pasquinelli

yes, no one would have a problem with it if it were useful, so what, they're hypocrites if they don't like it because it's useless? actually, people generally only complain about consent when they didn't like what happened. the takeaway is that if it's an update that will be thrusted upon a user, deliver value for them. and it's your problem, not the user's, to persuade them that what you're thrusting upon them has value.

i wonder how exactly it makes it harder to have a discussion. would it be okay to talk about spyware in terms of consent, or would that make it harder to discuss as well? can you think of a situation that it wouldn't be unhelpful to frame what software does in terms of consent?

the point you're contesting is who coined the term, the unimportant part of the comment you're replying to. it sounds like you're saying, "of course the liberals are hypocrites, but they didn't coin the term!" is that what you mean to say?

i sort of want to defend the article because it isn't comparing the health effects of the tobacco industry and social media, but rather their pr strategies... but that being said the article is very weak, so i don't want to defend it.

> BBC was interviewing Iranians 2 days ago in Tehran and the majority said they support the war.

so you see something on tv and just believe the impression that it leaves you with. you actually think it's plausible that a majority of people in a city support the side of a conflict that is bombing that city?

i'm sure a majority of people support the war; specifically they support the irgc in fighting back against america and israel, who have started a war of aggression against iran for no coherent reason.

an immense majority wanted him kidnapped by america? either you've inadvertantly shifted the goalpost or i'll need something to back that up, because i find that hard to believe.

> Because, frankly, I don't think the average, or even marginal Venezuelan would agree with you at all, as, they have actually had to deal with this dictator.

why do you think that? when was the last time you were in venezuela? first you tell someone to get off the internet for a bit and touch grass, then you gesture vaguely at what you think... which came from where exactly? different parts of the internet? cable news? where?

well tell us how it actually is then.

> For instance, the moment the Gaza ceasefire allowed Hamas to continue to operate, we all witnessed them dragging their own citizens into the street and summarily executing them for supposed “collaboration.”

wouldn't be the first time people from a group aided in the genocide of that group. what do you expect will happen to such people?

it's easy to put quotes around the word "collaboration", but go on, tell us what you know about these people, make your case that they weren't actually collaborators.

did you check wikipedia and found it agrees with me before you came up with that?

> They are not called casually teas.

are you saying chamomile isn't called tea but it's one of the teas without caffeine? if so that's very confused.

camelia sinensis is tea. when i said that other things are casually called tea, i mean that what chamomile tea, for example, ought to be called is a tisane or an herbal infusion. casually, people might call it a tea; some people are so casual about it that they think it actually is tea. but it isn't.

all tea has caffeine unless it's decaf. some things that aren't tea are called tea casually, but they aren't tea, for instance peppermint "tea" is not tea. by the same logic that one would call peppermint a tea, one would have to call coffee a tea. and beef broth.

for perspective, a novel is around 100k words, and animal farm is under 30k.

tracking down the relevant text from a reference is loading your working memory and, i would argue, inhibiting your ability to form semantic links as a consequence.

> Cars will make you “fat and lazy” if you never move your body otherwise, but it’s fairly clear to see that this is avoidable.

why would you choose to compare ai to cars? you seem to be defending ai, but to compare it to cars... cars have been a horrible development.

i don't understand what you're saying about hypertext.

that makes sense if other people are watching the conversation, paying attention to it, considering everything that's said and using that as the basis for what they believe going forward, but that almost never happens, and certainly never happens here.

not when the entire conversation has nothing to do with anything.

but i have to wonder what powerful people actually bring to the table.

i know you're joking, but it is an interesting parallel to draw. consider how roads often make walking unsafe, infeasible, or even overtly illegal. and consider the externalities of automotive culture.

can you explain how someone being incorrect about something weakens their position? i assume the position in question is that their should be more trust busting. "there have been these antitrust actions" isn't actually a counter argument to "there should be more antitrust actions", so it doesn't weaken the position, unless i'm not understanding what you mean by that.

you know what my favorite fallacy is? the fallacy fallacy, the mistaken assumption that by showing an argument is invalid you've shown its conclusion is false.

no, not relative to the universe, relative to recent history. 40 years is not much in the context of history, which is the topic. your life experience is small and unimportant at the world-historical scale.

also because, well, our dictatorial regime.

what numbers can you trust? i mean, you can trust whatever suits you, but *i* don't trust, really, any of the things i hear about the global bad guys, particularly iran when america is making war on them or building a case for war.

i really can't tell which side you're talking about

well, who decides the country's values?

you might be right but 40-some-odd years is a tiny amount of time.

i'm saying test it, let's get scientific. why would you have a problem with that?

> The NLRB has been gutted.

there was a before the nlrb and there were unions then. would you expect union organizers for a tech workers union to be assassinated? would you expect members of a tech workers union to be gunned down en masse? if no, then the political landscape has been so much worse than now, and unions have managed to form.

this is so funny for me to read. a few years ago, i would see programmers saying they can negotiate better deals for themselves than a union could. now you're saying it's already over, programming as a skill has a future valuation that's heading to zero.

i advise against being so sure of your ideas. maybe you think platform holders have all the cards--test it. if they fight efforts to unionize, that tells a different story.