rickbutton

Correct, doctors do triage according to need and available resources. When you imply that there is some category of care that doesn't deserve treatment (or is too "costly" to provide), you are triaging and choosing economic growth over healthcare. I think that it is a rational decision to make, although it is certainly not the one that has the most respect for human life.

> I don’t think being addicted to laziness and having a glutinous appetite is exactly comparable to say, being addicted to heroin.

Your opinion is that of a petulant child. Many years of research has shown that obesity is not this simple. Many chemical processes take place that influence one's ability to make better health choices, and many external factors put constraints on those choices as well. This is the exact same thing as hard drugs. Being obese is not a moral failing. When you say things like this, you show your true colors. You are not extending humanity to obese people, and it is very obvious.

I sincerely hope you reconsider your opinions. I hope you don't have any obese people in your life, or at least hope they don't read these messages. I think they would be disappointed to hear what you think of them.

And again, I hope you don't have any vices and are the perfect model of health, otherwise this would be a quite silly opinion to have.

EDIT:

I've been rated limited on comments so I'll post my last response here instead:

I have nothing further to say to this other than that you should consider talking to someone about your clearly deep-seated hatred for those who don't fit your model of participant in society; it doesn't seem healthy. Find an obese friend and show them your comments and watch their face as they read them. I wonder if you will find the humanity in their response that you are lacking here.

There should certainly be measurements taken, costs considered, alternatives approached when building our healthcare system. No one has ever implied otherwise, ever. To imply that there is some level of healthy after which it doesn't make sense to seek improvement is the dehumanizing and anti-social part. What is the point of building an economy at all if not to improve the lives of the population? Opinions in this thread already seem to be that "people are healthy enough, and if not, it is due to their own choices" rather than "we should carefully consider how to optimize this system for efficiency" while focusing on the actual goal of improving lives for the average person as well as those who need more healthcare.

Do you think addicts should receive treatment? Do you think that people who make bad decisions deserve to live? Do you extract the exact amount of value from society relative to the amount you put in, or do you take more than you give? Are you sure? Please explain.

Your perspective is frankly disgusting. I hope you don't have any vices. The point of a society is to pool resources together to improve the collective. Different people in different positions of power and ability have different needs. Hopefully you don't personally have any power to exclude people from that group. I hope that the powers that be don't decide that you deserve less for some reason.

I wrote a few paragraphs of response to this assuming that you are implying that there is a level of death/disease that is acceptable because treating it would not be cost-effective, but I deleted it because it would be uncharitable to assume you think that.

It would be interesting to see this information, but would not be useful to act on. If the answer was "it costs more to keep more people alive" (hint: it does, that is why we let so many die of preventable illness), should we keep less people alive and healthy? The pursuit of economic growth at all costs is a disease far more dangerous than anything you would treat in a hospital.

roll your own runtime does not imply to me `import runtime from "runtime";` but this seems to just be "include deno and use deno"?

hint: they aren't being honest

You just linked an insane conspiracy theory website.

this is nonsense. WebAssembly is strongly typed.

either you don't understand type systems, or you don't understand WebAssembly. in either case, I can encourage reading the article, because it sheds some light on both topics!

why would it be only 1 external display? Can you not plug into a thunderbolt dock and use multiple external displays? I do exactly that with my 2012 MacBook Pro.

nginx

I don't have any resources to link, sorry.

The weird-power-dynamic-Lincoln statue with the freed black man aside, I generally agree on statutes of the founding fathers. I doubt a statue of Washington was erected in honor of his support for slavery.

In the greater context of what is happening in America right now, tearing down statues of Washington isn't necessarily about Washington himself. Instead, it is about challenging the idea that our historical figures (and America itself) are infallible.

If I may paint a picture, put yourself in the shoes of a black man in America in 2020. You see thousands of videos of police brutality, blatant racism, and disregard from those in power. A significant portion of the representatives in this country refuse to outright state that racism is still a problem in this country, but you see it with your very eyes every day.

However, you see these statues symbolizing this "ideal" version of America, where everyone is equal, which never actually existed. Further, when people challenge the existence of these statues (and by proxy, that non-existent "ideal") in the face of all of this inequity, they are defended orders of magnitude more intensely than the rights of actual-flesh-and-blood people. It's hard to look at a statue of General Lee, or even Washington, and see anything but a symbol of the fact that America at large cares more about the "appearance" of equality and equity than actually granting it to the people. If the people who defending these statues so vigorously also defended the civil rights of their fellow Americans with the same energy, I don't think we would see as much of a struggle over this.

