village-idiot's comments

But the market isn’t iOS devices, the market is smart phones. And in that market Apple does not have a monopoly.

If you start declaring that the market is the specific store or product, then literally every single product and service is a monopoly begging for state intervention. Can I sue Netflix because as the monopoly holder of the Netflix network they refuse to carry my home made videos? Is Spotify abusing their monopoly over Spotify by refusing to carry my karaoke? Should I be able to sue them in order to bend them to my will?

Of course not. That’s patently ridiculous.

That’s factually false. You can side load apps, plenty of enterprises do it.

That’s like complaining that IKEA has a monopoly within IKEA stores.

> You understated 2. Its more correctly described as hatred.

So? Political opinion is not a protected characteristic, because it's a choice and it affects others. I hate literal Nazis too, and pretty much nobody sane thinks that this is an inappropriate thing to do.

You might argue about the "Trump supporters are fascists" bit, but that's a very different discussion.

> You inverted 3. I said majority of white people support Trump, not majority of Trump supporters are white.

Still a fallacy of the excluded middle.

> Finally you are overstating my conclusion. Here I refer to to the majority rather then all.

I didn't say all either. If your point is that some people hate white Trump supporters, then ... duh? But anyone who thinks Trump supporters are fascists will hate white Trump supporters because they think they're fascists. At which point, I have to ask what point were you trying to make?

That's more an argument to stop buying so much crap than it is an argument to buy a wasteful vehicle.

> They were criticising developers who worked on Gab

Sure. But remember, criticizing the developers is also free speech.

> presumably with the aim of removing Gab as a platform.

You're making up their aims, but again, free speech.

You don't have to agree with them, but it's absolutely their free speech right to call the Gab developers all kinds of nasty things. You cannot create a definition of free speech that includes the right of people on Gab to say whatever they want, but doesn't include the right for other's to tell the Gab developers that they've done a bad thing and should feel bad.

Edit: To further bolster my point, I will quote from Ken White about another famous free speech spat a few years ago when a twitter troll lost his job at Business Insider.

> But speech has private social consequences, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Whether sincere or motivated by poseur edginess, controversial words have social consequences. Those social consequences are inseparable from the free speech and free association rights of the people imposing them. It is flatly irrational to suggest that I should be able to act like a dick without being treated like a dick by my fellow citizens.

> Some criticize social consequences as being chilling to free speech. That misappropriates the language of First Amendment scrutiny of government restrictions on speech and seeks to impose it upon private speech. It is true, superficially, that I am chilled from saying bigoted things because people will call me a bigot, or chilled from saying stupid things because people will call me stupid. But how is that definition of chill coherent or principled? How do you apply it? If Pax Dickinson suggests that "feminism in tech" is something to be scorned, to we treat that as something that as first-speaker speech that we ought not chill with criticism, or do we treat it as a second-speaker attempt to chill the speech of the "feminists in tech" with criticism? What rational scheme do you use to determine what speech is "legitimate disagreement," and what speech is abusive and "chilling"?

What you’re proposing sure sounds like a logical fallacy to me. It sounds like you’re accusing others of having the following thoughts:

1. Trump supporters are fascists

2. I don’t like fascists

3. Trumps supports are overwhelmingly white

4. Therefore I don’t like white people because they’re fascists.

This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

You can fit a few semi trucks in the gap between France’s political norms and China’s. Comparing the two is just silly.

Furthermore, if you’re positing that France is wrong in some absolute sense to do this, all you’re doing is just imposing your own conceptions of political norms into some other culture, which has historically worked out very poorly.

Different countries have different norms around political speech. Report at 11.

> I've never really understood the 'safe spaces' line of argument.

Because it's a disingenuous argument, and it's always been about:

1. Making one side feel like the victim, which maintains coherence

2. Playing the refs

I'm not sure how you got from someone criticizing what’s posted on gab to suppression of free speech, but it makes me think you have absolutely no idea what free speech really is.

GP isn't recommending that congress ban Gab. They're just using their own free speech to condemn it.

North face is two companies under one logo.

One is a hardcore mountaineering company, who makes equipment where the owner dies if it fails. Their tents and sleeping bags can be found in the most inhospitable places on earth, including Everest.

The other makes fleece for college students.

It turns out that Wikipedia is a really bad organization to piss off.

Also an effective strategy to get uncontested rides, I assume.

Of course, occasionally you’re going to get low rated passengers who are just straight up assholes. So there’s some risk.

In principle I agree; if I were to hypothetically verbally abuse my drivers, ought I not eventually be banned? If I walk into a local bar and am an asshole to the staff, eventually my photo will be put up next to the bouncer’s table on the “do not admit” list.

Unfortunately pretty much any system Uber is going to create here will be prone to some abuse, and subject to a lot of criticism.

Accident of history and sheer momentum. We had the cash and research institutions during the beginning of the digital age, and as a result we have the brain trust for both programming and hardware design. Remember that a huge percentage of programming languages, documentation, and surrounding culture (blogs, etc.) are not only in English, but culturally American. That’s a huge advantage for America in the tech space.

Willing to bet your savings on it? I'm not.

I'm not sure about other animals, but 400ppm is a long way away from toxic for humanity. Poorly ventilated indoor environments can easily hit 1200-1500ppm. You've got to hit 70,000 to 100,000 ppm before you start running the risk of coma and death.

Interestingly some studies indicate that 1200ppm and higher might confer some mild cognitive impairment, even if it's a long way away from fatal. This has been used glibly to explain the poor decisions made in office rooms, but one does wonder what happens to humanity if global emissions make us slightly dumber.

Can you provide more on the last paragraph? That sounds fascinating.