I'm not a cop and I'm sure they're subject to bias. It's surprising anyone would think they're not.
Not surprising when the person saying so is blatantly biased against police, as he makes excessively clear at every possible opportunity. Many people have blind spots like that.
Recall, Facebook recently made a big show earlier this year about how it wouldn't be working to undermine such privacy proposals in the wake of the Cambridge scandal
There's less business software and there are fewer games for it. That's not the same thing as none.
Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the mathematical concept of epsilon? It refers to a fraction small enough that anything less than it can be rounded down to 0 with no meaningful loss of precision in your calculations.
It all depends on what you mean by "use." If all you do is Web browsing, sure, that can be done on any platform. But go any further than that and Windows is still really your only realistic choice for any productivity or entertainment-related computing, because of the chicken-and-egg problem: people don't write business software or games for Linux because nobody uses it, and nobody uses Linux because there's no business software or games for it.
There aren't any forced advertising or forced applications
If you're going to say things that run directly contrary to observed reality, please at least have the decency to follow up with a remark like "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Which is why I said that I don't condone the threats, for pretty much all of the reasons you listed. But since we live in the reality we live in, and not in an ideal world, people need to be aware of that. My point was that I'm getting sick of people who *have* done something wrong making claims (which I'm just cynical enough to point out are entirely unverifiable and may or may not actually be true) that they've received death threats over the thing they did wrong, to try to garner sympathy and deflect attention away from the fact that the thing they did was wrong.
Is anyone else getting sick of public figures playing the "I've received death threats" sympathy card to deflect attention away from their actions? While I in no way condone such threats, I also have very little patience for people making vague, unverifiable claims to try to play on the audience's emotions and distract them from substantive matters.
Here's an idea: if you don't want to receive death threats, don't do things that will harm enough people that some of them are likely to feel justified in taking action against you in self-defense! And if you are going to do such things, you should be aware that this is a possibility. So whining about it should garner exactly as much sympathy as whining about burning your hand after grabbing something you knew was very hot.
We had kind of hoped that the game might be useful in starting useful, nuanced conversations, rather than just people screaming at each other on Twitter. Ironically, the game resulted in people going nuts on Twitter.
I have to admit that until earlier this year, I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson.
I've heard of him since many years ago; he's a good friend of my brother's. (Not the guy you're talking about in this article, but my brother does have a good friend by that name...)
We need new laws for this era of technology and social investment that break up the relationship between holding companies and the lower level businesses, that are 100% transparent and publicly list ALL investors - then tear apart the relationships between the merger and acquisition investors who hide behind the scenes.
Publicly listing all investors could get very tricky depending on how you define "all investors."
For example, if it's a company large enough to be listed on the S&P 500, and I own shares of a S&P 500 index fund, (this is an incredibly common thing BTW, for those unfamiliar with modern investing practices,) that technically makes me an investor in that company. Should I be on the list? Or what if the company that my employer engaged to manage my 401K purchased that company's stock (or an index fund that contains it) on behalf of my retirement fund?
I do agree that transparency is important, but unless you're very careful with your definitions, you'll end up with a "solution" where the signal-to-noise ratio is so low as to be useless.
Undaunted by an ongoing corruption investigation, Pai is rushing forward with a July 12 vote to further erode a rule prohibiting any one broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of the national audience.
Does this whole thing seem a bit strange to anyone else, just on general principle? I mean, if one broadcaster can't reach more than 39% of the national audience, this means that if John Q. Public were to get a new job in another state and have to move across the country, there's a greater than 60% odds that he won't have his favorite broadcaster available to watch on local TV.
Sinclair is awful, I won't deny that, but aren't we kind of going about it in exactly the wrong way? Under the principles of free speech, freedom of the press, and "the best counter to bad speech is not to suppress speech but to encourage even more speech," why not throw out that rule entirely, and make it so every broadcaster has the right to reach 100% of the audience? Then Sinclair could reach everyone, sure, but so could all the alternatives to Sinclair who are broadcasting more sane messages. Doesn't that sound like a better state of affairs overall?
