Comment Good. (Score 0) 82
I like healthy competition and I don't want Intel to die off but they have been anti-competitive assholes from day one, so fuck them and fuck the people that invest in them.
I like healthy competition and I don't want Intel to die off but they have been anti-competitive assholes from day one, so fuck them and fuck the people that invest in them.
It's literally arbitrary. Unless you're going to claim race or gender is the driving factor in determining whether an individual is capable of performing a role (which I believe is the definition of racism/sexism).
It's socioeconomics. Do you not understand that the poor communities are deprived of educations on par with their rich counterparts?
The deadliest shootings are done using semi-automatic rifles.
Nope, You are now regurgitating the false manufactured perception of the anti-gun side. Semi-automatic rifles are not the deadliest weapons available.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Mass shootings with the highest number of fatalities (ergo deadliest) are most likely to be perpetrated with a semi-automatic rifle. This is not a "manufactured perception" this is a fact. Handguns are the most common weapon of mass shooters but typically result in fewer fatalities.
Volumes of analysis on various quota based systems that were tried during the 1960s/70s.
Unfortunately, you have proved yourself to be an unreliable source of information so I can't take your word for it. Furthermore, the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim.
No. They don't want to throw good money after bad. [...] K-12 needs a structural reform, not more money.
Studies have shown that better funded schools result in better student outcomes. Eric Hanushek spent his career arguing that spending more money on schools probably won’t make them better but alas his own study concludes that's not the case. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hes...
We spend far more per student than other developed nations with better educational systems.
If you want to compare to other nations then you have to take into account the other services that are provided by the state. Failing to do this will not result in sound conclusion.
Too much of our money does NOT make it to the classroom or student. It disappears into administration and pet projects.
Do you have any statistics to back up that assertion? Sounds rather anecdotal.
I can't help but think that you are the very thing you fear: a consumer of a manufactured perspectives. I say this because you have only provided stream of misinformation, baseless assertions, and specious arguments. I ask that you investigate your opinions and back them up with data because thus far I have not seen a single claim of yours to be reflected in reality. Come back when you can support your assertions with data.
It's almost as if issues have nuance and not everything is black and white...
This is precisely why making it a criminal offense is so problematic.
For me, this is the exact problem. Neither side wants to discuss nuance or compromise...it's all or nothing.
Here's what you're failing to understand: before this law, you needed a doctor to approve dispensing the medication or approve the surgery. This is where all the nuance is, with the doctors who are experts on the subject matter.
There's no nuance in fossil fuel discussion...they just want everything banned.
WTF are you talking about?! What they keep pushing for is limits on emissions. This is a market force, not a ban. All polluting emissions should have a diminutive tax that compounds annually which is a free market approach toward eliminating emissions. The only bans I've read about are those on the use of PFAS which are a legitimate issue much like DDT was.
For instance, policy that would responsibly build the aforementioned new natural gas infrastructure but ensure it doesn't horrendously leak like the existing pipelines would never be allowed to exist by green lobbyists, despite being a fantastic idea. Because they believe that backing fossil fuels in literally any fashion is a bad idea.
The problem with building additional natural gas infrastructure is that it creates an entrenched market, removes the impetus to eliminate pollution, and thus prevents the adoption of non-polluting energy sources. Polluting less is a good thing but not if you are passing up the option to not pollute at all.
This implies that deadly shootings are no longer possible by removing ARs
No, you incorrectly inferred that. I stated clearly that "[t]he lower availability of semi-automatic rifles will statically reduce the number of shootings with semi-automatic rifles." I never stated that it would eliminate all high fatality mass shootings.
And assault rifles aren't even the most common weapon used in mass shootings.
Correct... but they are the weapon of choice in high fatality mass shootings.
This seems like common sense to me.
All specious arguments seem like common sense.
given a random pool of people...when you arbitrarily narrow your pool of candidates
You have made the mistake of believing it's arbitrary. When you factor in socioeconomic status, it could very well be that the best in a group of a substandard education group could become higher performing students than those who did marginally better with a standard or above average education. This is why data is important.
