slg

33 ms·

721.
by slg 2y ago
This just reads like pure fantasy to me. Have you not seen the account from numerous former Cabinet and White House officials about how lazy and incurious he is or how difficult it is to get him to read the reports put in front of him? Hav
722.
by slg 2y ago
Genuinely wondering why so many people are still giving the Trump administration this much benefit of the doubt that their moves are strategically sound? We're really still doing the whole "3D chess" thing with this guy afte
723.
by slg 2y ago
How confident are we that there is a "next administration... four years from now"? I don't know what the number is, but it ain't 100% like it used to be.
724.
by slg 2y ago
It's just a sales tax. I don't know why people opposing tariffs never talk about them in this manner because sales taxes are something people innately understand if they have spent any time in the US and "tariffs" clear
725.
by slg 2y ago
>the gist is: When you can manufacture ships, you can also manufacture warships. When you can manufacture warships, you can protect your economy. The counter to this thinking is that if you intertwine your economic wellbeing with your &q
726.
by slg 2y ago
>It's not 'protesting' to blackball someone from a job. Can you be specific here? What part isn't protesting? Should it be illegal to stand outside a business with a protest sign? What about organizing a boycott?
727.
by slg 2y ago
>You don't agree, but does that better address the problem you raised? No, because you still aren't addressing the underlying point. Protesting is protected speech. Protesting in response to speech is therefore also protected
728.
by slg 2y ago
>Are you arguing with me or the person I am replying to? The way some people use the internet truly puzzle me. A username is on each comment. I made a comment, you replied, and I replied back. I wasn't arguing with myself. You t
729.
by slg 2y ago
Like many things carried about by this administration, the charitable interpretation of the intent is harmed by the manner of implementation. Countless policies have been implemented in a rushed, haphazard, confusing, nonsensical, surprisi
730.
by slg 2y ago
It is funny to see this type of comment downthread of a criticism of bothsidesism. You set up a spectrum in which one "extreme" is the status quo of American culture going back generations and the other "extreme" is a se
731.
by slg 2y ago
How do you define which speech is speech worthy of protection and which speech is a consequence of speech and therefore not worthy of protection? For example, imagine some CEO says something politically objectionable, as is their right gran
732.
by slg 2y ago
As another Jew, the way non-Jews are using us as a cudgel to crack down on free speech certainly doesn't feel like "support". As one of history's leading targets when it comes time to scapegoat a minority, I get more an
733.
by slg 2y ago
I can't explain the exact link, but your repeated and vocal pro-AI stance in this thread feels connected to the way when you got called out for a simple and inconsequential mistake that any of us could make, you immediately doubled dow
734.
by slg 2y ago
I don't follow your analogy. Is the "specialized tool" the AI or the way that it returns "problematic" results? Because I'm not saying the system is bad for using negative stereotypes. I'm saying the sy
735.
by slg 2y ago
This is what was often missed in the previous round of AI discourse that criticized these companies for forcing diversity into their systems after the fact. Every suave spy being Daniel Craig is just the apolitical version of every nurse b
736.
by slg 2y ago
>More than 50% of American voters voted for him. I am having a difficult time to believe that 50%+ of the US are economically oppressed that had no choice but to vote for Trump. I think it's important to be accurate with this stuff.
737.
by slg 2y ago
It seems more than coincidental that global fascism started to rise as soon as the generation that last defeated it had mostly died off.
738.
by slg 2y ago
>I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms"...airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech. Is a free press not
739.
by slg 2y ago
>I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as... intimate recordings of people taken without consent Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as spe
740.
by slg 2y ago
You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, th
741.
by slg 2y ago
[flagged]
742.
by slg 2y ago
[flagged]
743.
by slg 2y ago
You can see it on this story. It was in the top 3 on HN as of a few minutes ago and now is already down to #20 on the front page. Although this could also be potentially blamed on the flamewar detector, but I'm not sure if the specif
744.
by slg 2y ago
My first comment was not speculation. I only speculated in my second comment to highlight how your rather definitive "they haven't been "disappearing" people in the manner that would have to be happening here" was a
745.
by slg 2y ago
>Even the most egregious cases, which are very bad, have left a paper trail for lawyers and journalists to follow. How can you be confident in this? Is it possible that you are saying this because the only cases we know about are when t
746.
by slg 2y ago
On the long list of problems caused by the government "disappearing" people (which they have objectively been doing lately) is that it destroys trust and therefore makes even valid legal proceedings seem more shady than they would
747.
by slg 2y ago
>This is so simple you might even invent it yourself without knowing it already exists while learning how to program. This is a double-edged sword. The "you might even event it yourself" simplicity means that in practice lots
748.
by slg 2y ago
Yes, the scandal here is not just the questionable security. It is also clear intent to circumvent transparency laws which suggests they may be intending to hide the breaking of other laws.
749.
by slg 2y ago
>Coercing the public to provide samples of their dna outside of criminal proceedings is unconstitutional. Most people in the US are insured through private companies. How would it be unconstitutional for those companies to refuse to insu
750.
by slg 2y ago
But if this government is willing to allow insurance companies to factor in 23andme type data, what makes you think that will be the extent of this type of genetic data analysis? That is the far-fetched part to me, it relies on a very narro

More ›