Interesting argument, but one of Bastiat's core points demonstrates a surprising degree of intellectual laziness:
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Nowhere does he mention the other, obvious possibility, which is that our shopkeeper might have not spent the money at all. Apparently in his world, everyone is living paycheck-to-paycheck with no savings?
In remarks that ranged over a variety of unrelated topics, Mr. Trump began by ... saying "we have the worst immigration laws in the entire world"
For all his many, many very real faults, he's dead right about this one. Virtually everywhere else in the world--including all the countries we get the most immigrants from and that criticize us on our treatment of immigrants--illegal immigration is treated as a very serious crime. Here, we've got a non-trivial fraction of the populace, large enough to influence policy in some places, that treat it as a virtuous act deserving of official protection! And that's simply insane.
Okay, so every liver failure or associated death is now murder by the brewery, the state regulator And the retailer, a conspiracy I tell you. Every smoker who dies of hard arteries or failing lungs is chalked up as a literal murder by Phillip Morris and 7-11. Every time an obese man passes away squad cars are zooming down the street to slap cuffs on Ronald McDonald.
Umm... do you even know what the Felony Murder Rule is? Because nothing you just wrote would actually apply, but dealing illegal drugs would.
As The Appeal points out, Daniels has leveraged these videos to appear on national news networks and say ridiculous things like he's planning to treat all drug overdoses as homicides.
What exactly is ridiculous about that? You think the drug dealers didn't know they were selling stuff that can kill people? Seems to me the Felony Murder Rule clearly applies here. (Does Florida have that? I know it varies state-by-state.)
It's not that mischaracterized. Even on here, where defenders of free speech abound, we've got people running around defending the right of private parties to censor content because "the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not government." They fail to understand that the First Amendment was written that way mostly as an accident of history, because at that time the government was the only entity with the power to perform widespread censorship of freedom of speech in the public square.
These days, that's no longer the case. The Internet and its platforms have become the new de facto public square, and to say that its gatekeepers are not bound by the restrictions of the First Amendment is to say that we trust private entities with powers that We The People find so fundamentally abhorrent that we don't trust ourselves (in the person of our democratically elected representatives) with these powers.
On the post: Pennsylvania Cops Abusing A Bad Law To Arrest People For Saying Angry Things To Them
Re: Re: Holy SHIT!!!
Agreed. What he did was wrong, but it wasn't that wrong!
On the post: Pennsylvania Cops Abusing A Bad Law To Arrest People For Saying Angry Things To Them
Re: Of course there's bias
Not surprising when the person saying so is blatantly biased against police, as he makes excessively clear at every possible opportunity. Many people have blind spots like that.
On the post: Lobbyists Descend On California To Shape A Rushed New Privacy Law
Which will absolutely shock everyone, I'm sure...
On the post: Tech Employees Revolting Over Government Contracts Reminds Us That Government Needs Tech More than Tech Needs Government
Re: Re: Re: You missed the point
Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the mathematical concept of epsilon? It refers to a fraction small enough that anything less than it can be rounded down to 0 with no meaningful loss of precision in your calculations.
On the post: Tech Employees Revolting Over Government Contracts Reminds Us That Government Needs Tech More than Tech Needs Government
Re: You missed the point
On the post: Tech Employees Revolting Over Government Contracts Reminds Us That Government Needs Tech More than Tech Needs Government
Re: Re:
If you're going to say things that run directly contrary to observed reality, please at least have the decency to follow up with a remark like "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
On the post: California's Quest For Tough Net Neutrality Not Dead Yet
Re: Re: Death threats
On the post: California's Quest For Tough Net Neutrality Not Dead Yet
Death threats
Is anyone else getting sick of public figures playing the "I've received death threats" sympathy card to deflect attention away from their actions? While I in no way condone such threats, I also have very little patience for people making vague, unverifiable claims to try to play on the audience's emotions and distract them from substantive matters.
Here's an idea: if you don't want to receive death threats, don't do things that will harm enough people that some of them are likely to feel justified in taking action against you in self-defense! And if you are going to do such things, you should be aware that this is a possibility. So whining about it should garner exactly as much sympathy as whining about burning your hand after grabbing something you knew was very hot.
