xracy

This always seems like "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure" type situations to me...

But I guess the prevention is too costly for the big oil money interests.

You mean the guy who only hit people in ICE custody? [1] And didn't hit any ICE agents?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Dallas_ICE_facility_shoot...

Gosh, was I asleep and missed a new terrorist attack on ICE agents? How did you know they were ICE agents, did they identify themselves?

That's a nice hypothetical. Do you have any examples of people getting censored for WHO changing their stance?

Like, we're getting pretty nuanced here pretty fast, it would be nice to discuss this against an actual example of how this was enforced rather than being upset about a hypothetical situation where we have no idea how it was enforced.

'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure.'

It's so much easier to stop one source than it is to (checks notes) educate the entire populace?!? Gosh, did you really say that with a straight face? As if education isn't also under attack?

Sorry, which part of that quote is the lie?

Also, why didn't you say that it was this quote instead of leading us on this wild goose chase? Or was it just that your comment got flagged?

Can't imagine why that might've been.

Given that this is such an easy ask, I think you should consider not about convincing davorak, but about convincing random lurkers who read your comments.

I might've been swayed had you provided the actual quote, but I think davorak kinda won this argument without doing anything other than asking you for receipts. If your position was so certain you would've just provided the quote.

What was the opportunity in that segment? Surely airing things the POTUS said is not a limitation of Freedom of the Press?

The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).

There would certainly be more incentive to be seen as rehabilitating, rather than just 'tough on crime'. Since 'False Positives' in the legal system could come back to bite you as a representative.

I feel like this is more of just "seattleites respect people's autonomy." I think a lot of places can be really invasive to outsiders of "what are you doing here?" and I htink Seattle is just more "mind your own business" as a culture.

I find this to be refreshing in some ways.

They're gonna have to make these sooooo cheap if they're hoping to sell any quantity of these.

Like $100 fridge with nice amenities cheap... And even then it's hard for me to imagine this making the cut.

I feel like scotus dissents in this day and age need to be a lot more approachable for the average person. And I like this dissent for being short and to the point. I think oftentimes the dissents can get in the weeds of legal discussions, and this just needs to be as simple as "this law says this is illegal in plain text."

From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.

Yeah... I said that? Idk what country you're in, but I definitely said that immediately before the thing you're quoting from me

Stop being shocked, and start pushing back. Everyone is looking around for someone else to acknowledge that something is up (like a baby that just hit its head), and everyone needs to start crying.

People in the US do not have due process rights. I can confidently say this, because if anyone doesn't have due process rights, then no one has due process rights.

you're quoting a lot of legal code for someone starting all of their posts with "IANAL"

The point of commenting IANAL, is that legal code is complicated. The ACLU is likely giving "best-practices", but that's not legal code. It's guidelines.

This feels pretty first-amendment to me, but I have little doubt that SCOTUS would think that people's first-amendment rights are less important than the Gov't's ability to do what it's doing.

I just also think that SCOTUS is wrong and full of very political actors who are grossly partial towards the current administration.

I just said the word "domain expert" in my head 5x, and I don't like it any better.

Both of them give off "influencer" vibes. They're meaningless without more context. We used to just call people "experts", but now that's an arbitrarily bad word.

Never quite realized how much I disliked the term "Thought Leader" until I read it 5x in the comments responses of this thread.

> This was announced what, a year ago?

Source? Others are calling out this as being incorrect, so a source would help people evaluate this claim. Personally I'm much more likely to believe that AI companies are moving the goalposts rather than making significant leaps forward.

Which constitution is their oath to?

He must also be trying to suspend Habeas Corpus and the Emoluments for personal gain!

We can likely agree that some of this is an accident, but what we won't agree on is how much given that some of the removal is distinctly useful for this administration. But yeah "haha, the US government has become so incompetent + evil we can't tell what's an accident and what's malicious!"

Sorry, how is a 3% difference "no gap"? Am I misunderstanding those metrics? If a Democrat is 3% more likely to hold a passport, that seems like a potentially huge impact to elections.

> There are times when "separate is inherently unequal" is actually the most fair.

I guess ask the WNBA if they feel that way about it...

> There are still places for pretty much everyone who wants to play if they look hard enough, even if not everyone is able to be a part of any team or division that they'd like to.

This reads to me as "separate but equal" which I think is exactly what's wrong with sports divisions. Sports divisions play out the "separate is inherently unequal" at so many levels.

This is just so far from the correct question that it's not worth trying to have a conversation about this. Policing doesn't make crime go away. More cops does not result in less crime.

You fix crime by addressing what caused people to break the law in the first place. But no one who supports this administration understands that, and so we will not be fixing any of the country's problems anytime soon.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Show me what legal recourse people have to get their needs met, and I will show you how those avenues are being clamped down on by the very same people concerned about their safety.

certainly feels like we're just trying to slowly turn up the temperature until everything is still okay.

There are plenty examples of things done by gov't officials today that would've ben disqualifying 20 years ago. And I'm sure there are things viewed as 'crossing the line' today, that will be fine in 4 years. And that definitely scares me.

I think the difference between what you're complaining about the person saying, and what the person is actually saying could be solved by workers getting paid like $5/hour more (AKA a living wage).

The person didn't say anything that contradicts what they're saying other than that you're unhappy with the status quo that is offered to migrant workers. And you're absolutely right. But a more constructive dialogue would be "let's improve the conditions for those people."

While I agree the word could be appropriate, I'm asking a meta question about how it is typically used, and whether or not we're conveying something unintentional by using it in this context as well. I don't consider "variants" a good thing because I lived through a few years of COVID.

Yeah, was intended as a joke, pretty sure he's "whatever he wants to be", but I remember reading something that he said he only ate like "whole food plant based" which I consider to be "vegan for people who are too good for veganism"

Can I ask why this article is title like Deepseek is a virus? Feels like this could've been "new flu variant".

I don't know if this is intentional or not.