jrflowers

32 ms·

1. 751.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   >Are you sure you want to do that? They didn’t compare the reactions to the death of someone who led one of the world’s largest terrorist organizations for decades with that of someone mainly known for being good at debates. They compare
2. 752.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   > I think you're basically ignoring my point You didn’t clarify that by “everything that’s happening” as the preface to your suggestion that gun control is pointless you specifically meant “political assassination and no other gun d
3. 753.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   >You're a clear example of what Charlie was not. This is absolutely correct. You just linked to a YouTube channel. Which totally-not-performance legitimate debate do you recommend? ”Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennes
4. 754.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   This is kind of what I meant about making things up about victims. Calling Charlie Kirk “respectful” is objectively ahistorical. I understand the impulse to be polite about the deceased, but the guy (for just one example) -in the middle of
5. 755.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   Good faith debate involves being careful with facts and —very importantly — not lying. The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of hi
6. 756.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   > I just don't understand this mentality. It is bad faith reasoning. If you imagine a person that does not want women to participate in the workforce but wants to express that in a way that doesn’t sound repugnant, it is pretty easy
7. 757.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   This makes sense. If something objectively good happens, it is not actually that good if a completely different good thing did not happen.
8. 758.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   Oh I know that you’re correct, your phrasing was just hilarious. Under the caveats of a competent physician and a completely med-compliant patient, opiates are perfectly safe. Those are enormous caveats though, given the history and prevale
9. 759.▲
   by jrflowers 1y ago

   > The only side-effect is euphoria. Please do not mention respiratory depression here, that is a non-issue I like this point because it is complete gibberish. If you simply do not mention the side effect that makes a drug lethal, it soun
10. 760.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    When I saw that domain my first thought was it looks like they came up with the name by combining “diabetes” with “browser”
11. 761.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    I like this post because it didn’t answer the question. Like “can you show me where in the text it says that?” “No but I’m real flustered that you asked. Furthermore, I just want to say: nazis”
12. 762.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    > (see Twitter Files) Can you clarify where in the Twitter Files it says that things were run by “legal and moral busybodies”? From what I recall the “Twitter Files” were just big dumps of innocuous records that rarely (if ever) conta
13. 763.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    > y'all realize they're bragging about this right? Yeah this is just the quarterly “our product is so good and strong it’s ~spOoOoOky~, but don’t worry we fixed it so if you try to verify how good and strong it is it’ll just br
14. 764.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    You sound pretty confident that this now-deleted YouTube channel was not using content in a way that would qualify as fair use. Can you clarify why from what you watched? I can only go off the description of the content from the article and
15. 765.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Fair use depends on context and purpose, though. >“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors
16. 766.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    >You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving" Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thi
17. 767.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Oh wow. That seems like an oversight. Somebody with $400 to burn could either support or refute my point on this matter
18. 768.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    > Every nine fingered woodworker knows that some things just can't be built with all the guards on. I love this sentence because it is complete gibberish. I like the idea that it’s a regular thing for woodworkers to intentionally sa
19. 769.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Those tlds still exist. The existence of butts.adult doesn’t create confusion about oxfam.org
20. 770.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Yes. In this thread about the profitability (or lack thereof) of OpenAI’s business model, I pointed out the part where you appeared to agree with Ed Zitron about the profitability (or lack thereof) of OpenAI’s business model. Like it seems
21. 771.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Ed Zitron: I don’t think OpenAI will become profitable The link you posted: I think it is very plausible that it will be hard for OpenAI to become profitable
22. 772.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Nobody asked you about what’s a big deal or not. You answered a question that nobody asked you. I asked you how do you know that humanity has never stored anything for 20,000 years. You would need a list of every thing that was ever bu
23. 773.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrocnide_moroides
24. 774.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    I like this post because the implication is that there’s a law called Section 230 that means everything is legal online. Like “that would be totally illegal but it happened on the information superhighway, section 230 baybee!!”
25. 775.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    So what you’re saying is that there is more than enough nuclear fuel to power humanity through its entire existence
26. 776.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    How do you know that? And if humanity can’t do anything that it hasn’t done before, why should we care about power generation or any problem that wasn’t completely solved before today? (Like today. The day that you are reading this.)
27. 777.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    Exactly. Nuclear power is not eternal because uranium is finite whereas solar will last forever because the aluminium, cadmium, copper, gallium, indium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, silver, selenium, tellurium, tin and zinc to make th
28. 778.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    I’m just having fun posting online as an expert on nuclear energy that’s never heard of fusion, breeder reactors or thorium it is a blast because you can just write numbers. 100 100,000 100,000,000 are all the same to me
29. 779.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    > 4) There is no answer for spent fuel. We store it. There are radioactive waste storage sites in 39 US states, for example. https://curie.pnnl.gov/system/files/SNF%20and%20Rep%20Waste%...
30. 780.▲
    by jrflowers 1y ago

    I love that you can post whatever you want on the internet. “Nuclear is quite exhaustible”, “The earth is flat”, “Ernest Borgnine killed JFK” you can just put words together and put them online. Such a thrill