iNow

It’s a lot of content. I didn’t quote the whole thing. This reply does little more than confirm that you ignored the url I shared as my source, the one you even quoted when replying to me. No worries, though. Here’s the part you said isn’t mentioned (to be clear though, these are section titles only... more is available within each section):

Thank you, but I didn’t understand your point and asked you to please clarify it. The entirety of your response to that request is quoted here and it offers me no clarify other than the fact that we agree on my own point.

Corporations and the people within them aren’t monolithic in the way you enjoy implying. Also, you’re apparently using a nonstandard definition of the term.

I might need you to clarify this one. To clarify my own point, I was saying that the effectiveness of protest movements gets blunted by the intentional cascade of disinformation and trigger issues through social media by those seeking to attack the credibility of the protesters and circumvent discussion or action on the issues their protests are meant to illuminate. Then you said something about democrats acting as pawns and ignoring poverty.

I’d argue they remain effective, just not quite as effective as the opposition they’re facing in the form of modern social media campaigning and the related targeting of specific micropopulations which in aggregate tend to drive macro-level resistance to those protest movements

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/ Agreed Agreed again Thank you for sharing the sources you personally have emotional trust in. Here’s a more comprehensive / objective summary: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ You’ll find the Hill far more right than politico, and “corporatist” isn’t one of the available filters. Sounds like a key term you’d find on Breitbart, though.

Because she's effective and often wins the toughest battles against those who oppose her. If they can't beat her, they can at least scapegoat her as evil incarnate.

Seems unlikely given how consistently he's spreading misinformation and silliness in all of the various threads in which he's participating.

You've made more than one statement. Which one do you mean? Do you mean the ones where you claimed to have some insight or knowledge of his thoughts, motivations, and reasons for behaving a certain way? Those statements?

Exactly right. It's more sensational, too... thus reinforcing the perception of the risk beyond its reality

Your question is far too broad and suggests far too little foundational understanding to offer a helpful response. Note: This feedback applies to many threads you open with questions this way. It reads like, “how does air work?” and leads folks like me to think, “geesh, where do I even start?”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but (in addition to the points above about rail safety) driverless cars (in most situations) ALREADY ARE safer than human drivers, both on net and per capita. In the US alone, there are on average over 16,000 car crashes every single day. Globally, there are 1.25 Million people Killed in car crashes annually, or 3,300 on average every single day... killed.... nearly 50 Million seriously injured or disabled (source). The real question here is how many orders of magnitude safer these driverless cars will need to be before our primitive ape minds accept them as 1) a significantly safer alternative to our status quo of driving ourselves (minus the still remaining technical challenges like driving in snow and off-road terrains), and 2) what it will take for us to overcome the repulsion felt when thinking that software controlled vehicles will still experience occasional tragedies regardless of how advanced we build them. I'm likely being a bit pedantic here (surely am), but in fact responding to unanticipated situations is also already happening via machine learning / AI. That said, you're of course correct that even the ML/AI relies on inputs up front from programmers to help shape HOW it learns to respond.

Indeed, but it’s important to acknowledge that this is really one of the only times we can ever remember it doing so when an officer killed a citizen. There are about 1,000 fatal police killings every single year in the US. Over 16 years, that’s 16,000. Of course some are justified, but over the course of the last 16 years only 139 officers were arrested for murder or manslaughter when these deaths occurred during a duty shift. Of those, only 44 were convicted, and of those 37 didn’t even serve time in prison*. And right now several states (like my own and Florida) are actively making it HARDER than it already is to prosecute police misconduct. I’m grateful there was accountability in this particular case, but we’re still rather far from seeing justice in our justice system. *source There’s been lots of eye batting. It was a really dumb thing for her to say and many have called her out on it. Your premise is that it’s being ignored and accepted, and your premise is false.

Nonsense. Similar to ideas I heard talking with stoners at keg parties.

Stop feeding the trolls

The most laughable part is that your citations don’t even support your claims. The second most laughable part is that your bad faith argumentation means we won’t have you here wasting our time much longer.

Ignorant lies. At least you’re consistent in your posting style, but it’s a shame you feel the need to spread such remedially false disinformation.

Was your intent with that post to confirm my assertion that you’re evasive and that any reasonable mature dialog with you is impossible? Is so, congratulations, sir. You’ve succeeded.

Where I come from, it’s not an insult to inform you that you’ve completely failed to answer my actual question and have evaded a meaningful exchange with an unrelated anecdote.

I’m not a very smart man, but it’s a priority of mine to accurately understand the thoughts of others. Sadly, I’m struggling with this last bit of your previous post. It sounds to me like you’re claiming covid is a hoax, but surely I’m mistaken. Because I respect you enough to ask, will you please clarify what is meant by these words of yours I’ve quoted here?

Thank you, @studiot. I clearly misunderstood the core element of the question and yours was a helpful and welcome clarification. +1

I've always heard our planet best described as an oblate spheroid. It's not perfectly spherical, has differences in dimension and density (it's a spheroid, not a sphere), and is a bit squishy around the middle due to its spin (it is oblate).

Gamma rays exist by definition at a wavelength of ~100 picometers. Light visible to the eye exists between the bands of 400 and 700 nanometers. Orders of magnitude different You may as well be asking what sounds we can’t hear sound like, because you’re basically asking what light we can’t see looks like. I assume you mean how we see it after it’s been translated with appropriate detection equipment. Even so, you need to ask a clearer question than, “would we see a circular rainbow,” aka a glory or halo.

Today, for the first time in the history of history itself and within 80 years of the first helicopter flight on Earth, humans successfully sustained flight on another planet... #micdrop #firstofmany

And so the next chapter begins... what comes next is anyone’s guess. https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/19/apple-confirms-it-will-allow-parler-to-return-to-app-store/