hamhock666

Well you remember how Captain Kirk had his computer speak to him in a special female voice, and he was "married" to the ship ;)

There are usually ways to fix the problems in your life, like sadness and hunger, without resorting to using drugs. Maybe not everyone but it is something we should strive for.

If you can find a way to use your own free will and self-discipline to stop the bad condition then that seems preferable to using a drug. Maybe someone doesn't have the willpower in which case it's good that we have the drug.

With regards to omeprazole, I changed my diet a bit and no longer needed the omeprazole. I don't know exactly what it was, but if you can get off of a drug because you don't need it anymore that seems ideal.

I don't know much about these cases but is anyone from that country coming forward to media and saying their spouse was killed on the ship? Is there anyone who is claiming it was a mistake from that country?

Aren't they waters near our coast? Do we not kill pirates on the other side of the world?

I don't think the voters asked for either of those things. It is unfortunate

Why would they do that? Is this just spam?

Slavery was only ended by violence

I don't think this is quite true, it may have ended it faster, but I don't think it would still exist today if the civil war had not happened. Most other countries ended slavery without a violent civil war, especially if you think about the way technology vastly outweighed the usefulness of having slaves.

And then when Charlie Kirk says "Some deaths were worth it...", he is talking about accidents and abuses of guns by shooters. He doesn't mean that violence is the answer to politics, it would be great if nobody died from mass shootings. But he is saying that having the right to bear arms to defend yourself is preferable to the alternative where you have no right to do that.

Kind of ironic there is no download button!

Don't people already pay for things like the NYT?

I guess local papers might be harder, they may have to demonstrate they can reveal the journalistic failures of other papers in local affairs.

... I can't imagine a world where Congress could actually achieve something that widely helpful for regular citizens.

The solution is to not use the internet if you care about your privacy.

Kind of ironic given what you are posting about. I think I need to get off the internet

Yes you just need to reorganize those smart people into a new system. I don’t agree with everything being done.

We are trusting Donald Trumps judgement to execute on the promises he made to get elected. Nothing is perfect, and I think this whole thing is probably happening too early.

It has to be done quickly because the administrative state is large and there is a lot to do. Institutions grow old with time and need drastic reform or replacement. I don’t know what they will replace everything with, ideally they have a bunch of smart people thinking about that. Look at how FDR used the Bureau of the Budget to similar effect.

This is a give and take, both branches the congress and the executive are equal, and both are democratically elected. Some situations call for more of one.

Since WW2 we have had a growing unelected federal bureaucracy (staffed by college graduates more and more left-leaning), that is controlled by congress as you mentioned. Congress is run by seniority, most are re-elected every year and are elected along party lines without much thought. And most legislation is written by lobbyists and activists. People are apathetic about congress, there is not much democracy there. People care much more about the presidential election.

I think if you look at the actions of our federal government over past decades you will see it has not been very good for the health of the American people. I think any action by a president to take back some power from Congress to upend that order is a good thing. Throughout our history certain presidents have completely changed the federal government during their terms in office, and afterwards the title goes back to more complacent presidents. Over time systems decay and you may need to start with something new.

I would say serves my interests, and not just my interests but all of those who voted a certain way. That’s what elections should be

I know AI means a lot of “content” on the internet will become trash, but how specifically do you think AI will be used to control people, aside from deepfakes?

I think the internet was great initially for countering this 1984ness, but everyone joining and advocates for censorship have undone that in some ways. People get lost in the distraction of the internet. My hope is that eventually some portion of young people will turn away from social media and organize outside of that space.

But why take the chance? Just buy a metal spatula next time and there’s nothing to worry about if it turns out to be true

You never know, he could be visited by an alien that gives him the power of immortality, we don’t know what’s out there

Well why, what makes you call this science denialism? What is wrong with the article?

Yes if the people are not there to hold leaders accountable in a democracy, bad things like this will continue to happen

Because it gives them more power, and nobody cares to organize or do anything about it in terms of voting out said politicians.

I guess money for the point of money is the issue. If you have some higher goal like doing something in the world or running a business, then more money probably helps with that.

I think you’re right that people have been banned from things as long as the internet has been around. However more tools exist today to censor, things like AI generating and reading subtitles for YT demonetization and algorithm deranking.

If someone makes a threat on a person or groups life online, or doing something illegal, then I agree it shouldn’t be allowed. But censorship today goes far beyond that.

The purpose of the platform matters. MSN chats (group chats?) and sub-reddits are smaller places presumably set up by another user for a specific purpose. I have no problem with people being banned/censored for whatever reason from these smaller forums.

I have an issue with censorship when the platform is generic, not dedicated to a particular topic or group, like Twitter, YouTube, or Reddit as a whole. When one or more dominant third party platforms censor the same people, it has an effect similar to that of government censorship.

I also think the censorship will backfire, because by being shut down, it gives power to the ideas being censored. “There must be a reason they are shutting down discussion. They have no real answer to it!”

I agree that online harassment is ugly, but I still believe in absolute free speech on these generic platforms. The best solution to all of this would be to have block lists that people could opt-in or out of. Don’t want to see something? Subscribe to the block list.

I think to most people on the internet in the early 2000s, it was unthinkable that content on the major platforms would be censored based on political content. I don’t think there is any evidence for that, it’s more of a general feeling, and the fact that political censorship took off in the next decade.

If these platforms had started out censoring particular political content, they would not have had the same mass adoption, or there may have been more free-speech competitors.

It seems like he was stating a fact, that it is entertainment for many who watch. Most people are not going to take this information and do anything useful with it.

Regarding the psychopath comment, it seems like many more Ukrainians (and Russians) would be alive today if the US had not sent military aid to drag out the war.

You can argue that the invasion shouldn't have happened in the first place, but these geopolitical events happen for real reasons. Whether we think them just or not in our country, I think we have a duty to consider these and try to keep the peace and save human life, and not antagonize other countries for ideological or corrupt reasons.

Don't you want to know what the public position of a country is that we are so involved with? In what way is any politician not a liar in some respect? If you care about future geopolitical events then it's useful to know public positions.

I think this is true generally for anyone seeking power, whether they’re a soon-to-be dictator or a democratically elected politician

We need someone in the executive branch willing to enforce the constitution for anything to happen