I don’t think anybody is suggesting that Tesla had a sign that says “heil” in Tesla’s font manufactured and installed on their factory next to their name. It’s a projection by a protestor to draw attention to Musk’s Nazism.

Ahh yes sexual harassment for hire. Great idea. Maybe we should have an MMA experience we can order for our foes too.

I reckon if you’re doing the work involved in managing a rental property yourself, you’re doing work and providing a service.

If you expect an employee/contractor to do all that for you, but to still collect profits: what would you say you do here?

I support robust enforcement of anti hate speech laws. In fact I’ve reported hate speech/ hatecrime to the police before.

We’re not talking about laws, we’re talking about social media platform policies.

Social media platforms connect people from regions with different hatespeech laws so " enforcing hatespeech laws" is impossible to do consistently.

If users engage in crimes using the platform they are subject to the laws that they are subject to.

I don’t care that it’s legal to advocate for genocide where a preacher is located, or at the corporation’s preferred jurisdiction, I don’t want my son reading it.

The question was: is there a way a platform can be totally free speech and stop hate speech. I think the answer is “kinda”

I think it may be possible if you understand a difference between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Ie the right to say something doesn’t create an obligation in others to hear it, nor to hear you in the future.

If I stand up on a milk crate in the middle of a city park to preach the glory of closed source operating systems, it doesn’t infringe my right to free speech if someone posts a sign that says “Microsoft shill ahead” and offers earplugs at the park entrance. People can choose to believe the sign or not.

A social media platform could automate the signs and earplugs. By allowing users to set thresholds of the discourse acceptable to them on different topics, and the platform could evaluate (through data analysis or crowd sourced feedback) whether comments and/or commenters met that threshold.

I think this would largely stop people from experiencing hatespeech, (one they had their thresholds appropriately dialed in) and disincentivize hatespeech without actually infringing anybody’s right to say whatever they want.

There would definitely be challenges though.

If a person wants to be protected from experiencing hatespeech they need to empower some-one/thing to censor media for them which is a risk.

Properly evaluating content for hatespeech/ otherwise objectionable speech is difficult. Upvotes and downvotes are an attempt to do this in a very coarse way. That/this system assumes that all users have a shared view of what content is worth seeing on a given topic and that all votes are equally credible. In a small community of people, with similar values, that aren’t trying to manipulate the system, it’s a reasonable approach. It doesn’t scale that well.

Yeah I agree that can’t keep him locked up, but could they jail him, because honestly that isn’t nothing. Obviously it’s career suicide for anyone involved but you know.

Remember the Alarmo

I just watched Andor. I enjoyed it more than the Mandalorian, and much more than the Obi Wan Kenobi series (so far).

Pretty interesting!

The Wikipedia article has a ton of info. This magazine article which Wikipedia references is imo a better introduction https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/technology/2022/cochineal-red-dye-bugs-moves-lab

Ateam has managed to bioengineer a fungi to produce it, but with very low yields. Another team has managed to get e coli to produce it, they estimated that a 100,000 L fermenter could produce the same amount as a hectare of land.

100,000L is 100m^3 which is a cube with 4.7m side length. ~15’x15’x15’ or uhh ~~~the size of 4 F150s.

Edit to add: a hectare is 100m x 100m ie ~100 yards x 100 yards.

Yeah that sounds like what was explained to me

I needed to upgrade my modem because the isp capped the speed of docsis 3.0 modems to like 75Mbps. I remember being quite upset because I was previously getting 125Mbps service on the same modem. I seem to recall there was a quasi legit technical reason for it though.

THPS 1+2 (the HD remake) is excellent but they decided not to do a THPS3+4 remake. Presumably due to low numbers. BUT online is broken. What I mean by broken is that you basically can’t log in to the server if your console is connected to the internet through a router. As far as I know Activision never acknowledged that failure. Do you think this problem might have hurt sales/microtransaction revenue?

