151–160 of 178 posts
Cookie Banner isn't such a bad idea now
Nah, it’s still stupid and pointless
It's just by default nobody really wants to give up disk space so you can do better ad tracking so the banner is necessary to convince them to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nefarious indeed. Once they know who you are, they match you against insurance industry databases and can infer many health conditions and other stuff. If you’re timely with prenatal care, marketers can predict a woman’s delivery data within a week with high confidence.
Obamacare banned insurer price discrimination for pre-existing conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even remotely the same scale. At least the government ostensibly has its incentives aligned with the public. False equivance gets us further from where we need to by focusing people on the wrong problems.
"Ostensibly" is the mistake in your formula. Current events are replete with examples to the contrary. It's not equivocating to recognize that governments are organizations of humans, subject to the same limitations - the larger they get, the harder they are to manage well; talent is incredibly important to success in mission; leadership is incredibly important to integrity, ethics, and strategy; lower oversight and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least make it an explicitly protected right to lie about your race in any context. It's a lot easier to ruin a dataset than it is to hide from it.
What would happen if you just lied? I guess you wouldn't get healthcare coverage once they found out? But isn't there something in law about material damages, they'd have to prove you cost them money by choosing the wrong race?
What is lying in this case?
Where is the official government backed race classification list? If you look at the options they don't even know what they mean by "race". There are options asking if you are hispanic, which my definition of the meaning takes the Spanish speaker form, what about french or german speakers why are they discriminated against? And surely when they list colors they can't be talking about people. I don't know what white race is, or black as I have never seen people of either of those colors, unless and except if they mean for hair color, shades of brown and peach maybe then okay. Then they add some regions and a couple countries, by why are so many left out if thats what they mean by race? I would really prefer they gave a proper taxonomy here, until that happens they can not say that whatever you entered is lying or wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if you just lied? I guess you wouldn't get healthcare coverage once they found out? But isn't there something in law about material damages, they'd have to prove you cost them money by choosing the wrong race?
> What would happen if you just lied? What is lying in this case? Where is the official government backed race classification list? If you look at the options they don't even know what they mean by "race". There are options asking if you are hispanic, which my definition of the meaning takes the Spanish speaker form, what about french or german speakers why are they discriminated against? And surely when they list co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What would happen if you just lied? What is lying in this case? Where is the official government backed race classification list? If you look at the options they don't even know what they mean by "race". There are options asking if you are hispanic, which my definition of the meaning takes the Spanish speaker form, what about french or german speakers why are they discriminated against? And surely when they list co…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Ancestry_and_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretendian
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What would happen if you just lied? What is lying in this case? Where is the official government backed race classification list? If you look at the options they don't even know what they mean by "race". There are options asking if you are hispanic, which my definition of the meaning takes the Spanish speaker form, what about french or german speakers why are they discriminated against? And surely when they list co…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Ancestry_and_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretendian
They still don't define Native in a context with any other definitions of "race". Just because people want to "cancel" others for identity labels it doesn't make a race, which is what I am asking for. A proper and complete taxonomy, until then they can not prove one was lying -- only out spend in lawyer fees to make it not worth fighting. Which is outside the point of: what is lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People complaining about illegal immigrants doing farm labor mostly don’t want you to simply give them paperwork making them legal, they want the pipeline of migrant labor restricted so labor prices are forced to rise enough to make the jobs worthwhile for citizens. I’ve noticed this is a common disconnect.
What wage would they have to pay you to pick berries? I suspect it's cheaper to automate these jobs (developing the tech to do so as necessary) rather than raising wages so US citizens take the job. These really aren't desirable jobs by US standards, and automation is already underway. Edit: I acknowledge that you're just explaining a viewpoint and you don't necessarily hold it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to overturn CU Or we could stop looking at SCOTUS to fix legislation and ask the branch of government who's job it is to fix legislation, Congress.
That would be nice in principle, yes, but in a CU world, that's asking the fox to vote to lock itself out of the hen house. In practice most of the foxes that promise to do so never actually will. What's your proposal to solve this?
To me, money in politics is the red herring to keep you from looking at the real election reform that needs to happen, some combination of open primaries (to remove the effect of primaries going to more extreme candidates rather than centrists) and an alternative to first past the post elections to allow people to vote for who they like without worrying about throwing away their votes (there are many different systems to do this, they're all major improvements).
The money in politics is used by the parties to back their preferred candidates and the voters go along with it in the general elections because they don't want to waste their votes. The money helps them do the bad thing but it isn't the bad thing.