People who make this argument miss the point. The massive costs are largely the result of NIMBYs and all the red tape and bureaucracy that forces constant changes and jumping through hoops to continue to comply and go online.

The irony is we operate old, less-safe nukes because it's easier in a regulatory fashion to keep them running, even though newer, modern designs would be safer and better for everyone because the plants can't be built.

So shut up about "long term" effects. There are none. Zero. Ever. For any vaccine ever created in the history of mankind.

It's ignorant and absolute statements like these that make people struggle to believe the assorted narratives we're constantly being asked to swallow. Zero ill effects or long term effects for any vaccine ever? That's a pretty big reach. Use terms like rare rather than never. Because if you study the history of vaccine/drug development, plenty of the drug companies' products have caused harm, especially early rounds of them. It's a matter of weighing the potential harms between the "cure" and the disease.

If he's got qualified immunity and a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence then he should be recorded any time he interacts with a non-cop while on duty. Janitors can't whip out a weapon and shoot you if they feel like it for any reason at all

FTFY

Also I wrote a song called Caves of Steel.

https://soundcloud.com/pudgene...

Hey! I was thinking about you but had no way to get in touch. Ping me somehow!

Sorry I’ll do better next time my bad

I don’t know if she did, and don’t care. She was great and we were sad to see her go.

I left because the company was bought, and the new owners laid off some of its more expensive long-tenured employees, since they were putting the site effectively into maintenance mode, trying to sell if off. They just wanted to keep ThinkGeek and didn’t care to improve the other properties. I was forced out, but I was there a long time, and it was good for me to move on when I did.

So you did not read the story. OK.

So the text contradicts the headline: it is not about climate change, but about criticizing the company in public.

This is a fake news headline. Please fix it.

(I worked with Maren briefly. She was great to work with. I also worked at Slashdot for many years, and this headline is trash.)

Fortunately most shareholders understand that running a business requires rather more than immediate profit maximisation.

I don't know what public corporate structure you're familiar with, but MBAs here in the US are taught it's morally imperative to do whatever it takes to increase share value. Shareholders understand "My stock value goes up" and "My stock value goes down." Most of them have zero interest in the company's long-term success as an investment because the stock market does not reward that sort of thinking.

A true believer in ... what?

No, it is not related to capitalism. Many Marxists share the view I am espousing, in fact.

I think it is fine to ban extremely graphic content, including sex and violence, as you described.

I think it is not fine to ban ideas.

So yes, allow cult recruiting, mentally ill people posting, anorexia promotion. All of that. Yes. Absolutely.

There is a potential difference between not-promotion, and censoring. There is definitely an expressed desire among some to censor, ban, block objectionable content like videos promoting pizzagate and other nonsense. I think that is insane.

But refusing to promote some content, that is a potentially different story, depending on how it is done.