- hosting child sexual abuse material and taking a year to remove it
- creating a means for sex traffickers to turn their victims into $$$
- providing a means to sell sexual content of others (e.g revenge porn) without consent

I've seen a lot of comments here in discussion to gig work where it's considered exploitive for Uber/Lyft to not provide health coverage and other benefits, minimum pay accounting for externalities like vehicle wear, etc. Does OF provide any of that?

They can certainly be "better" than other porn sites in ways (although the lack of any physically present third party seems like a major exploitation risk, per links above) but that isn't itself some moral achievement. The guy who peddles crack is doing less harm than the guy who peddles heroin but I don't think he's due for any citizenship awards.

And OF is absurdly profitable so if they really wanted to engage in a humanitarian mission to make porn "ethical" they have lots of financial buffer to combat exploitation. It's clearly not their objective.

Allow me to rephrase with exactly the same meaning, "The problem is customers could receive a $2 discount for coming in on the low-demand day." Are you sure that is... bad?

Stuff like this effectively winds up very economically progressive because people for whom that discount matters will go to the extra effort to get it and people with high-incomes won't care and will effectively subsidize the low price. What do you think that $2 coupon from the newspaper is doing? Setting up exactly the same $16.99 vs $14.99 price differential.

Conversely, consider on Saturday the person who absolutely needs the tomatoes to finish a dinner already in progress can pay the high-demand price and the person who was just thinking about things nice to keep stocked in the pantry can wait, vs pricing low so that the item is already out-of-stock from indifferent shoppers when that person who really needs it walks in.

It's easy to sell people a story in which price differentiation is a means of screwing them over but it is just as often to their direct benefit. People implicitly accept the good of this for things they already experience like coupons, but anything new sounds scary.

I assume my phone is less secure than my desktop, because it's less frequently updated and probably a preferential target.

the part where one side admits that Hamas and the Ayotallah are really the bad guys

That phrasing implies that their opponents are the good guys. Real life isn't as simple as fairytales aimed at pre-adolescent children. Hamas and Khamenei have both performed indefensible actions, and so have Netanyahu and Trump.

That's not how he tells it. He says he invented it after independently inventing insertion sort and realising that he wanted something subquadratic. He was "in college" in the sense that he was a postgraduate student. Mergesort had been published more than a decade before, but it had the disadvantage of not being in place.

Selling advertising.

And wildlife isn't having its circadian rhythms sufficiently disrupted by manmade lighting.

Bigger by what metric? Europe has more population and more land area than the USA.

Here is the actual story, transcription repeated from here:

So, no, contrary to your unsourced claim, it was based on (a) a specific incident (b) material concern about the implications of the specific incident (c) escalation through the chain of involved parties (d) without apparent direction by the "convicted felon president and war criminal in chief".

Also pretty clear from the anecdote how it is that DoD has sincere concerns with actual grounding. Debate over the legitimacy of those concerns, the ethicality of what they want the software to do, etc. would all be reasonable to discuss. But it really does help if you want to argue against something to start by properly understanding what you are debating.

They didn't exactly whittle down their options before settling on sending missiles and drones at the civilian populations in neutral neighbors. It was among the first things they started doing.

In fact, during the 12-Day War Israel took out their missile command so thoroughly that for a long time there was no one to launch missiles in retaliation. Iran learned from that and had given the IRGC members pre-determined launch orders so they could at independently. That means shooting missiles at everyone in the vicinity was their plan even before any operations started.

I think people struggle to grasp that when it's called a "terrorist regime" it's not name-calling, it's actually how Iran's insane theocratic leadership thinks. They kill their own people by the tens of thousands and don't bat an eye. They would legitimately struggle to answer why killing a few civilians next door for leverage should be considered an immoral act.

I regularly have problems with .pptx but it's because it doesn't embed the fonts so layout frequently breaks when you move between computers.

Can't believe "it's the Jews!" gets +5 here. Same any century I guess.

Iran and it's proxies have killed hundreds of not thousands of Americans over the years. In US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds were killed by Iran backed militias which were supplied with Iranian weapons. Retaliation for that was the justification for the US strike to kill Iran's extraterritory general Soleimani who was still operating in Iraq in 2020. Iran has frequently harassed ships and threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz through which ~20% of global oil passes. Just recently the Iranian assassins who tried to kill an American in New York (Masih Alinejad) were sentenced. Two years ago they tried to assassinate the same American who has now ordered the strikes against them. The Iranian response to that stine has been to fire missiles into all neighboring countries including their specific *allies* like Qatar, hitting a number of civilian targets including multiple hotels, commercial buildings and airports, in hopes of blackmailing those countries into pushing for a ceasefire. Would the US be likely to let a country that does that get enough missiles to have effectively nuclear-level blackmail and be untouchable? Right now they have ~2000 missiles but they were producing 80 per day with a goal of at least 8000. To say nothing of actual nuclear deterrence; Iran openly admits they have enough 60% enriched uranium to make ~11 bombs and throughout the negotiations has refused any possibility of sending it abroad.

The US obviously has a lot of interest here. It doesn't always have to be Jewish masterminds behind everything to where you say "that's all you need to know" and don't even bother to think that in complex geopolitical questions, countries strategic decisions might be based on a range of inputs. Maybe those inputs are even wrong. But the us notoriously considers its own interests and not really those of other countries when it makes strategic decisions, especially DT.