MrLeftHand

The whole thing can't keep a 4 core CPU from overheating and throttling. Not too mention with that small power brick and the USB-C charging cable, you can't even provide enough power to that beast of CPU regardless of i9 being less power hungry then the i8 is.

Apple just doesn't want to learn.

Haha, good job trying to take it out of context. Of course I used a woman as analogy, given the current topic.

Anyone can be a snowflake, but still the main goal is, that people shouldn't be over sensitive when it comes to words or mistakes. It's one thing being targeted and one thing hearing something you don't like and throw a tantrum over it, or destroying another human's life.

because men still have power.

So you're saying men kick out men for pointing out biases towards men? Yeah, sure.

Saying that "this is not true", doesn't make it not true. And repeating it wont make it untrue either. Slow clap for your logic.

Also, if this would be so untrue, we wouldn't have studies like these in the first place.

But please, tell me whom would you believe sooner in a case where a man is being accused of sexual harassment, or even rape? Even if it turns out that the woman was falsely accusing him, the damage is already done. He lost his job, he receives death threats, he's being doxed, etc...

At that stage it really doesn't matter what the outcome of the court rule will be, that man has no life anymore. And what will the accuser get? One year? Maybe two?

It is the same as a father rarely wins a court case over who can take custody of the child. The mother needs to be a drug user and a very bad person for even being considered to be unfit for parenting. And I know, I have friends who lost their kids to their abusive wives.

No you don't and this is a problem. Anybody can say something abusive but that doesn't make it right.

Of course it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it a valid reason to drag that person through the dirt. Especially if something was said between the accused and a third person and the accuser was just eavesdropping on the conversation.

I think there are a vocal few who are super easily offended and too many people are focusing on them. They don't make up the general populace. Just like how not every guy is out to make crude jokes and be offensive. It always seems like the "not every guy" defensive always comes up but it is unfathomable that not everyone is as easily offended as this vocal minority.

I agree, we are talking about minorities on both sides. Not every man is an abusive predator and not every woman is going to be a snowflake, who will cry abuse over everything a man says.

But as my first comment stated, the problem is that our current society caters to them. They are the ones who will go great lengths to ruin peoples lives, even when it turns out the accusations were false. They pressure companies into firing people. They harass, threaten, deplatform and dox people without thinking about the damages they cause. And when you work with a person like this (and you might not know this) you will be the target very fast, even for the slightest mistake.

And don't forget the bias towards genders. We talk about biases towards women for countless hours, but when someone brings up the biases towards men, that person is kicked out of the conversation. A level playing field goes both ways.

It's not worse, it is the same but the other way around. Not every man is a sexist pig and not every woman is a saint.

But clearly women have more power over men (in this so called men's world) where they can easily accuse anyone and destroy their lives in an instant.

Both sexes have their good and bad side. We shouldn't let our guard down and favour one over the other.

How are things bad in western societies for women? Please give me examples. Where you have female leaders all around the place. If you were referring to the Middle East, I agree women are oppressed as hell over there.

People being "afraid" of each other seems a bit dramatic.

In universities and colleges people are afraid voicing their political opinion, or just disagreeing in general with the mainstream. Not just because they would meet lot of counter arguments, but actual physical violence and even getting expelled from school.

Nobody is defending sexual predators and abusive behaviour. But there is a clear bias towards men when it comes to accusations. You don't have to be a predator to say, or do something in a way where the other person will take it as abuse. You don't have to be a man either, but it would make much easier. Everybody can be in this situation. Just fail to identify a transgender person and use a wrong pronoun and you will find yourself in front of HR so fast that you won't have time to say sorry.

If a joke can get you in trouble so much that you even lose your job just because a woman's feelings were hurt, then there is a problem with the system. Is one person's feeling more important than another's life?

This whole situation is a slippery-slope as there will be always someone being offended by something.

I think the key is tolerance. Understanding that everybody makes mistakes. Nobody is perfect. And when they apologise we should stop the witch hunt. Also we should embrace differences between sexes and not trying blurring the lines.

