Don't read "sources." Read (or listen to) Adam's own words. Most of the responses to this story are reflexive, uninformed takes. Dude liked to explore ideas publicly on his YouTube channel, he often used irony and hyperbole to illustrate his thoughts. And he was a clever man, many of his positions were thought provoking if not politically correct. Also, don't listen to me, I'm just a heretic entertaining the wrongthink.

There are no proven treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer. The 1 year survival rate is less than 20 percent.

Feige "doesn't buy" that "superhero fatigue" is "real." However he does admit that 102 hours of Marvel content in six years was "too much" and that "the expansion[of Marvel content]...is certainly what devalued" the content. So which is it? Methinks he fears the "superhero fatigue" meme has become too sticky for his liking (and also for his checkbook,) so he's gonna handwave it away anyway even though he can't escape from the facts.

It might actually be fair to view and regulate the social networks exactly like public telecom utilities:

  - they are primarily for communication
  - they benefit (and suffer) from network externalities, which means the space will inevitably be dominated by large players
  - refusal of service has increasing potential for negative impact on users as the networks become more integral to commerce, employment, and other aspects of day-to-day life

I'm not sure exactly what the rules should be, but there must be something more just and reasonable than "Zuck's way or the highway."

And here's an even larger question about the new political dynamics: have regular people not been relegated to second-class citizenship behind first-class corporate "persons" that the Bill of Rights was never intended to protect?

You must be 20 years younger than me, video games have been stagnant since at least 1972. Think about it: Tetris was Pong with a Russian soundtrack. Super Mario Bros. was kinda only Pong with platforming. And Doom was just Pong but with guns and demons. Hell, even Minecraft is Pong with some insignificant open-ended lego aesthetics and a crafting system. Nothing anywhat innovative anywhere.

no. always be skeptical

"thereâ(TM)s no reason to be walking around with a mask" - Dr. Anthony Fauci

To be fair, though, his argument still makes sense if you replace "IQ" with "capability" or "potential:" low potential students have different academic needs than high potential students. Ignore this, and both groups suffer a less effective education. To the extent that we can measure how well prospective students are suited to a competitive academic environment, it makes sense to do so.

I prefer to be only moderately triggered while accumulating frags. Keeps me fired up, but not so much that I sacrifice good tactical decision making in a rage-induced tilt.

Stallman never defended child sex trafficking, prostitution, or paedophilia. His crime is defending his (dead and therefore unable to defend himself) friend, Marvin Minsky, who *allegedly may have* had had sex with an 18-year-old Virginia Giuffre in 2002. So far there has been no direct evidence presented that Minsky did in fact sleep with the girl.

Minsky is known to have visited Epstein's island in 2002, when Epstein sponsored Minsky to host a symposium. At the time nothing was publicly known about Epstein being a criminal pedo scumbag.

Minsky's wife and others deny any sex occurred. In her deposition Giuffre said she was "told" to have sex with Minsky. She did not know where or when the sex occurred; she never stated that it happened.

Stallman had the audacity to suggest that Minsky should not be accused of "sexual assault" because the most plausible scenario was that *if* Giuffre approached Minsky for sex, she would have presented herself to him as willing. That is, Minsky would not have done any coercing, but it would have been Epstein/Maxwell who had done the coercing.

The media ran with this and published a flurry of ragebait hit pieces (metoo era BS) against Stallman, spreading a warped image of the man and creating an unduly hostile public backlash against him, the repercussions of which we are seeing again now.

I take your point that my description of Sonos as just flatly "shitty" could be seen as gratuitous, but...

Even if HD audio were a real sonic benefit over 44.1/16 (which we agree is not clear,) a Sonos loudspeaker system would a poor medium for conveying that benefit to your ear. It would be like viewing an 8k video source through an NTSC standard CRT TV.

Undeniably they are shitty for this purpose. The article is literally headlined "Sonos Targets Audiophiles..." so that's the frame we are discussing this within. If you want audio quality, you don't choose Sonos.

If you want plug and play speakers with little hassle and don't care so much about sound quality? Sure, go for the Sonos, that's where they excel.

Just don't fall for their marketing hype about HD sound quality, it is disingenuous puffery of the highest order. Shitty, indeed.

Don't worry, Sonos speakers are so shitty no audiophile will be able to appreciate the supposed HD audio carried on those extra bits.

Besides that, it is not at all clear that 24-bit audio produces an actual, real-world, listenable difference even on audiophile-tier (aka not Sonos lol) equipment at this point. Misinformation and dishonest marketing on the subject are everywhere, and it has received a decidedly cold reception that audiophiles generally have still not warmed up to even though it has been available to consumers for more than twenty years.

tl;dr: dont buy the hype. this article is astroturf. HD audio to date has been an expensive and spectacular failure

tu quoque: accusing another of authoritarian hypocrisy does not invalidate your own authoritarian acts

it might make you feel better about the commission of those acts, however. might even help you to convince yourself that they are justified

get educated. you are on the internet. there is no excuse for being this uninformed

Ad Hominem

Ebay Marketplace is not a retailer. It is a platform that facilitates trade between private individuals; a piece of commercial infrastructure.

Given the multitude of items that individuals regularly trade on Ebay's platform, given that many of these items are potentially offensive to certain people, and given that Ebay generally allows all of these items to be exchanged without intervention, the present circumstance does raise questions about Ebay's decision to interfere with the private exchange of Dr. Seuss literature on their platform.

As one of the worlds largest online marketplaces, Ebay is indeed in a position to suppress free exchange between individuals on its platform. Luckily, Ebay is not the only marketplace on the internet and individuals who find themselves so suppressed can simply trade elsewhere.

However, Ebay marketplace is sufficiently large and ubiquitous, it's recent Seuss ban so bizarre, and the ban occurred in such a tight concert with the recent media reports and calls to condemn the "problematic" Seuss material that it is not surprising that some people find the ban to be concerning.

Is it within Ebay's rights? It would seem so. Will it be good for their business? Maybe. Does it make everyone feel good inside when an important trade platform bends to calls for censorship? Perhaps not.

What will the censors call to ban next time? Will Ebay oblige? Will others? Is this a slippery slope?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask in light of all of this. And while I don't personally find this story as dire as some are decrying it for, I must admit I am troubled at the morally-righteous trumpeteers who are celebrating the censorship.