GarrisonPrime

I agree that is an issue, and should be discussed. I didn’t mean to imply Twitter’s decision was plainly correct.

That’s worthy of discussion. I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Just saying the issue isn’t as one-sided as many might like to believe it is.

Yet they didn’t suspend him for the specific example provided.

Also, I don’t think it’s so clear that threatening a defensive act could be called “inciting violence”.

If a group of criminals were parading through a neighborhood performing home invasions, I do not think it’d cross the line to warn them off with a public declaration of “our house has guns and we will protect ourselves”.

Speculation and accusations are distinctly unhelpful.

Unless you are the one making them, apparently.

I’m not trolling. And I made no “accusations”. I have no objection to Twitter’s decision. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

A fair enough opinion, and a worthy discussion. But this particular issue of Trump’s Twitter suspension is clearly about not giving delusional lunatics more fodder for their actions, rather than silencing Trump.

Edit: I’m not siding with or against Twitter here. Whether their decision was wise or not certainly needs to be discussed. I’m just pointing out that “silencing the lunatic in the White House” isn’t the only potential explanation for their suspension of Trump’s account.

Clearly, the comment meant baseless violence. Violence to protect the helpless from violence is acceptable.

I agree that Trump’s banning from Twitter is concerning, and that he did not incite violence. But that isn’t the underlying issue behind the suspension.

The problem is that a small but very eager group of fanatics have latched on to Trump’s Twitter postings as an excuse to react in violent, deluded ways. It no longer mattered what Trump said, the fanatics would twist its meaning and use it as an excuse for mayhem. (The media clearly have some culpability in this, as they intentionally put out outrageous interpretations in order to whip up controversy. But that’s another issue.)

And so, Twitter felt allowing the situation to continue would not be responsible. They weren’t attempting to silence Trump, but rather to deprive the delusional maniacs of fodder.

People also tend to give trucks a wider berth, or at least notice you more and respond more readily to your actions.

I’ve only ever owned small cars, and in the handful of times I’ve needed to drive a U-haul truck or similar the trip started with trepidation. But I quickly discovered that other drivers have a strong tendency (self-interested, of course) to help big trucks out.

The only reason they’re finally banning him is because his worth runs out in 12 days.

Dumping him now allows Twitter to virtue signal and avoid looking like an enabler of literal violence, all while giving up virtually nothing in return.

Kind of like how his cabinet members are now resigning. No big loss for them, as they’ll be out of a job shortly anyway. Might as well “stand up to him” while they still have the opportunity to reap political kudos.

Pretty good regulation already in place.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

The idea was for the shelf scanning robots to send messages when they found a low stock item or a mess, and then a human could just load up a cart with stock from the back room and head directly to the problem areas.

This would be in contrast to having people regularly walk every aisle and examine everything personally, going back and forth to get stock repeatedly. Much time was wasted.

As a former Walmart employee I was actually excited to see these proposed.

But now with so many people walking the aisles collecting items for pickup, I guess they’re just going to have them send “problem detected” messages instead of the robots. Which is fine I guess. Shopping there has become an even greater hassle with all the employees and their pickup carts, but that’s a whole other issue.

This virus cannot be eradicated. You'd have to force everyone on the planet to isolate for 2 weeks. Simply impossible.

It also creates jobs (the sorters, packagers, sellers, etc.). Gotta keep the pleebs occupied.

Relevant video: "Death to Pennies", by CGP Grey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UT04p5f7U

Not necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes, resistance to boom growth is wise.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was an intentional back door (...) that Grindr was required to create and let foreign authorities know about in exchange for being allowed to market the app in their country.

Tinfoil theory:

This was a test of their kill-switch.

I can understand that concern. But it leaves price changes in the future open (including perhaps making it free at some point) without having to delete and upload an edited video.

Fair enough, but the argument could be made that even human-level intelligence is just an advanced degree of pattern matching.

The holes in the ground appear to have been caused by air pressure (expanding methane gas), so perhaps the bubble analogy is apt.

Perhaps because it's caused by an eruption of methane gas. Perhaps the bubble analogy is apt.

Spoken like someone who has never run a business.

Why do you think the government is handing money over to corporations? Hint: It's not just to give their big business friends some moolah.

Considering about 20% of mail-in ballots have already been disqualified for one reason or another, a drastic change could be exactly what's needed.

No, actually.

More words are written, but many of them are worthless drivel.

I don’t think the length of time one pays attention to something is a good indicator of its quality.

Based on the drop in cases, ludicrously low infection and death rates, the need to balance healthcare system burden with a speedy development of herd immunity,and the economic devastation.

People can’t just say “it’s worth it if we save just one life”. Bullshit. Everything requires context, and being under lockdown has its own severe consequences. Including the loss of life.

And how do you propose we enforce your vision of fairness? By gunpoint?

Your phrasing suggests so.

This seems like an attempt to justify iron-fist regulation. “For our own good”, of course.

It seems like a fallacy, this law. The bad is only able to survive at the expense of the system. Meanwhile, the good that was driven out is busy making its own new system.

Apparently instructions are for the common plebes. :-P