653 karma · joined September 12, 2014
Trump notoriously sucked at emotional regulation, and he's what you'd consider 'an older individual'. He too would give measured responses, it's just that they were more direct/less diplomatic than say Obama's.
I used to be more knee-jerky in my responses, say 20+ years ago in my 20's, but after a lot of screw ups in life w/relationships (close/intimate ones in particular), a failed marriage, 2 kids and a lot of therapy, both group and individual, I've made progress in being aware of my feelings and responding in a more measured way, so outwardly that appears as if I have "greater control".
The reality is I'm still a mess - I'm just responsible for my mess before I vomit it outward on someone else.
LinkedIn Learning actually has this great one hour or so video I just watched that covers this nicely, I think it's called "Emotional Intelligence"... Some say it predicts how you will fare career wise far more than being just technically adept/skilled.
It's a process of "finding oneself" and figuring out where we fit best. Mastering responses to our emotions is a life long process and we tend to end up "automagically" drawn to similar people, cultures, companies, relationships....
I have no idea how this self-stroking "award" can be taken seriously by those who actually monitor freedom of speech (excluding porn, which I don't consider 'speech').
I am not a huge fan of Google's antics in general, but in this case, I am glad they won.
For a first attempt Bitcoin killed it. But scaling isn't its virtue.
I know Google did not start out like this - 'don't be evil' - but this is how they ended up... Curating truth. It's really sad.
I don't believe in unlimited free speech, but the bar should be set as low as what is permitted by the 1A, at least in the United States which grants maximum freedom under the law.
You completely missed the point or maybe you just don't give a s++t about 1A rights.
The other issue is they claimed to be hands off to customers, obviously within the bounds of the law.
The sad truth is this - distasteful as DS/Anglin is, he was not running afoul of the law. Matthew Prince unilaterally decided to reverse 200+ years of 1A jurisprudence for one of its customers because he disagreed with their views.
These Matthew Prince types are the same assclowns who sue Christian bakeries for refusing to adorn wedding cakes with 2 male or 2 female figures when they exercise their 1A rights to discriminate based in faith preferences.
The height of hypocrisy displayed by Cloudflare was galaxy sized, despite it being legal.
That's what I and many others blasted them about.
I can't put it any more clearly than this.