I wholely disagree on this. I find the youthful generations fresh out of school to be near batshit crazy these days. These people are casually trying to bring back communism and literally backing Hamas these days. It is very frightful.
This reads like an anecdotal assessment rather than an objective viewpoint.
If you read your citation you should note that there was no due process for being put or removed from a list prohibiting firearms ownership. A bureaucrat could add your name and there was not a damn thing you could do about it.
Let's call it a difference of opinion but it seem pretty evident that the second amendment is for states to have armed militias, not to give everyone the right to own a gun. This is not a revolutionary opinion, it's an constitutional originalist opinion. The import bit is that they are explicitly described as well regulated militias and that doesn't imply due process for gun ownership. As such I don't see that as a conflict.
However, it seems congressional Republican operating under the idea that it is an absolute right because it they oppose any and all restrictions.
let's look at the New York State where woke radicals got to implement their spin on bail reform. We now have violent offenders be released rather than held until trial.
OK, let's look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"cash bail was eliminated for most misdemeanor and non-violent felony charges"
To shore up unforeseen complications, an amendment was passed in 2020 to give judges the ability to require bail in certain circumstances.
This runs counter to your claim of "violent offenders be released" but it's the real world impact that matters. A 2022 study concluded the effect of bail reform on crime rate increases is negligible.
So what's the problem here? Which part is revolutionary?
Today the doomed to fail "solution" is to mandate EV long haul trucks by a certain date. We are called to embrace solution by politicians not scientists, engineers and economists.
Except you're misrepresenting the facts. The emissions rules do not mandate EVs, they set average emissions limits for truck manufacturers. This leaves the solution up to the manufacturers. It doesn't take existing trucks off the road or mean that they have to make EV trucks, only that they can't make new ones that don't meet these specifications. This isn't revolutionary at all but rather a market force which is very much in line with the free market system. It's entirely possible to make machines like this, the issue people are grumbling about is cost. This market force could cause companies to optimize costs by using freight trains and short haul trucks instead of expensive long haul trucks. If you have a problem with this then you issue is with how the free market operates.
You have what you would describe as a "manufactured perspective".
More in the next reply.
Here's the thing, "age appropriate" is completely arbitrary.
Not really. (1) It leaves the determination to child development experts rather than politicians.
That's not how the law works. It would be nice if it did but it does not.
It had such a chilling effect that few dared to broach the issue
Actually some of that is political theatre...
When a teacher could not only be fire but also prosecuted, they are absolutely going to be risk-averse. To say other wise flies in the face of basic logic. Compounding that is the fact that the governor has shown to be completely willing to kill the messenger and retaliate against those expressing opposition to this exact law. Your claim that it's merely political theater is unfounded.
The legislation you now cite is prohibiting elective surgery for those under 18.
No, it's prohibiting elective surgery AND the use of transition related drugs. One of those drugs ("puberty blockers") allows the individual to delay the onset of puberty in order to make an informed decision. It is entirely reversible and yet its use is prohibited by law.
Countries in the EU who have been at this far longer than the US are finding that post transition regret is occurring to often and that our psychological screening has been insufficient.
What is your source for this assertion? The largest study on early transgender identity suggests this is incorrect. At the end of the five year study 94% were living as transgender and almost two-thirds were using either puberty-blocking medication or sex hormones to medically transition.
A metastudy focused on regret after gender-affirmation surgeries found that out of 7928 people that 77 had regrets which is less than 1%.
Yes trans teenagers need highly specialized care but non-reversible procedures seem ill advised at that age.
Puberty blockers which enable that exact thing are prohibited under that law. Even by your own standard it is ill-advised to deny them access because physical maturity is a non-reversible procedure.
We simply don't know enough and the zealots of both sides are just making things more confusing.