Do you think this is comfort? Do you really think being afraid of accusations is a comforting situation in any way?

It wouldn't hurt you to see the world through other viewpoints from time to time.

Well, this is where social media and social justice brought us. People are so afraid of each other that they actively try to barricade themselves in real life.

We thought we are opening doors, but we are actually closing them, one by one.

Instead of following a simple 'live and let live' rule, we are now actively hunting for the slightest mistakes and missteps. Humans can't be humans anymore, there is no room for error, or mistake. Even if the court rules in favour of the accused, the branding they can get on social platforms breaks their careers and it might drive them to suicide. Where mobs demand the employer to fire said individual is just insane.

But why are we even surprised, when just telling a tasteless joke counts as an offence nowadays? Where the micro-aggression craze is consuming everybody and some forms of speech are labeled as an act of violence. People are more afraid of saying something offending to someone than having an office shooter marching through the door and gunning down people.

Walking away was never more an appropriate response as it is right now. The reward is minuscule compared to the risk one can take in these situations on a personal level.

Company interest is king. If the person's skill set and connections are a valuable asset to the company, then his personal views and traits shouldn't be something to be concerned about. Maybe tell him to dial down the preaching and focus on the job. Measure his value through what he does and not what he says.

On the side note I think this topic is quite frightening in some way. We reached a point where a company, or employee is not going to be measured by the product or value they make, but what political views they represent. Soon we are going to have political questions on an interview. The companies will police their employees what they say and what they do in social circles. Workplaces become political echo chambers.

Also like how you just state that he is "politically incorrect", making your views the only correct ones. Not different, but incorrect.

Talking about double standards.

I can sense political and ideological disagreement between you and JP.

So you're saying that people having different opinion on politics, gender, identity can't have a positive impact on someones life?

Downvoting someone just because he or she was moved by a person you don't like doesn't make you right.

And the debate about whether he is, or is not a pseudo intellectual has nothing to do with this. You don't have to be an intellectual to help others. To have a positive impact on people.

I love how people always think that positive impact comes from technology, or science. Yes, these things make our lives better, but does it help when people are immoral, corrupt and disregard their fellow human beings?

Someone wrote Steve Jobs in the comments. Coming up with better consumer electronics and then ruthlessly keeping prices high and boxing the consumer in their company ecosystem is not helpful to society. Will I downvote the guy? No.

A platform that is renowned for sanitising the world around us to fit their agenda, invests in news outlets. Is anyone else seeing the problem here?

I am glad I left that platform.

I work for a company which specialises in a service helping other companies to ask stupid questions from their own customers and employees in a form of web surveys.

Is it meaningful? Nope.

Does it help put food on the table? Yup.

Tumblr has way more problems than a couple of nipples slipping through NSFW tags.

I bought for my kids Amazon Fire tablets and had to realise there are no games which were suitable for them. Each one of them had some sort of ads, even the completely free ones on their Underground market.

And Amazon is also a big offender. They have ad popups even on their kids interface.

The only way to counter this is to go offline after you downloaded the game, but still there are some which wouldn't even start without an internet connection.

In Google's and Amazon's place I would uphold the app creators to certain standards when it comes to kids games and apps. Like not putting ads in their apps, or if even if I allow it, then forcing them to make it easily closable and not making them with 10x10 pixel big X marks.

In the end all the games out there on the app store are either complete rubbish, or just money grabbing schemes. There are rare exceptions, but good luck finding them.

The cause for cops murdering innocent civilians is that the cost for doing so is zero.

Usually this falls under self defence. As far as I know, if someone is on your property and you shoot them, you can say it was self defence and you have the chance to get away with it clean. I heard so many stories about this, like where a guy shot a teenager dead because the kid was drunk and wanted to steal a garden gnome or something.

It deters me from killing people who pissed me off.