On the post: I Helped Design The Election Simulation 'Parlor Game' Rebekah Mercer Got, And It's Not What You Think
You expected the Twits to not act like twits?
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
I've heard of him since many years ago; he's a good friend of my brother's. (Not the guy you're talking about in this article, but my brother does have a good friend by that name...)
On the post: Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair
Re: Re: Re:
Publicly listing all investors could get very tricky depending on how you define "all investors."
For example, if it's a company large enough to be listed on the S&P 500, and I own shares of a S&P 500 index fund, (this is an incredibly common thing BTW, for those unfamiliar with modern investing practices,) that technically makes me an investor in that company. Should I be on the list? Or what if the company that my employer engaged to manage my 401K purchased that company's stock (or an index fund that contains it) on behalf of my retirement fund?
I do agree that transparency is important, but unless you're very careful with your definitions, you'll end up with a "solution" where the signal-to-noise ratio is so low as to be useless.
On the post: Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair
Re:
Then antitrust.
On the post: Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair
Does this whole thing seem a bit strange to anyone else, just on general principle? I mean, if one broadcaster can't reach more than 39% of the national audience, this means that if John Q. Public were to get a new job in another state and have to move across the country, there's a greater than 60% odds that he won't have his favorite broadcaster available to watch on local TV.
Sinclair is awful, I won't deny that, but aren't we kind of going about it in exactly the wrong way? Under the principles of free speech, freedom of the press, and "the best counter to bad speech is not to suppress speech but to encourage even more speech," why not throw out that rule entirely, and make it so every broadcaster has the right to reach 100% of the audience? Then Sinclair could reach everyone, sure, but so could all the alternatives to Sinclair who are broadcasting more sane messages. Doesn't that sound like a better state of affairs overall?
On the post: China's Latest Censorship Crackdown Target: Videos Of Women Rubbing, Kissing And Licking Binaural Microphones
Re: What's with asians licking everything?
On the post: Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy
Re: Re:
On the post: Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy
Interesting argument, but one of Bastiat's core points demonstrates a surprising degree of intellectual laziness:
Nowhere does he mention the other, obvious possibility, which is that our shopkeeper might have not spent the money at all. Apparently in his world, everyone is living paycheck-to-paycheck with no savings?
On the post: President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children
For all his many, many very real faults, he's dead right about this one. Virtually everywhere else in the world--including all the countries we get the most immigrants from and that criticize us on our treatment of immigrants--illegal immigration is treated as a very serious crime. Here, we've got a non-trivial fraction of the populace, large enough to influence policy in some places, that treat it as a virtuous act deserving of official protection! And that's simply insane.
On the post: Faulty Field Tests And Overblown Drug Raid Claims: The War On Drugs In Clay County, Florida
Re: Re:
Umm... do you even know what the Felony Murder Rule is? Because nothing you just wrote would actually apply, but dealing illegal drugs would.
On the post: Faulty Field Tests And Overblown Drug Raid Claims: The War On Drugs In Clay County, Florida
What exactly is ridiculous about that? You think the drug dealers didn't know they were selling stuff that can kill people? Seems to me the Felony Murder Rule clearly applies here. (Does Florida have that? I know it varies state-by-state.)
On the post: Tanzania Forces 'Unregistered Bloggers' To Disappear Themselves
Re: Re: authoritarianism and the internet
It's not that mischaracterized. Even on here, where defenders of free speech abound, we've got people running around defending the right of private parties to censor content because "the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not government." They fail to understand that the First Amendment was written that way mostly as an accident of history, because at that time the government was the only entity with the power to perform widespread censorship of freedom of speech in the public square.
These days, that's no longer the case. The Internet and its platforms have become the new de facto public square, and to say that its gatekeepers are not bound by the restrictions of the First Amendment is to say that we trust private entities with powers that We The People find so fundamentally abhorrent that we don't trust ourselves (in the person of our democratically elected representatives) with these powers.
There's something very wrong with that.
Next >>