A) turning everything into a police action,
  and thus needing to deploy massive surveillance infrastructure across the planet to police everything,
  and then finally outsourcing policing to businesses,
  to protect the perpetual revenue stream for contractors.

B) build a pedestrian bridge/tunnel at a dangerous intersection. Protect human beings.

Guess which one government officials love most?

Ragebait isn't about seeing what the other side says.

It's about seeing an inflammatory caricature of the other side.

For example, a Liberal isn't going to see some Conservative discussing some of the hard tradeoffs we'll need to pay down the debt. They'll see a Conservative proposing that Trump be given a 3rd term and trans kids get rounded up and forced into conversion therapy or some crap like that.

Meanwhile, Conservatives won't see some Liberal discussing the economics of Universal Healthcare. They'll see someone proposing that the police be defunded and all drugs are legalized.

Ragebait creates echo chambers because it gives the false impression that everyone on the other side is insane.

It's a fun conspiracy theory, but this is actually just how biology works.

There's basically four kinds of things that can go wrong with our bodies. Infections, mechanical issues, system errors, and cancer.

Infections we can cure by helping the body to kill off the infection, it's only some rare stubborn ones like AIDS that are chronic like you describe.

Mechanical issues we can fix with surgery.

System errors? That's stuff like genetic disorders where our body creates too much of hormone A or doesn't create the proper form of protein B. The problem is in our DNA and you can't cure it without rewriting our DNA (which we're getting to).

And then there's cancers, which are similar to infections, where we try to kill it (as they're doing here), though weirdly, some research suggests treating it as a chronic issue might be better for the patients.

In either case, it's not the fact that pharma is deciding "don't make a pill to cure it, just find a lifetime treatment!". It's only in the past few years that we're reaching the point where we can actually cure things that were traditionally chronic.

Is there any legal principle that prevents Comcast from using this to determine the number and size of pets you have, and then selling that data to, say, apartment management companies, HOAs, and municipal code-compliance departments that have restrictions/fines on number/size of pets?

"Find out how we help our partners in large urban markets increase their citation revenues by 19.7%!"
And then Comcast gets 3% of the deposit/fee/citation as profit-sharing, exactly like the red-light camera companies.

Your beliefs are not relevant to this subthread, where the original statement was "this [case] shows... Thomas was deep in the hands of telecoms".
You don't have to read everything he writes to make a comment on this case, but you do have to read he writes about this case in order to make a comment on this case. Or at least, to make a comment that is useful/relevant.

You don't think Google's B2B divisions are interested in selling AI-powered BookingasaService, GateCapacityManagementasaService, MaintenanceSchedulingasaService, FlightCrewPayMinimizationasaService, etc. to other transportation companies?

For example, on August 18th there's an email/message from AnonymisedSpiritEmployee_0175034 saying, "Thanks for the cupcakes today and to everyone who contributed to my birthday gift card to Benihana! My husband and I eat there every month for date night. Yummy!"

From one message you have birthdate, probable gender, marital status, and spending activity which can be trivially cross-referenced against existing data collation from all kinds of other sources. Sources that Google also owns.

That is not, in fact, their entire complaint. It isn't even part of their complaint, because there was in fact no "case" to lose. (Which is, as it happens, their actual complaint.)

Reading the actual Supreme Court ruling is the first, necessary step toward understanding the Supreme Court ruling.

After you read the entire ruling - including the full text of his dissent - which parts of his reasoning do you believe to be insincere, or which prior precedents do you believe he applied inaccurately?

How 'bout if I buy now and pay after I die?

"The void" is what we used to call actual community.
Before social media, we had social humans.

Now all we're left with is media - a commercial property.
This is exactly how every invasive species works.
Infiltrate and supplant.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Etc.

And Threads now appears to have roughly 66% more monthly active users than X.

I've heard almost nothing about Threads recently. Certainly no indication they were more popular than Twitter.

Is their user count some sort of trick with how they interface with Instagram? Or is Twitter just turning into a ghost town without people realizing it?

sounds like the plots of a cheap SF movie.

They shouldn't be trying such a desperate solution without trying chlorox and ivermectin first.