Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
The chart is actually not so terrifying once the cause of it was discovered. Basically, new regulations reducing sulfur content in ship fuel that went into effect in 2020 and put an end to an unintentional geoengineering experiment that had been running due to the enhanced cloud cover the sulfur dioxide particles were causing.
So this is a strong data point showing that solar geoengineering could work, if we resume it deliberately under more controlled conditions.
No, it’s opt-in. If you do nothing you won’t have it.
They’re not “pushing their Recall shit whether we like it or not”, they’re explicitly making it opt-in. They gave a fuck about their users’ complaints and made a bunch of modifications to it.
You may still not like it, but give them some credit.
If you simply don’t want to engage in a discussion with him, then that’s fine, you should let him know that you’re not interested in talking about it. You don’t have to justify your choices to him, if you want to use a particular browser then that’s fine and if he spontaneously decides he needs to “talk you out of it” then that’s a dick move. Tell him that you don’t want to debate the subject and it’s no skin off of his nose so he shouldn’t try to engage you in one.
But if you’re asking “how can I convince him that he’s wrong”, well that is engaging in the debate. And if you’re going to engage in a debate you should try to be as open about it as you’d like your debate opponent to be in turn. Have you considered that perhaps he has some valid points and is not taking that position just to be contrarian?
Personally, I find that it’s pretty much impossible to talk someone with a strongly-held position out of that position. The value of Internet debates with people like that is that lots of spectators who don’t have such strongly-held positions may be watching, but when it’s a one-on-one situation it’s likely to be a futile and frustrating effort with no benefit. So I would advise going with the “don’t bother engaging” route. But of course, if you feel strongly that you want to engage, I can’t change your mind on that and won’t try. It’s your time to spend.
Russia ran out of tires to throw into it, I guess.
I’m saying they can do it. If you don’t have a sample then you can’t do it and the question of “rights” is entirely moot.
If you do have a sample, then questions of rights and enforcement and whatnot can be addressed. “What jurisdiction are you in?” Is an important first question for that. But if you don’t have a sample then we never get to that step.
Do you have any samples of his voice?
Proof-of-work has inherent centralization pressures due to economy of scale. You get more profit per hash per second of mining power when you’ve got a bigger mining operation. That’s not the case for proof-of-stake.
Different countries have a variety of very different approaches to appointing judges, and some of those methods are not nearly as easy to corrupt as the American system.
Americans are subject to a lot of cultural indoctrination about how their system is the “greatest democracy in the world,” “leader of the free world,” and other such platitudes. It’s really not the case, though. America’s system is one of the earliest that’s still around, and unfortunately that means it’s got a lot of problems that have been corrected in democracies that were founded later on but have remained embedded in America’s.
Doesn’t help that America has a somewhat problematic electorate as well.
Apparently, I am. People actually want this
Thank you for recognizing this. It gets quite frustrating in threads like these about new AI tools being deployed when people declare “nobody wants this!” And I try to explain that there are actually people that do want it. I find many AI tools to be quite handy.
I tend to get vigorously downvoted at that point, as if that would make the demand “go away” somehow. But sticking heads in sand doesn’t accomplish anything except to make people increasingly out of touch.
I’m Canadian so I’m not a voter in the contest you’re presenting, but if I were I would vote Democrat. And of the trio you present for the Democrats, I would say that the position I’d compromise on would be gun control. Not because American gun culture isn’t bananas and it’s not a serious problem, but because I can’t see any plausible way to fix it in the short term. So might as well let it go for now and deal with the more important stuff that affects more people.
I think a more reasonable compromise would be to give Republicans most of what they want on immigration reform. That seems to be something they consider to be of critical importance, but that I think can be allowed without it causing significant harm. If the American economy starts to suffer as a result of not having illegal immigrant workers then that will be motivation for further reforms. I think it’s important to have the laws try to reflect the realities, though, and having the economy literally depend on large-scale lack of adherence to the law of the land is a bad place to be. Just make sure not to be monstrous about it - don’t do the concentration-camps-for-children thing, try to maintain basic asylum access for those who truly need it, and so forth.