151–160 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet somehow it’s turning into reality with big nations threatening to eat small ones and become super states.
> big nations threatening to eat small ones and become super states what are a couple of examples you have in mind that support your claim of this trend? I must be living under a rock because I have not detected this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would his statements be better if he were pro-Gaza or something else? How about he and CBS News and TikTok be neutral and truth seeking rather than being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? I would like news organizations to be truth seeking and I would like social media to not be tinting my view of the world towards what their billionaire owners want. Maybe that is too much?
> How about he and CBS News and TikTok be neutral and truth seeking rather than being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian? I agree. But easier said than done. Especially when it comes to something as polarising as Gaza, playing the moderate essentially cedes the debate. (Both sources you mention are supported by ads. Their metric is engagement, not informativeness.)
One should expect news sources to report that the main Israeli human rights groups believe it is a genocide, the main international human rights groups believe it is a genocide, UN investigatory panels believe it is a genocide, genocide scholars believe it is a genocide:
https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o
Those that disagree with this assessment are in a minority. But to you it is just "polarizing."
You are denying reality that is in front of you because you want to. And this is resulting in more families being wiped out, people starving to death and for Netanyahu and his coalition that want to "voluntary migrate" the Palestinians away from Gaza for Israeli settlements: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/24/middleeast/israel-approves-pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is deeply unfair. Plenty of people, including those responsible for more focus on environment and human rights, are in that age group. They are leaders and allies. Ageism is just another way divide society.
Absolutely correct, but also... there is something about having your early growing-up years be in the context of consistent 5-6% annual GDP growth rates and the rollout of interstates/highways, performance automobiles, massive urbanization and the development of giant suburbs with McMansions, two cars in every garage, etc. etc. ... to convince you that you deserve prosperity, that exponential growth, and exploding CO…
It's just really counterproductive to focus on these easy "majority" stats that break down on examination and contribute to the polarization of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whol…
I don't think I understand your point, beyond downplaying the severity of current events.
He is definitely calling it "polarizing" and minimizing it. I infer that he is supportive of it then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant. This has been proved repeatedly, at least as far back as Rodney King in 1992. We saw the video of the police beating Rodney King, but the police were nonetheless protected by the legal system. It's extremely rare for police to suffer consequences from their behavior. Any minor transgression from most people will be punished severely. Even the worst transgression from powerful…
> Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant Not really. In "a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada...officers equipped with body-worn cameras generated fewer complaints and use of force reports relative to officers without cameras. BWC officers also made more arrests and issued more citations than their non-BWC counterparts" [1]. More broadly, "there remains substanti…
"Our meta‐analysis of 30 studies and 116 effects of police use of BWCs finds that this technology produces few clear or consistent impacts on police or citizen behaviors."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. The long march of us making terrible decisions with technology continues. I'm not sure how to get away from it.
We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. It must be made personally infeasible to continue contributing to our own shortsighted destruction. The incentive structure can and must be changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cameras on police are mostly irrelevant Not really. In "a randomized controlled trial involving more than 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada...officers equipped with body-worn cameras generated fewer complaints and use of force reports relative to officers without cameras. BWC officers also made more arrests and issued more citations than their non-BWC counterparts" [1]. More broadly, "there remains substanti…
> [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356344/ "Our meta‐analysis of 30 studies and 116 effects of police use of BWCs finds that this technology produces few clear or consistent impacts on police or citizen behaviors."
Alternatively, I propose we seize Larry's assets, starting with the boats, then liquidate them for the benefit of developing families.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stop collaborating. Technologists, engineers, and support staff make this machine run. It must be made personally infeasible to continue contributing to our own shortsighted destruction. The incentive structure can and must be changed.
Then they'll outsource the work to someone more desperate than you.
It may very well be true that in some cases, a bad actor asking you to do a bad thing X will simply find someone else to do it. However, consider the following:
* If there were someone more desperate than you and willing to do X, they would demand lower compensation, and the bad actor wouldn't even be talking to you.
* By saying no, you are inherently making bad thing X more expensive, because said bad actor has to spend more resources finding someone else to do it.
* Saying no gives cover for your peers who disagree with X to also say no.
* The person said bad actor finally finds to do X will inherently have more leverage to ask for greater compensation due to the fact that you, by saying no, have shrunk the pool of people capable of doing X.
* If enough people say no, said bad actor may never find someone both capable of doing X and willing to do it for the price point the bad actor is willing/able to pay.
I don't turn down jobs I disagree with because I necessarily believe it will stop those jobs from happening. I'm satisfied enough with keeping my conscience clear and knowing I made the job a little harder to accomplish.