Well, I don't know what your job is, but I presume it doesn't involve guns in any shape or form, or the possibility to go to a place and get shot at. And hey it deters you, but there are a couple of other million people whom it does not. With this mentality we wouldn't have mass shootings and gun crimes at all, not even a simple robbery.

There is probably no perfect solution

Yup, that is very true.

Anyway, all I think is that the US gun laws are responsible in some extent for police brutality. Take away guns from civilian hands and you can have a much more relaxed and non-lethal approach to law enforcement. This might not work 100%, or it might not work at all, but it would be worth a try. Too many people are shot to death in the US. Sooner or later people get to used to it and then nothing will change.

Sorry, that should have been "not fairly easy to tell apart". Anyway, what I wanted to say is, that it's not good to compare the UK and the US in this context.

In one country where gun crimes and mass shootings are rampant and are close to be every day part of life and there is the other where most of the crimes are knife, or acid attacks and are rarely fatal.

Anyway, I think there is a link between the US gun laws (or lack of them) and police brutality. Where every scenario has the possibility to go wrong, they just developed a habit to shoot first and ask questions later. Where police training revolves more around preparing to use your gun and defend yourself then actually solve the situation without violence. But whilst there is a high chance that every scene they go to will have guns involved, they're not going to change their behaviour, or training either. And this will bring more brutality from them as their not going to take chances.

Decisions are based on experience. If you are trained to expect the worst and you have experience on that, you will decide for the most favourable outcome for yourself. Not to get killed and pull the trigger sooner as the other person, even without the knowledge of him having a gun or not.

And there is a reason why cops became murderers. So instead finding the cause and fixing it, you say that they should go to jail and end of story?

The problem is, that this is how our current prosecution system works and it fails on so many levels. So why do you think it would work on them? It doesn't make the world a better place and there aren't less criminals because of it. Then why do you think there will be less trigger happy cops on the force?

People still commit crimes even with the risk of getting in to jail. Cops will still shoot people, because they will rather go to jail then be dead. Even if there is no gun, it is much safer for them shooting first and asking later.

Yeah, but the UK doesn't have gun crimes, mass shootings in schools, in music festivals or in a park. For a common civilian it is really hard to get a hold of a high caliber gun. In the US you just walk in to the closest gun store and get one.

Or as the American youth does, just grab your parents gun and go on a shooting spree.

I haven't said, it is a problem. I said that this shows the problem. The problem that a police officer is more afraid for his/hers own safety then actually protecting and serving others. For me this shows why US police is trigger happy. Where they are trained always for the worst, where they always expect the worst. No wonder a lot of them can't tell right from wrong. Also, when you have to deal with mentally ill people, in certain cases for an untrained person might be really hard to identify and know the difference between a person suffering from mental illness, or being high on crystal meth and ready to chew your face off.

If the civil population wouldn't have all these guns and gun crimes wouldn't be the top concern in the country, maybe then the police could change it's training to be more calm and helping in diffusing dangerous situation rather then go in guns blazing.

Not going to say, that having guns is the No. 1 cause, but it certainly makes the whole situation worse.

Yeah, but it is different wielding a knife then a gun. You have to be up close and personal with that. Whilst with a gun you can be far away. Apples and Oranges.

And don't look at one individual case, look at the cause why this keeps happening.

The police force is trained that there is a high possibility that there is a gun. So how are they going to go in there? With guns drawn of course.

That is the difference. The knowledge of you might getting shot is enough to be trigger happy about everything. Especially when your training says the same thing.

But then it's not enough changing the training of the police force, whilst civilians still wield guns. Disarmament needs to happen on multiple levels.

And another thing, yes there are cases where it is fairly simple to tell if you are in front of a disabled or mentally ill person then a nutcase high on crystal meth. And these are just cops, without any training in the medical field to tell the difference and they go in already on edge. No wonder bad things happen.

There are certain government reactions which are nonsense, I agree. Like the reaction to 911 in the US and creating the massive hysteria around airport security, which failed miserably, but still nobody does anything about it. I am not justifying stupid laws and decisions made by governments here.