It's important to remember that the majority of these statues were not created after the civil war in order to remember them, but during the Jim Crow era in order to intimidate black people. The intent was never to teach history.

source?

I love the fact that this thread is empty while the one about deplatforming white supremacists is chock-full of people screaming about free speech. Really makes the whole thing a bit blatant.

Exactly!

If you find yourself defending these words, in any context, you might be the problem! It is -not- normal to say any of this, 1000 hours or not.

I agree that we will have to address the privatization of speech at some point. Ultimately I'm not sure where my opinions lie on that spectrum.

However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years.

Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.

Are you seriously comparing the struggle of Jews in Nazi Germany to white supremacists being deplatformed in America?

If you are, you should really take a step back and evaluate the gravity of that statement.

Edit: Saw your edit. You can usually click the timestamp to reply when there is no reply button.

Thank you for the clarification. I'll repeat my previous statement because it still applies, I can tell that you simply don't grasp the gravity of your statement. It is -hilarious- to be called a nazi for calling for white supremacists to be deplatformed. I think I might print this out and put it in my cube (when I eventually get back into the office). Turns out, I was the Nazi the whole time, not the white supremacists! /s

Edit, again: For the readers, he edited-in, and then edited-out, calling me a Nazi for saying that white supremacists shouldn't have a platform. Just wanted to make that clear.

Edit, again, again: I did understand your point, I just refuse to engage with it, because it is ridiculous.

Edit, again, again, again. This edit-back-and-forth is funny, but I have to go now. I sincerely hope that you do some research and realize that your defense of white supremacists only entrenches them into our culture further. I hope that one day, you look back on your views here, and realize that you truly did not have to defend them, but chose to anyway.

This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate.

> Nor is it ethically palpable.

Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supremacists a platform. In fact, it is the most ethical choice. Those who refuse to interact with our society in good faith do not deserve the stage.

While those who defend them may disagree, defending white supremacy is in itself white supremacy. They defend it because they believe it.

The thing that still continues to shock me is that there are people here that argue on behalf of white supremacists but still argue that they themselves are not, instead they are playing "devils advocate". At some point, let's call a duck a duck.

Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform?

Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.

We are talking about two different things. I claimed that purging white supremacists from platforms is a good thing. I also claimed that silence is complicity. These are orthogonal. I am not a decision maker for one of these platforms, and don't feel the need to draw a specific line in the sand. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is fruitless, I'm afraid.

Let me turn it around, do you think that white supremacists deserve a platform?

That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth.

I said, silence -is- complicity with white supremacy. If you, after all of the injustices demonstrated in enormous detail over the last 400 years, are still silent when white supremacists continue to oppress the oppressed, you are complicit in white supremacy.

You didn't read a single thing I said. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't.

If you want to grab a megaphone and spew white-supremacist garbage from your drive way then feel free, the government cannot, and should not, stop you. However, if your neighbors refuse to interact with you, that's your own fault. The megaphone seller also has the right not to sell you the megaphone if they don't want you to spew said garbage using their megaphone. Not once in that scenario does free speech apply.

What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment.

And yes, free speech, so long as everyone in the room agrees that all of the humans in said room are human. Anything less than that, and they can get the hell out of the room, their ideas aren't worth discussing. If you don't agree with that, you are by definition a white supremacist.

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on this comment with shame. White supremacists do not deserve a platform, flat out. Disagreeing with this is explicitly agreeing with white supremacy.

Probably all of the white supremacy in it.

A purge of white supremacists sounds great to me.

Why? There is a massive political movement for racial equality happening all over the country. They are responding to pressure from consumers, which they very much should, because all of these companies have ignored these issues for decades. They aren't coordinating with each other in some conspiracy to silence white supremacists. The -people- want white supremacists to be deplatformed (a good thing!).

The equivalent is if a Tupperware salesperson tried to sell you tupperware by showing you a _doctored_ image of your friend buying tuperware while literally holding a sign saying "Hey [Your Name], buy this too!".