We absolutely should learn more BUT instead of leaving it to experts in the field, politicians decided to make a choice for every trans kid. This absolutely will result in harm as transgender people are at higher risk of suicide. It's not just a lifetime thing either as suicidality is extremely higher in transgender adolescents.
I'll address the rest in another post but thus far, your claims about people "manufacturing a perception" on these issues seems to fly in the face of science and basic reasoning. Take a moment to consider that perhaps it is you who has a manufactured perception.
I'm going to refer to Florida since that is the only legislation of this nature that I have actually read. Reading the legislation is key to avoiding manufactured perceptions. Like a good historian you have to go to primary sources and read them yourself. The above quote is a little misrepresentative, it is missing an extremely important context. The legislation in reality says those topics have to be taught in an age appropriate manner.
Here's the thing, "age appropriate" is completely arbitrary. It had such a chilling effect that few dared to broach the issue until a settlement on the matter.
* allowing minors under the care of doctors to receive drugs to transition genders
Again, an important context is missing. With parents knowledge and consent. The Florida law I read required parental notification, AND it defined a process to use if it were reasonably believed that a parent would endanger or harm as child as a result of this notification.
Nope, it's absolute and it's now law. https://www.flsenate.gov/Sessi...
see also: https://www.reuters.com/world/...
* gun control of any kind
Here the truth seems to be that neither side wants this problem solved, both sides want their respective wedge issues. Gun owners are overwhelmingly in favor of various reforms, for example universal background checks.
Incorrect. Very honest very simple measures to ensure background checks are done are shot down regularly despite evidence that it works. Most agree on it but Republican politicians being bought by the NRA stop just about everything.
These bans are typically placebos that will do nothing, like the federal assault weapons ban we once had. Note, the US DOJ said this ban made no difference.
The deadliest shootings are done using semi-automatic rifles. The lower availability of semi-automatic rifles will statically reduce the number of shootings with semi-automatic rifles. It's simple probability.
You will find that "equity" can reduce that quality of individuals in a certain roles.
What evidence is this assertion based on?
Quota system tend to put people in over their heads and increase the likelihood of failure.
What evidence is this assertion based on?
In education that underlying problem is almost always a terrible local K-12 system. This is what needs to be fixed.
Agreed... but it may surprise you that states dominated by Republican representatives don't want to spend money on education much less better education for the poor. Which is bonkers because a better education leads to better pay which feeds back as inter-generational issue. The only explanation is that they are either indifferent to the suffering of poor communities or they want the suffering to continue.
Engineering a quota system for various positions is not a credible alternative.
The important question is if it is helping or hurting historically discriminated against minorities. I do not believe providing a chance that would otherwise be unavailable is doing anything but helping. If you have evidence to the contrary, do not hide it.
Many challenges to "pro-environmental" legislation are economics based. Essentially saying that the cost of some new endeavor is not justified by data, and/or the economic disruption is too great for an unproven solution.
Actually, what's been found is that it become more expensive to fix, the longer we delay reforms. This means the arguments made are merely specious and incorrect.
Today look at the push for the electrification of long haul trucking. The science and engineering is no where near ready yet politicians are talking about legislation setting goals for close timeframes.
That's a strawman argument. This ignores very serious ideas like imposing a diminutive pollution emission tax that would compound annually in order to move businesses toward polluting less.
Today's unions are [...] constantly manufacturing fights over nothing important to justify its existence.
If employees were well paid then nobody would bother with making a union. Alas, new unions are being formed.
* generally anything (like this) that considers changing something out of consideration for others
It's rarely that simple. Often the two opposing parties both have legitimate considerations that must be weighed. We don't do that today.
Oh yes, the "both sides" approach. However, I've only seen a total and complete opposition to "woke" policy/legislation from one party and they are completely unwilling to negotiate. Furthermore, that same party takes a scorched Earth approach, passing legislation that is so absurd that it gets knocked down by their own courts as unconstitutional. Do you remember when Democrats made literally hundreds of amendments to the ACA to make it a bipartisan bill and then Republicans voted against it anyway? I might have agreed with you 30 years ago but Republicans have become the party of "no" and typically debate issues in bad faith.
