iNow

We weren’t debating. I said something inaccurate and swansont kindly corrected me. Why do I get the feeling some sock puppetry is afoot?

There’s such an enormous feeling of satisfaction that comes from building something with your own hands... watching it transform from an idea, to raw materials, to final product. You can see in their faces they feel this way, too.

Correct, and without them you may as well be reading the comments section on YouTube videos I tend to agree. You might also appreciate ProPublica.

Back on topic, dismissing entire news sources due to being “corporatist” strikes me as misguided. Dismiss them when they publish crap and inaccurate garbage. Attack the content, not the messenger (or owner). This shouldn’t need explaining, IMO

That makes good sense. Thank you. Correct, but as swansont already highlighted, that’s due to changes in other properties, not mass. You can repeat and meander all you want. Mass and volume are not equivalent.

Not older people who prize accuracy and clarity. You may as well be claiming that everyone here is wrong for not acknowledging that modern day computers are human. It’s absurd, really. None of your meandering reply did anything whatsoever to address the entirely valid criticisms of your point, but at least you’re consistent in your wrongness. Mass doesn’t change based on temperature. It may change forms or get displaced from the original quantity, but it doesn’t change. Suggesting otherwise makes you look foolish, as does digging in your heels when repeatedly corrected. End program.

It’s also common among all businesses, large, small, and otherwise. It’s not an issue specific to corporations. Relevance? If it’s British should we no longer dismiss related news sources, but yes to dismissing those news sources if they’re American??

See, now they’re just showing off. Lol. Nice!

Why not use mass as mass and volume as volume? They’re different things, after all. You may as well be using banana as apple and celery as cheetah.

Yep. Employees even gifted him with a Tesla in thanks and in recognition of his correct focus and so consistently doing the right thing. However, your earlier comments here about corporations were so broad sweeping, generalizing, and all encompassing that you accidentally looped him and his entire team and his whole company (an obvious exception) into your disparaging dismissive comments... suggesting rather explicitly that anything they might be involved with cannot be trusted... that media sources should be dismissed if they have any involvement (instead of being dismissed for publishing things unsupported or untrue). That’s the problem with monolithic labels like “corporatists” or “democrats” or “republicans.” Labels make it easier for is to ignore nuance and detail, or to lump whole swaths of people into a tribe of “other” and “less than.”

So basically all corporations look the same to you? You believe none are run by decent humans with prosocial aims?

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.