It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again.
It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
> > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "
> No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself.
"If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything."
So a theory I've had for a bit now... Google maps doesn't optimize for ease of travel, or time, or anything like that - it optimizes for engagement, like every other Google product. And how would you do that with a maps product? By making routes too complicated to memorize, too specialized (back streets, etc) to generalize, and then changing things up often to prevent a route from becoming second nature anyways.
Which feels like a lot of what people complain Google Maps does...
And if you are willing to throw out the fissiles, why not a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket? [0] (warning: engineering realities may make this impossible) (one of a very short list of possibilities for a buildable-within-a-century torchship)
Other downsides include "using it for take-offs will leave a large crater that will glow blue for several hundred million years, as will everything downwind in the fallout area", but who really cares about takeoff areas? (That's for the silly plebs left behind on the ground to worry about - you're headed to SPACE!)
The problem is, I can look at the risks of something like this, or olivine beaches with Project Vesta [0], or sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere - and the worst cases there are still incomparable to the expected case for climate change. Like, the "I don't know how you would do this deliberately"-tier worst case for Project Vesta would be killing all sea life within 100km of the relevant islands, and that would suck! But with ocean acidification, that's going to happen anyways, and not just around those islands. And that sort of analysis makes me think that either
1. the alternate proposals won't work (at all, which seems unlikely)
2. the expected case for climate change isn't actually as bad as people are saying it is
or
3. people don't actually care about climate change as much as they care about using climate change to push their own agendas
Personally, I lean towards #3. But that still doesn't make me very happy with climate activists.
Comments like this sound like "global warming isn't really a serious problem yet, so the only acceptable way to deal with it is to agree to my demands unconditionally - those alternatives are just too risky" to me.
Okay, and? Raw death numbers, without corresponding usage numbers, are kind of useless. More people die as pedestrians, or in cars, than on scooters after all. Deaths/mile or deaths/hour would both allow some sort of real comparison.
Well, GoLand is $89/yr for the first year, with their standard continuity discounts for further years. $200/yr is only for orgs - if you're paying for it yourself, that's not the price you should be getting.
(I've been using GoLand since when they were calling it Gogland - no complaints so far)
By making a transaction (or series of transactions) that happen to have a binary representation (or destination address, or comment, or...) that decodes to CP - the same way that you'd store any other arbitrary data there.
> If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine.
My point was that 20 years ago, there are a hell of a lot of people that would have made that argument. There's probably still a double-digit percentage of Americans who believe that today.
It's like evaluating a stock trading strategy on historical data - success there does not guarantee success in the real world, but failure highly implies it. Your proposed policy - which as far as I can tell simplifies to "ban advocating for things that a supermajority of the population finds distasteful" - would have prevented (or at least harmed) quite a few movements over the past century or three, and so I say that if implemented today it would do the same in the future.
I meant that the mob may have made demands, but the only power the mob has is that which it is given. Just like the verdict reached by those jurors, Cloudflare chose their own path.
> According to some CEO interview they hold on as long as possible until forced otherwise.
I think an appropriate qualifier here might be that they used to hold on as long as possible. I don't think that's universally true anymore.
> This is relevant as the censorship here (whether justified or not, right or wrong it is censorship) is not done by CF, but by a faceless internet mob that is attacking both CF and 8chan.
In the same sense that a mob outside the courthouse ensured a guilty verdict, perhaps. But it's still the jurors who actually acted.
> how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places?
This is a really hard question, partly because those women are generally wrong - men are much more likely to be mugged/assaulted/killed than women in every US location I've seen statistics for.
> We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists.
Should we also not be obliged to suffer black supremacists doing the same? Or, more recently, gay rights advocates? How is that not exactly analogous to pride parades?
Yes, we now agree with (and approve of) some values and not others. But locking those values in place 20 years ago would have been clearly wrong (no gay marriage, etc), so why do we assume that doing the same today would have been better? How can we differentiate between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' while still allowing the next gay rights movement to take place?