Do you believe any of these things to be revolutionary?
The radical leadership will unnecessarily intertwine their ideology with proposed solution.
Alas, that doesn't happen in legislation. As a result, your fears about "wokeism" are irrational.
It proposed solutions that are often woke, not the ideas themselves.
Presuming that is true then why doesn't any point out these radical inserts? I've never read anyone oppose something as being "woke" due to a caveat but rather in complete opposition of the idea itself.
I believe the neo-marxist, Neo-maoist, Neo-colonialist, etc ideology introduced to the debate should be called out, and often removed due to its irrelevance.
Why wouldn't the opposition point to these revolutionary idea within policy and legislation? I have yet to hear of anything revolutionary being slipped into "woke" legislation.
Their teachings and proposals should be considered beyond the need of evaluation or test. That perceived virtue, good intentions, are all that is necessary to move forward. And while these revolutionaries and grifters are involved, real progress will be prevented.
Except nobody is pointing to anything revolutionary in their objections to anything "woke". Instead, they oppose the very basis of the proposal. Could it be possible that these nefarious interlopers are in fact not having their revolutionary proposals considered?
I feel cheated by the thousands of dollars I've spent on smart devices
There were warning signs everywhere and you ignored them. You haven't been cheated, you have merely lived in blissful ignorance.
Anyone contemplated the behavior of publicly traded companies understands that they have no interest in supporting devices that don't provide them profit because that costs them money. They will drop support for a product just as soon as the amount of money expended exceeds the backlash/PR fallout that they will suffer. Publicly traded companies exist only to maximize their own profitability.
Fool. The CCP is far worse then Meta which is why TikTok they are being forced to divest or be banned.
I realize now that I made a grave mistake at this point in the conversation. My inquiry lead you to a point where I merely discounted your personal experience which could be entirely valid but instead I dismissed it which was a serious mistake. If you can move beyond my rude behavior, I wish to approach this conversation differently.
Not any longer. It has been coopted by the political radicals/revolutionaries of the 1960s/70s.
No, it's an ideology of revolution.
What "woke" ideas are infringing upon you or there has been recently made legislation to stop?
As far as I can tell, only these empathy based progressive ideas have been labeled as "woke" and fought against:
* teaching children about sexual identity and sexual orientation
* allowing minors under the care of doctors to receive drugs to transition genders
* gun control of any kind
* police reforms of any kind
* equity in education to help people that have been historically discriminated against
* environmental reforms
* forming unions (which is really weird because unions have been around forever)
* generally anything (like this) that considers changing something out of consideration for others
Do you believe any of these things to be revolutionary?
Do you believe these ideas to be "woke"?
Do you believe you must oppose any of these reforms because they are "woke"?
the San Francisco District Attorney that basically refuses to put many criminals on trial
I oppose this form of action. Does this mean I'm not woke?
The BLM webpage literally included various marxist ideological concepts.
I oppose making huge changes to our economy but I support police reforms. Does this mean I'm not woke?
Like antifa, blm, has a superficial pitch that nearly everyone agrees with
And yet police reform has seen stanch opposition by Republican politicians.
In my experience, "woke" has become a scare-word to oppose the empathy based progressive ideas I listed. Here's but a single an example of the absurdity of the attacks: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/why-...
But let's ban tiktok because we can't trust the CCP.
FTFY
As I personally witnessed in the 80s, the revolutionary ideology was continued into the 90s and 00s.
You're deluded.
Not really. Amazon simply hopes to possibly recoup lost funds invested in it's initial development. There are already other libre game engines which doesn't make this one appealing.
The Apache license was specifically chosen so that the source could be altered and have no obligation to share the alterations. It seems more like Amazon is trying to have other people develop their game engine for them and then reap the rewards.
Where are you getting these absurd notions? Conspiracy theorists are not good sources.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
