carbadtraingood

5 ms·

1.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
First side (actually): "The term 'biological female' reflects a high school level understanding of DNA and genetics. Unfortunately, real genetics is much more complex, and many women who were born and lived their entire lives
2.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
> attempting to be neutral is the same as joining the Philistines. This is a super common attitude across all areas of politics, that somehow being neutral is admirable or positive. That it implies an absence of partisanism, and is there
3.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
HN was never anything different than Reddit. The illusion that it is comes from people leaving Reddit looking for another online community that lines up with their interests, landing here, and saying, "ah, this place is my refuge from
4.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
One side: "We should acknowledge trans people and let them live their lives" Other side: "We should arrest or do violence to trans people, because they are abominations, groomers, and freaks" You: "You both make goo
5.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
HN has always been a libertarian hell site with pockets of interesting people. The comments section has always had bad takes and good takes, it's always had jokes and memes. It hasn't really changed over the past 5 years much, in
6.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
He's responsible for a gross oversight in safety that led to an injured child. There were obvious and simple safety precautions that were missed. This wasn't just, "whoops", this was fairly gross negligence.
7.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Oh, that settles it. Robot cannot do things that are outside of the rules of chess. Kid should have known better than to open with the classic, "break my finger" opening from the regulation standard rules. Industrial robotics are
8.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Yes, I'm going to make the outrageous claim here: children should not be expected to work next to industrial machinery with inadequate safeguards. I know this is controversial to some, such as userbinator, who believe that industrial r
9.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
I disagree, if they are running the event, they are responsible for ensuring the safety of participants. You go skydiving and the chute fails in a totally predictable way, the company who takes you up shouldn't just shrug and say, &quo
10.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Is it? Is the culture of Paris fairly homogenous? New York? London? Berlin? I would imagine the place has some shared cultural understandings, generally, but that a big city is going to be much more heterogenous. But maybe I'm thinking
11.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Dude, children get antsy sometimes. They literally have different brain development than adults do. They do not have the same controls and inhibitions. Children are literally wired for physical experimentation and echopraxia. Kids also want
12.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
To be clear, any answer short of, "this was a failure on our part to protect the children who attended, and as the leader of the organization, responsibility falls on me. We will make this right for the family and I will tender my resi
13.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Because the thesis is that automoderation is a problem. The entire point of the article is using Twitter as an example of a problem, not the root problem itself.
14.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Good.
15.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
The answer from the federation is unconscionable. They blamed the boy and then said they could not be held responsible. Fuck off, a kid made a reasonable kid movement. If the robot wasn't ready to be around children, it shouldn't
16.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Is it? Are you planning on running your own Daily Stormer or 8chan? It's not a slippery slope, it's not harder to run your own website. Don't extrapolate from a few extremist cases.
17.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
What? Even with the best moderation, humans will periodically brigade a site with awful content because they think it's funny to do so.
18.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
The article isn't about being banned on Twitter. It's about automated moderation (a side effect of which is, yes, a Twitter ban.)
19.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Thailand has laws about how one can talk about the king, right? Maybe there's no safe harbor provisions for websites, and a site this size is too small to fight, but big enough to attract attention?
20.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Ok, so you are saying current and increasing beef consumption rates are fine? I'm saying we should price the externalities into the cost of beef. What other solution is there?
21.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
No. We were nature, but we're progressing faster than natural processes can adapt.
22.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
What? I'm not sure what you are saying... We don't need to eat beef, both here and in Brazil. We choose to, in both places. We, locally, need to regulate harder and push harder globally to protect things.
23.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
"Need". We don't need to do those things. We choose to do those things.
24.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
We disagree, fundamentally. Amicably, I'm going to suggest these threads have run their course. Handshake and agree to disagree?
25.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Note I specifically said "at our hands" to suggest exactly this. Nature gonna nature, agreed. What we're doing is different.
26.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
The way we treat the destruction of species and habitat at our hands as a necessary side effect of progress is alarming. Removing a species from the planet is like removing a screw from an airplane in flight - you can probably remove a lot
27.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
> No, it isn't. If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s, I don't know that we're going to agree on much. On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be de
28.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
1992 amendment was proposed in the 1700s, you have to go back more than 50 years to get to the next amendment. > Do you have some list of developed nations rate of constitution updates? Yes. https://comparativeconstitutionspro
29.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
The amendment that was ratified in 1992 was proposed in the 1700s. The amendment prior to that was from 1971, over fifty years ago. We're rapidly approaching the point where we can say the constitution hasn't been updated with new
30.
by carbadtraingood 4y ago
Most modern, developed nations regularly update their constitutions. The US is somewhat anomalous in holding on to an ancient document and considering it sacred.

More ›