Jtype's comments

Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try.

On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. We had much lower levels of income disparity in the middle of the 20th century and we could certainly aim to restore those levels.

However, that would be difficult in our globalized economy of the past 40 years. This is the part of neo-liberalism that is causing the most problems for the non-elite. Globalization is leveling the field for the non-elite of the world, American wages are stagnant or dropping by real value, while wages are rising in east and southeast Asia(for example). The global elites are winning no matter what. The only way to change this is to restrict globalization and international corporations, just changing US laws to tax the rich more or break up us companies won't change much as global elite will give up their citizenship and international companies will detach from their us divisions. You will need a global effort at this point to affect any change to the system, and even then you will have serious problems. And that is only for minor changes to the system. The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers.

This is not true. My daughter's phone supported VoLTE but was not on the whitelist and service was terminated based on the IMEI. We had to order her a new (but actually older) phone that was on the approved list in order to reactivate service.

Simple takes.

"thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in."

This could be your bad-faith reading of the stories, though. You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others.

Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.

because $$$

Sure, banning users from posting a published news story is "permissive".

I think that you severely underestimate the pushback against the woke crusade that is building. The fact that you think anyone who isn't woke is racist, shows your ignorance in the matter.

They were wrong about a crapload of things. They completely censored the Biden Laptop story and called it Russian propaganda. Twitter and facebook banned accounts that posted links to the story, for example. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.

So you think we should be able to label a group of people and restrict their rights? You don't see how this could be a problem?

Because people like to complain about change, and people like to blame white people for all of societies ills at the moment.

Mono-cultures do suck. They lead to groupthink, where nuance, alternative viewpoints/actions, and growth are shunned. Groupthink leads to stagnation, which has been shown time and time again. groupthink is what convinced Putin that he could easily waltz into Ukraine, and "liberate" them from the "Nazis" running the country. There was no dissenting viewpoint allowed by Putin, only groupthink.

I think you read propaganda.

I believe that you're misinterpreting the point. It's not dismissing the mainstream because it's mainstream, but ignoring the mainstream that completely dismisses and mislabels contradicting views and evidence as "misinformation." Relying solely on the judgement of mainstream media is putting all your faith in science not in science itself but on reporters(and activists) choosing what is "science."

This recent trend of treating science as an unquestionable reminds me much more of religion than of science. At this point in the covid game where quite a bit of the accepted science has changed, it seems that only people's egos are keeping them from seeing this.

Ignoring the issues with comparing random sampling to self selection, your analogy falls flat due to the population differences. Here you are assuming a racial/sex population distribution equal to the color population distribution of M&Ms, which is drastically different in even the most diverse countries in the world. If your starting population is 90% green M&Ms then pulling 6 greens in a row is quite high.

Pulling grants because the racial/sex output isn't what you want is unethical and anti-science.

If we started work an hour later then we would lose the extra hour in the evening that we gained by changing to DST.

If you change what time people go to work from 8 am to 9 am then you will also be changing when they get home from 5pm to 6pm. Then you have lost that extra daylight in the evening, which was the entire point of the time change!

I'm sure parents with jobs are going to love this.

Whatabboutism is pretty silly here. When was China a US colony? If it's ok for China to steal IP from the US, then why was it wrong for "western" countries in the past to steal from others? If it was wrong for others in the past then why is it justified now? It's either never or always ok. I vote for never myself. But if you think "revenge" stealing is justified against a country that never colonized them, then you are justifying all countries doing it since the beginning of time, because just about every country in the world was conquered and exploited at one time or another.

China is still stealing IP and has been for over 20 years. It's nothing new.

So your argument is that other foreign nationals have been unfairly accused in the past so we shouldn't worry about it happening? Or, is it that other nations, as they developed, spied and stole technology until they didn't need to anymore?

Either way I don't see why we should ignore technology theft.

So you don't believe that a country with a long history of stealing technology IP would have spies in the Universities that are doing cutting edge research in those areas?