ForTheKidz

20 ms·

271.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> A "gene" is a particular part of a "genome" (DNA base-pair sequence) See, this is a non-starter. Sure it's coherent, but you've simply failed on step one to identify how humans communicate. Regardless of i
272.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
Convictions seem like a distraction from the narrative here: Menendez fucked over his constituents. Obviously every politician that does so should be equally castigated. The court is irrelevant in this context and should be considered a tra
273.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
"Typically" being the key word here. Morons exist in every economic class. See: Eric Adams. Anyway, Menendez has gotten off extremely lightly and everyone can see this.
274.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
Portugal seems to legally distinguish between distributors and consumers just fine. Perhaps there's some weight to the idea that demonization of distributors harms consumers—but this doesn't seem to be an ideological barrier betwe
275.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
So, you're referring to encoding via DNA? Why not just say that explicitly rather than refer to some occluded understanding of the word "gene"? This also seems to be a semantic distinction largely irrelevant to understanding
276.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> But they don't change human genes, at most they change gene expression. It's not clear in this case what the difference is between gene, gene expression, and gene encoding. What does gene mean if it does not imply either enco
277.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
Hell, that's just lobbying. Happens across virtually every sector of industry. Business as normal in America. What we're seeing now is something new and different: destruction of government as entertainment.
278.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
Why does that matter in this case?
279.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> Meme coins typically are purchased for entertainment, social interaction, and cultural purposes, and their value is driven primarily by market demand and speculation. In this regard, meme coins are akin to collectibles. This reads to m
280.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> Without an independent business model they have been in a really terrible position from the get-go. That's one way to look at it, I guess. You could also look at it like a business model will inevitably enshittify.
281.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
It's just not stable at all. It seems to work fine when it can work stably.
282.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
> I think you'll find the data supports chidren benefiting from a happy loving home. Not from the concern of the parents relationships with others. I don't know how you'd exclude the influence of parents relationships from
283.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
I'm all down to write off contract law as "puritanism" but the rot is far deeper than an aesthetic (and frankly I'm unclear how puritanism applies to this situation at all). EDIT: I'm not sure why porn is particular
284.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
TOS has always been a mark of arbitrary service and ownership of all products. None of this is new or surprising.
285.
by ForTheKidz 2y ago
I have no doubt this is a widespread behavior, but I do have doubts as to whether or not this benefits children. Children seem to benefit primarily from watching relationships that genuinely make both parents happy. There's very little