mejari

>To me, category 3 is the most dangerous. Tech workers have a responsibility not just understand the technologies that they work with, but also educate themselves on the societal implications of those technologies.

Do you think its possible to be educated on the societal implications of these technologies and still not be concerned? Seems like you've written your own viewpoint into the only "logical" one here.

I'm pretty sure I remember a pretty large "this technology does not currently exist, may not be feasible, and may not be available based on local regulations" disclaimer on their sales pages, right? I thought they were explicitly selling the sensors that would be required if the self-driving feature was implemented.

I saw a similar thing with a religious apologist, they had a very specific claim ready to throw out out to me on a specific supposed "prophecy", and later googling that I got page after page of religious propaganda. They'd targeted that particular thing, rather than trying to take over more general listings for "prophecy in the bible", so that only articles that agreed with them showed up.

It took some creative googling to eventually get to an actual academic historical paper on the subject, which then of course immediately blew what they claimed out of the water.

What was revealed in the 2016 election wasn't criminal, so what exactly are you talking about?

This is How, not Why

Except CMV itself doesn't claim that that "whole separate level of fake internet points" are epiphanies, or even full changes of position

>The definition of 'change' (verb) is "make or become different."

>Following on from the previous segment, we therefore believe that a change in view simply means a new perspective. Perhaps, in the example of literally looking at something, you've taken a step to the side; or a few steps; or you've moved around and now stand behind it. Maybe you haven't 'moved', but it looks slightly different to you now; in a new light.

>A change in view need not be a reversal. It can be tangential, or takes place on a new axis altogether.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/index#wiki_what_i...

>There you go again: something makes you uncomfortable, it's a "hate group"

I don't believe I've ever said something is a hate group because it makes me uncomfortable. I labeled the things I mentioned as hate groups because they fix the criteria as such. Why are you asserting my feelings on the subject?

>Let's not forget what I was talking about which is lies holding together society. I saw the same quotes from French officials that you did. I don't know how that can be interpreted as anything but "we know a large proportion of men aren't raising their own children, but we need them to or society starts to fall apart".

I mean, the actual reading of the quote is an interpretation that doesn't say that. You may not believe it but don't be obtuse by ignoring words in front of your face.

>The reason you only find talk from "hate groups" on Google is, they are the only ones talking but it in English.

And you don't find that at all suspicious that maybe your view on this is being shaped by a very specifically pushed narrative? Are you reading French articles on the subject?

Well, it's very strange. I'm trying to look up more about it but at least the first 5 pages of google results are all from MRA/redpill type hate groups, so it seems this is one of those issues that has been latched onto to create anger around without providing much actual reasoning.

Also, not sure why you feel the need to attack me personally, as if I'm going to "lengths" by pointing out when you've said incorrect things because something (not sure what) makes me uncomfortable?

Anyway, I was able to find a quote from an actual French official on the subject:

>Nadine Morano, France’s junior minister for the family, says foreign tests are not reliable and warns against “the psychological impact of results”. She has spoken of the danger that “If all fathers start asking whether they’re really the fathers of their children, we enter into a society of doubt that imperils the family.”[0]

Personally I disagree with the idea, but it seems you've heard/created a twisted interpretation of the intent behind such laws (which are not limited to France, Germany has instituted similar laws, yet France seems to be the target of this particular rage-fest).

0: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-men-s-insecurity-over...

Yes, selling Bill Clinton "Bimbo" t-shirts on their online store certainly screams "exposing the secrets of the powerful".

If by "recently" you mean 5 years ago. And by "illegal to do paternity testing" you mean "illegal to do secret paternity testing by private citizens without a court order". So your claim seems very false, and doesn't back up your idea that "their populations of single mothers would skyrocket".

How can you go about life without making internal decisions on what you believe other people's motive are? Or is it only bad when certain actions/views are assigned certain motivations?

I included the relevant part of the quote:

>including Tweets.

Then why, as mentioned in the article, does Twitter say the exact opposite?

>Once an account has been deactivated, there is a very brief period in which we may be able to access account information, including Tweets.

Only HN could turn Jeff Bezos publicly outing a company attempting to extort him with naked photos into a threat to the "future of the open web".

From the quoted e-mail:

>In the case of a breach of the agreement by one or more of the Bezos Parties, AM is released from its obligations under the agreement, and may publish the Unpublished Materials.

That's very directly saying that they will publish the photos if Bezos doesn't do what they say.

Sounds like excuse-making when provided what you asked for.

You did not say "there is no absolute proof', you said "There is nothing suggesting". This very much suggests.

>Is there any indication that he would not publish information critical of Putin if it was sent to him?

Yes. We have examples of exactly that happening.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...

Only a quarter of the US even has the option of fiber, much less actually have it. It's silly to use ideal fiber transfer rates as the argument for downloading whole-hog vs more targeted patching, and I doubt it's the reasoning they use.

Not condescending at all, sorry if it came across that way. I was 100% serious.

SEA/KIR is Seattle/Kirkland, a main Google headquarters, MTV is Mountain View, the Google headquarters. OKR is Objectives and Key Results, a measurement system for company/individual goals. Not sure about TI, but GCP is Google Cloud Platform.

I think if they wanted to disclose that information they would have done so.

>Someone even more ridiculous unless a better McCain-Palin type arrangement happens.

We basically got that relationship with Trump/Pence, just flip the ticket and replace War with Religion.

Underlines a̲r̲̲̲e̲̲̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲̲̲a̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲l̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲̲ittle nesty when re-selecting already underlined characters from the left

>In the usa my insurance lets me go to 10 doctors for differing opinions

What insurance covers 9 second opinions?

>A successful test, identifying an flawed component design.

It could also be a flawed component. Just because the test failed doesn't mean the design is flawed.

>as soon as they stop speaking, every new station cuts to a group of pundits to tell you how you should interpret what the president just said. It's not journalism at all

I disagree entirely. That is the essence of journalism. Not to tell you what to think, but to provide context that helps interpret.

For example, reporting that people at a Trump rally were shouting "Lugenpresse" is one thing. Providing the historical context that such language was used by the Nazi's as a pretext for cracking down on the free press and on Jews is another. Just hearing the first may make you aware of a fact, but the second tells you the truth.

Right, so how do you determine how much you have to say to tell the "truth"? If someone makes a claim about an economic policy, is it "lying by omission" to not talk about the impact previous similar policies have been enacted? Or is that inserting your bias? If you aren't telling people the facts behind the claims then are you telling the truth? Which facts you decide to share or not share can be biased.

You should not blindly believe whatever Trump says

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-d...

Physical things can be symbolic...

A wall symbolizing keeping out foreigners without actually doing anything useful to do so is pretty much the definition of symbolic.