mejari

Why are you stating that they didn't follow the "standard channels" when the linked letter explicitly states that they had been doing exactly that for a long period of time? Are you calling them liars?

What is your reasoning to state so unequivocally that the goal of this is not to make Uber a better company?

Do you agree at least in theory that there is some amount of time of attempting to influence a company in private without success after which it is appropriate to go public? If not why not, and if so why are you so certain that that time requirement has not been met yet in this case?

Isn't the grandparent quote stating the opposite of what you've said here?

I don't think it raises any questions about strawmen descriptors of the "modern left" at all. The pearl-clutching over "ess jay doublyous" far outweigh any impact they have in real life.

"cash club members can win in wonderful ways"

You're proving my point exactly. I never said there wasn't an insinuation that if you play you could win, just that there is no guarantee given. See my other reply for examples of non-casino businesses doing the exact same thing.

>No one said casinos advertise that you will for sure walk out with a lot of money

I don't see the difference between what I said you said and what you said. You were obviously saying they implied that someone will definitely walk out with money. That's what I said you said.

>I never claimed otherwise. Did you read my post?

Yes, I did. You said

>Movie theaters also don't advertise in such a way that suggests will walk out with a lot of money.

in response to someone comparing movie theaters to casinos. Your comment is obviously suggesting that you believe casinos advertise "in such a way that suggests will walk out with a lot of money".

>I've never seen such an advertisement

Check out any chain restaurant advertisement. Here is an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbVVq4GStc

>nor have I heard of anyone putting up the deed to their house or the title of their car to pay for their restaurant habit.

So you're changing the point from "they advertise in a misleading way" to "people can become addicted to it"? That is a different argument so I want to be clear if we're moving on from the original point.

I don't believe casinos are allowed to advertise that you will walk out with a lot of money either. Only that you might. Restaurants advertise in such a way that suggests you may have the absolute best night of your life and meet all sorts of new friends, that doesn't mean they are promising it.

Cerberus grew more anti-alien throughout the series.

Well, we're not there now, so the best we can do is do what we can do now, and promise ourselves to do what we can then. Maybe we will, maybe we'll fail, but there's literally nothing we can do about that now, so why let cynicism about a potential future erode our resolve to do what is right now?

You managed to write a lot about the fact that they are missing something, but didn't even provide an avenue to help them start to try to understand.

The additional risk is the assumption of protection. Someone who doesn't use this site and knows they are under watch may decide not to leak the information because they're aware of their risk. They could get a false sense of security from this site and leak information they otherwise wouldn't have, and are likely to be caught.

That takes courage.

If your "evidence" is that people in public positions are removed from public positions because of public backlash, then that is no evidence at all. Public opinion often rules out over actual facts in such cases.

He asserted that, yes. He didn't really do much to explain his view, other than just repeating that it was "revenge" and "pique". Do you agree with his assessment, and can you provide reasoning for it?

That's a thing he did, how can it be seen as sabotage?

What action has Obama done that can be seen as "sabotaging the next guy"?

That was not the goal of the report. It also doesn't support Vanilla being better than Chocolate.

But at least if it's a poorly maintained driver the company can blame the driver and not change their practices.

"Lineage" can have a connotation of people talking about the great things their ancestors have done and attempting to somewhat attach themselves to those deeds, as well as an opportunity to look down on people of "lesser breeding".

Obviously it has positive connotations as well, but the negative ones are definitely there.

I guess Tina didn't like her roses.

It was explained by the grandparent. They used the sticky to abuse the upvote system by getting everyone to upvote the stickied threads. It breaks the organic upvoting of content to the front page by forcing the thread to the front page of the sub, in order to get it more votes. The point of stickies is to provide announcements that everyone in the sub should see, which is not how they were using it.

Which is generally what most people like. But if you only want the insightful, in-depth comments you're more likely to get them in a subreddit dedicated to those types of comments then randomly in a more general subreddit. There are even subreddits dedicated to finding those few random insightful comments out in other more general subreddits, if that's really what you're looking for.

True, but if your users are filtering out parts of the conversation you'll never reach a point where it's obvious there should be another community created, you'll just have multiple communities talking past each other.

But you can accomplish the same thing by creating new more moderated subs. That's why we have /r/AskHistorians in addition to /r/history. If the sub isn't specific enough the solution shouldn't be to falsly and silently fragment the sub's users via user-side filtering, it's to explicitly split off a different community that behaves the way you want. In that way there is no "non too specific sub".

If you participate in a subreddit, but filter out 70% of the content, in what way are you participating?

>> And this wasn't done out of hatred, it was done have consistent and continual abuse of those mod tools to antagonize the rest of the community.

>Oh really? Then why not apply it to every subreddit?

Because every subreddit wasn't abusing the system? I thought that was pretty explicit in what you quoted.

Can they not do exactly that with their subscriptions? Unsubscribe from AdviceAnimals and subscribe to AskHistorians.

The answer is we have that debate as a society. I was asserting that there was a line of demarcation, because you asserted that there wasn't with your claim of "Darwinism".

>Please stop offering false dichotomies

as opposed to your slippery-slope "where does it end?" argument?

Unless you think that there should be no regulations at all, you agree that there is some line before which there should be regulations and after it there shouldn't, so "where does it end" is an actual discussion to have, not a non-sequitor to end the conversation like you're using it.

Geez, at least give me a chance before you decide what I can't do.

The difference is pretty basic: Having a "negative impact" requires value-judgement, having a cost does not. In terms of economics it requires a broad view of the entire economy, whereas a cost can be directly assigned to a single event or series of events.

Saying that a regulation has a cost is saying that it requires some expenditure to implement/maintain. Saying it has a negative impact is saying that the expenditure to implement/maintain that regulation outweighs the as-yet-in-this-discussion undefined benefits of the regulation in question.