jjjalljs @ jjjalljs @ttrpg.network Posts 3Comments 2,953Joined 2 yr. ago
One of the things that bugs me is this idea of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" has like metastasized into "no one is ever wrong about anything", and "don't ever make anyone feel bad about their 'opinions'".
Some ideas are wrong. If you're a anti-vaxxer or flat-earther you have bad ideas and we shouldn't be like well I guess that's just fine. Let the kids die and another pandemic roll in
I don't really want the state to be rolling around gagging anti-vaxxers willy-nilly because that can be a slippery slope, but there's nothing stopping a private person from telling their peer they're a fucking idiot. Peer pressure changes minds more than facts. And YouTube, a private org, could just.... not host anti-vax content.
I was going to say the same thing but with a lot more words.
The oatmeal did a comic that's sort of on this topic that I think about a lot now: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I think this is why our future is looking grim. We'll never have a star trek utopia until this behavior, which is pretty fundamentally baked into our biology, is addressed somehow.
You're an idiot that's not engaging with my points. I hope you die alone, removed from everything you've ever loved.
I'm not going to do legal research or write a whole thesis for you.
Maybe start here for cases where freedom of speech is not absolute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
You can also consider that the NYT is not legally or morally obligated to publish every letter they receive. Are your first amendment rights being violated when they opt not to print your letter? No.
I don't want to discuss with you. I don't think you're acting in good faith.
I mean really "sometimes laws are incorrect" -> "fascists say that" is like satire.
That seems fine to me.
There are numerous cases showing that free speech is not absolute.
Law is also not necessarily correct.
And that doesn't address that we're talking about a private platform.
You're still wrong, and you're still wrong in a way that supports the absolute worst of humanity.
Paradox of tolerance comes to mind. If you just put up with people who want to do bad things, they'll probably do bad things!
And it was considered before. There was a Holocaust. It was decided, via violence and other means, that naziism is not okay.
Also, Twitter is a private platform and is largely free to decide what goes on its platform.
You're approaching fractally wrong, here.
There will be a lot of pearl clutching. Some people will literally walk themselves into the gas chamber while saying "we have to be tolerant" and "well they won the election"
But also organizing is hard.
Better question: what are people going to do in response?
Probably nothing. Disappointing.
I'm not a young man so I can't really talk about the youths, but from what I've heard and seen a lot of people are just bad at dating. Garbage profiles, poor message writing, poor in-person behavior.
I don't really like this article's "both sides are equally bad" subtext. Well, text. It's kind of just there in the text.
It was kind of wild going from D&D to games that don't have tons of HP.
Players make different choices when they have a maximum of 7 health, and a random mook with a baseball bat hits for minimum 2, maximum "well if the dice keep exploding..."
Among other problems, people knowingly spread falsehoods because they feel truthy.
The problem is people. We're all emotional but some people are just full on fact free gut feel almost all of the time.
Maybe if the New York Times wasn't such a blandly conservative institution things would be mildly better.
Match should be broken up. But apparently some people learned nothing from history and some people don't care as long as they make money
Wait what does high card have going for it?
When I won it was with flushes, I think. And that joker that was like "you win if you have 25% of the chips you need"
Many things. I mean, you could hack a lot of stuff into Excel but generally
SQL has foreign keys and integrity checks. You can make it so like if you delete a user it automatically cascades to delete other rows like their addresses.
You can prevent someone from entering the wrong type of data in particular columns. This one's an integer and that one's text.
It's designed to work on larger scales. Excel stops at 1 million rows per spreadsheet, unless my search just gave me AI slop.
You can do queries, for selecting as well as updating and deleting. You can join tables.
It's much easier for other applications (such as a website) to talk to a SQL database
You can do transactions.
There's a lot. That's just off the top of my head.
Ehh. They haven't really abused their position. They're popular.
It would be something else if they were buying up competitors like Facebook and Google do. Part of how they maintain their dominance is buying out anyone that competes. Notice how Google kind of sucks nowadays? They're not really competing on merit anymore.
But at the same time, steam could turn around tomorrow and be like "mandatory $39.99/mo subscription fee" and it would have an outsized impact on the sector.
Some bootlicker mod removed my comment :(