I am not an advocate of how the police and law enforcement works in the US, bit I see the relation why it works like that or at least what would be one of the main causes of it.

Whilst people are crying about giving less control and force to the police, there is no counter measure on the civilian side regarding the ownership of guns in the US.

Yes, there are probably a lot of people who aren't fit to be police officers equipped with weapons. But how many civilians are in the US who aren't fit to have weapons and they still have them? And then the police officer has to deal with them.

Let's not take into account other work injuries OK? It would be similar to say, that cars can kill people, why don't we ban cars then? It is their job to go to scenes where is high chance of being shot. You can't say that of a construction worker can you? Also they have safety measures which are getting better as we learn from mistakes. How does that even translate to the police? Every situation is different, every person acts different.

Thanks, but why don't you piss of instead?

Also by the time you see a gun, it's already too late. Have you thought about a second, maybe?

If a person has the intention to shoot a police officer, he wont hesitate to do so. Maybe that's why they don't like to wait until they see a gun? Or do you think the raging person will ask politely first, if he can shoot at them or not?

Maybe you should think about both sides in a situation? Maybe understand how a situation can escalate quickly into a shooting spree? And maybe that's the reason why officers don't risk it at all and rather shoot first?

At the end of the day, they are people too. If you can't understand that then why don't you go and be a police officer and show us idiots how it's done.

I think when the police's top priority is to get home to their families rather then protect and serve... That speaks volumes.

The danger of being shot every time they get a call to a scene is very real. This creates the mentality of shooting first and asking questions later.

Hot headed officers?! In a country where everybody can own a gun there is a real fear of getting shot. The only worse profession is to be in the army.

Surprisingly other countries have armed police as well, but somehow they wont pull the trigger that often then the Americans. Wonder why... Oh wait, maybe because there is a minuscule chance of being shot by another person?

They already have moderators to filter out the so called garbage. Would it be hard to tell them, that between two boob pictures and a porn video upload they should pull the ban on fake anti-vac news as well?

I remember they banned a photographer (or journalist) at one time, because he shared an iconic image from the Vietnam war, because there was a nude child on the picture.

I wouldn't judge Facebook, if they would ban everything that is harmful to society, from images to fake news, as it is their platform and they can do whatever they want. They aren't under oath to defend and preserve freedom of speech.

That's why they should never use it as an excuse.

Every time they pull a stunt like this, I am more inclined to leave. I'm already unfollowed most of my friends and literally all I get is ads and product placements.

Maybe it's time...

What I don't like about this whole thing is that facebook is a bit hypocrite (or very much so). They censor images and videos of nudity and violence, but leave these news outlets up, which could potentially threaten mankind as whole, if this nonsense catches on with more and more people.

Having back diseases like polio and far worse ones, is a bigger issue then someones dick-pic.

But this shows again that Mr Zuck and his merry company don't give a flip about humanity or anything else. They just like to keep the Facebook image to be a happy, smiley place, where people are nice to each other, etc...

Why does the game 'We happy few' pop into mind?

Aren't we already doing this?

You can hear the stories about companies not hiring women when they are in a relationship and in the age when they are more likely to have kids.

They might ban using cars. You can cycle to work.

I know what PETA is, don't worry. Now that is a very different kind of crazy right there.

Luckily I never met one. Although I like a good argument battle.

I am angry when they tell you what you can eat. Whilst we let them be vegans, or vegetarians they don't want us to be meat eaters. That is the difference. Yes, you have meat eaters mocking vegans and vegetarians, but they still wont deny your right to be one. And this is effectively doing that.

But this whole thing is probably about forcing the employees to bring in their own food and cutting down company costs. They're still growing and don't make any huge amount of profit.

I think one of the big factors might be, that it's more about money then the environment.

The last time I've heard about Wework is that they are still expanding and not making any profit yet.

It might be, that the funds are running dry and to cut costs, they are forcing their employees to bring in their on food on own expense.

Should have kicked off with this thought process.