rscoots

11 ms·

61.
by rscoots 5y ago
That's not the US military's position and the linked article doesn't even make that claim. (Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion
62.
by rscoots 5y ago
1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guideli
63.
by rscoots 5y ago
Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target". This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes. Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
64.
by rscoots 5y ago
>just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like? Lol we also did that.
65.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. Anywhere I can find info on this?
66.
by rscoots 5y ago
There is such a thing as criminal negligence in choosing and attacking enemy targets. But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here. Bombing runs are w
67.
by rscoots 5y ago
Why leave the 2nd 'point' go unchallenged because the poster might be stubborn? Seems like a weird standard for a public conversation. I grant some may find it a less "valuable" one though.
68.
by rscoots 5y ago
>it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE. You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0
69.
by rscoots 5y ago
You asked me what would "make a bigger difference" after I said that surely other initiatives could allow for ay least some gas powered cars. It seems you already agree with this so why argue?
70.
by rscoots 5y ago
Hmm so then what about 99%? Is that also "not enough". How could you possibly know?
71.
by rscoots 5y ago
We're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.
72.
by rscoots 5y ago
How about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas? Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas. Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not
73.
by rscoots 5y ago
Yea, looks like that source came out Dec 2019 which is after I first looked into this. Very interesting & well written write up! Even though Wikipedia says "Better source needed" for whatever reason. The author still casts a g
74.
by rscoots 5y ago
I remember seeing this article awhile back. Really made me realize that sometimes simple, trivial things that everyone takes as fact really cannot be trusted. The notion that Coco the gorilla could do sign language was another one that stuc
75.
by rscoots 5y ago
There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries. It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making. Why not 99% for example?
76.
by rscoots 5y ago
>no matter how painful. Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in compariso
77.
by rscoots 5y ago
I only mean that how 'well' billionaires personally decide to spend their money might not be a solid barometer for how tax laws should be written. Point taken tho
78.
by rscoots 5y ago
Lol where do you think the vast majority of the money went to? American aerospace engineers' paychecks. Although I think they should probably be taxed more, those hyper billionaires tend to give huge amounts to charity too. And it&#x2
79.
by rscoots 5y ago
Better? Maybe not More democratic? Yes
80.
by rscoots 5y ago
PC is a poor descriptor, and yes urgent and extreme action is necessary. But why does that action have to include going 100% electric on an impractical timeline? Surely there are debateble aspects to this approach, and probably other sou
81.
by rscoots 5y ago
You'll note that the current VP and various MSNBC & CNN hosts & contributors casted major doubts on the vaccine when it seemed it would be released in time for Trump's reelection cycle. It really is turtles all the way dow
82.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Meanwhile, if I suggested doing housing for all, healthcare for all, etc on an island with only 2000 people, you’d tell me that was too few people and you can’t do it that way. No?
83.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Test scores don’t reflect the character-forging aspects of life as a poor teenager; One of these two is a better metric for who will actually pass college courses though.
84.
by rscoots 5y ago
I think the variables here are how tenuous the current name is, and also how cool/enduring the replacement name is. Mt McKinely -> Denali is another great example. I think these factors will usually be stronger than any moral dimens
85.
by rscoots 5y ago
If it means nothing then why change it? Disagreements about cultural norms have to be fleshed out and argued on some front. Let's be glad we live in a society where it's as trivial as naming telescopes.
86.
by rscoots 5y ago
Underlying point I'd say is a concern, even if the specific example might not be applicable. Thanks for the article on that!
87.
by rscoots 5y ago
>That said, they can ban distribution of misleading content. It's their right, and no one can dispute that. I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by expressing outrage over this. Since when is encouraging mega-corporation
88.
by rscoots 5y ago
>For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illegally, or at the wrong time Just so you know, this is a federal crime so Google is legally required to remove such content. So that specific example doesn't really app
89.
by rscoots 5y ago
>anyone who uses a social network is implicitly consenting to that network's filtering of information. In what way does this make censorship the morally right thing to do? Think of all the evil large corporations have tried to justi
90.
by rscoots 5y ago
>many alternatives for sharing information beyond Google drive You'll be disturbed to learn then that every major social network heavily censors information in an opaque manner. What about the elderly or others who might only know h

More ›