Yeah I get that there isn’t much direct evidence of Jesus. But when you say “Saul had his own thing going on, which wasn’t entirely popular” aren’t you referring to his persecution of Christians?

I thought my question was pretty simple: if Jesus didn’t exist, where did the early Christians (that Saul was persecuting) come from?

We have letters from Paul, because he sent them to other Christian communities. Where did those communities come from?

My question was in regard to the part of the comment:

{The Birth of Jesus} …if it happened at all, which is up for debate…

I’m always intrigued by this sort of hypothesis, can you recommend a good link to an alternative explanation for the early church?

Like I get that early Christians worked in a lot (LOT) of existing mythology to make Christianity palatable/ relatable to various local groups. But where could the early Christians have come from if not a Jesus like figure?

I think the actual action is to engage with the democratic political process.

So yes, vote. But also go to town hall meetings, and park board meetings, and parent advisory council meetings. Write a letters to your representatives, and then go to one of their events and tell them what you think of their response.

As a man, I think it’s the sort of experience that men struggle to understand because of patriarchal dynamics.

What I mean is: if a doctor were to:

• ask me if I have considered other forms of birth control
• and then explain all the different birth control methods to make sure I actually understand,
• ask if I’ve talked about the decision with my wife,
• and then explain that a general impression of her opinion isn’t the same thing as sitting down together and reviewing all the data,
• ask if understand how the surgery will affect my body
• and then explain the hormonal changes my body would go through
• etc

before agreeing to schedule a vasectomy.

Interpretting these questions through the lens of my lived experience:

These are thorough but pragmatic questions. The doctor is trying to make sure I understand all the options. The doctor is a peer with special expertise and wants to make sure that I understand all the risks.

But women too often grow up in an environment which tells them:

• Women should trust the men in their lives too make the best decisions for them.
• That having children is the most important thing they can do in the world.
• A woman’s value is proportional to her utility as a wife and mother.
• Women that have sex for fun are disgusting sluts.

So when they get asked a barrage of questions identical to the ones I’dve been asked, they experience them very differently. Women are not irrational to hear the exact same questions very differently if they are interpreting them through the lens of their experiences. Maybe they experience those questions as:

• “Why don’t you just stop having so much sec you slut?”
• “Don’t you know how to have sex with out getting pregnant you dumb bitch?”
• “Do you have your husband’s permission?”
• “Does your husband know you’re a slut?”
• “Do you understand that you will be destroying your value to society if you don’t have kids?”
• “Do you understand that you will become any even crazier bitch after this?”

And too often, the doctor really does mean that.

Edit to add: I’d value other people’s takes too.

I just want to point out that saying things to people with the intent of making them fear for their life, is probably a crime.

If OP is worried for real, maybe a restraining order is possible.

Not because a religious judgement really means anything violent (or even specific) but because there is someone trying to intimidate OP.

I don’t think Jesse Owens was tainted just because Hitler congratulated him.

I don’t think people that resisted the Nazis are tainted just because Israel thanks them.

That’s why I disagreed with your initial comment.

Just as we shouldn’t consider Jesse Owens to be tainted by Hitler’s endorsement, we shouldn’t consider anti-Nazi movements to be tainted by Israel’s endorsement.

That’s all we seem to disagree on.

Yes, we should be skeptical of Israel positioning WW2 heroes as champions of Israel’s interpretation of Zionism.

Also for clarification: I’m opposed to Israel’s apparent genocide of the Palestinians. I think Israel’s crimes are more similar to the Americo-Canadian genocide of North America’s first nations than with the Nazi genocide of European Jews and other marginalized minorities. Ie Israel isn’t doing “murder factory” genocide, it’s doing “encroachment and suppression” genocide (and starvation, and persecution). Also similar to what Russia is doing to Ukraine.

Look mate I agree that Israel is probably committing genocide against the Palestinians. But that doesn’t mean that everyone that Israel has ever liked is tainted, that’s idiotic.