professionalspooner @ professionalspooner @feddit.org

Posts

2

Comments

5

Joined

5 days ago

Yes. By default we don't want any government intervention. But the "government overreach" needs to be addressed on the specific cases where it happens.

I don't believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.

While this statement is true sometimes, it is also again an oversimplification. I don't think even you believe this. If a website contains illegal content, would you really prefer for the government to not intervene?

Classic examples would be the sale of hard drugs and child pictures.

We all agree more than we disagree. But communication is hard and most subjects, especially the hard ones, are not black and white.

I believe that you believe that

Fahrzeug angetrieben von Currywurst

I can imagine the prompt to generate this:

1. Make a list of EU regulations that apply to tech giants and explain what they are.
2. For each of the regulations add one example that oversimplifies the potential downsides
3. Ommit any advantages

A troll trolling.

I found this in the newsletter from Our World in Data and thought it was interesting to share here.

The researchers are from the University of San Diego. I shared the link above to the authors’ website because the university website is not opening for me.

The final version should be here, according to the newsletter and Google: https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~pniehaus/papers/how_poverty_fell.pdf