Right. Now go back to live in a cave.
gian
joined 2 years ago
I don't think that the US currently can go back to the times when Kennedy announced that in 10 years they will put a man on the moon, by a long shot.
To have someone in power that give a shit about science, you need a revolution to wipe out the current political class and radically change the mentality of the population.
Who doesn’t hate Musk these days?
Probably the ones that don't always speak about him
He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.
No, he pissed off everyone that think that the world is black and white: the US. The rest of the world is indifferent about him
I would suggest that maybe you should leave SpaceX alone, if you want to still have a space program.
Maybe think about to nationalize healthcare insurance, it seems to be something more usefull
Yes, but don"t say it to Musk's haters...
Yet some people are able to not buy shit just because they see it on a site, so maybe not everyone is like you say
It would be nice but I think it is not really possible. Too many difference in the laws I suppose.
A contact lens would gain a lot of situational awareness and mobility.
Seeing what happen to my wife eyes (that use contact lens) when even the smallest dirt gets in her eyes, I would say that in a open combat zone the googles seems to be way more effective.
Maybe the best compromise would something like a simple sunglasses, the same as the glasses that filter the blue light.
They were on IRC before and on a number of other chats systems before that.
They will move as soon as something better will come out, for various definitions of better
You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying.
I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself.
I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help.
So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that.
As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it.
No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference.
But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law.
True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult.
I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day).
You then charge the guilty parents after the offense.
Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ?
Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
Da ruski, good job pointing out the actual issue and then moving past it like it doesn’t destroy your argument. To your billionaire owners: we will thresh them just like the tsar and his family.
Genius, the problem is not that they are billionaire but that they can legally avoid to pay the taxes. I don't care how much money you do as long as you pay the taxes. Same for them.
And you already can begin to trash them: stop using their products/services.
The freedom from oppression exceeds anyone’s freedom to amass wealth.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
They will pay for their success either by death or taxes and I really dont care which one
Ok, got it. Envy is bad.
The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president can seize it".
Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose