someone says pedophilia does no harm when they didn’t say that.

Except that it’s literally not a suggestion that there are circumstances under which it is ok. You’re not stupid. You know what he meant. And you know what he meant wasn’t what he is being smeared as.

I encourage you to read what he actually said rather than digest it through hit pieces, because it’s not even controversial.

He said that, hypothetically, if someone had sex with a victim of sex trafficking unkowingly - that is, the sex part was knowingly, but the victim of sex trafficking part was unknown, then it would not be fair to charge the man with rape.

If I kidnap a woman, sell her has a sex slave, and threaten her and her family that if she doesn’t walk up to you in a bar and act interested, and you mistake her for a willing participant, this obviously does not make you a rapist.

I don’t know if this is a willful distortion of what he said or what would motivate such a smear campaign, or if every is just shockingly bad at reading comprehension. But what he said was correct, and we all know it.

Sounds like he is trying to follow the science. Aren’t we all about that nowadays? His statement is perfectly reasonable.

Also, it’s extremely dishonest of you, and frankly a little contemptible, to keep smearing a man by taking this out of context and failing to also mention where he learned more about the issue and changed his views. This serves no other purpose than character assassination.

This is the real problem with the culture today. People willfully, blatantly lying about other people to smear them and trying to convince everyone else to shun them as well.

Intention matters when the charge consists of someone imparting intent and meaning beyond that which was said.

It’s not the case that all people need to be aware of and sensitive to every possible person’s misinterpretation of their message. The inverse is closer to true, and the only viable option.

How do you expect someone to know what they don’t know?

Doesn’t look like it did. Looks like another case of cancel culture and nobody reading what he actually said.

History is worth preserving. When future generations examine what kind of art we made, we want them to discover demoscene art as part of that. It is a huge disservice to both the creators as well as the students by omitting it from the historical record.

Looks like they are only about 4.5 years overdue

> What’s interesting to me is that violent crime has indisputably not increased since Boudin was elected, yet his critics are constantly using the details of specific violent crimes as a rhetorical cudgel, insinuating that Boudin personally caused a wave of violent crime that simply is not happening.

Isn’t that amazing? Wait until you see the data behind the black lives matter narrative. It too says precisely the opposite of what everyone thinks.

This nice sounding theory is trivial to disprove.

Salem Witch Trials.

It’s often not advantageous to know the truth, especially when the truth is complicated or uncomfortable. It will be rejected or ignored.

You frequently have far more of a competitive advantage if you can make others believe something, whether it’s true or not.

Outside of some very specific domains (like investing, but even markets are irrational), I don’t think it’s accuracy that makes information powerful, it’s emotion.