If it’s true that a fair portion of those who search Google specify “reddit.com” at least sometimes, as seems likely, I’m comfortable that users looking for “elucidation and discovery” are at least somewhat relevant to Reddit or those who wish to compete with Reddit.
I’m not saying this needs to be a clone of Reddit; I don’t think I implied that, or intended to at least.
To be clear, that’s not how I use the platform (I’m not sure I’ve ever searched that way). But it’s a common enough pattern that there have been widely read articles referencing it:
> This means you’ll no longer have to add “Reddit” to your searches when you’re looking for thoughts from actual humans, not empty answers from websites just trying to get clicks.
Given the popularity of searching for things like product reviews or good restaurants in a new town by appending “Reddit.com” to the search query, I think elucidation and discovery are at least part of what drives people to such platforms.
It's not always necessary to compensate those whose labor helped you. I haven't compensated many of the open source projects I use, for example, even those who clearly want me to (with nagging pop-ups). If the use of copyrightable material to train a model is legal, and it does not legally require compensation, it might be difficult to argue that the use of such material should be compensated or else. It would depend IMO on whether there are norms in place for this kind of thing, and I don't necessarily see wide agreement.
People have absolutely injected themselves with what's known as "Miracle Mineral Solution", which is essentially bleach. It's more frequently drunk, of course.
> Thus, they fund specific (extreme left wing) political agendas and therefore are pushing politics.
Please provide some evidence that they fund specifically "extreme left wing" political agendas. By which you mean, what, soviet-style communism? Gulags for cops? Violent revolution?
> From what I can gather, it's the promotion of leftist talking points that relegates objectivism & personal liberty in favor of any form of rebalancing, be it racial, political, economical, social, gender-based, or sexual.
This does not read like a good-faith interpretation to me. Small-o objectivism and personal liberty are not at all incompatible with a "woke" perspective on race; I daresay relativism -- particularly moral relativism -- is a minority opinion even among leftists. Nor is it necessarily the case that being woke means you're in favor of enforced rebalancing on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc. Wokeness, in my experience, is far more concerned with issues of justice than with rebalancing (which I take to mean something akin to affirmative action or reparations).
The blanket statement "people without insurance used to get care and then go bankrupt" does not apply to every single instance. Sometimes people were (and are) already so close to bankruptcy that they simply cannot afford the care that they need, so "I'll get health care and then go bankrupt" is not a live option for them.
Yes, emergency care has been essentially free in the US for those who can never pay for it, but that doesn't cover, say, chemotherapy. If you don't have insurance and don't have any way to generate significant cash (no house to sell and no wealthy generous friends) it's not that you're going to get chemo and it'll bankrupt you; you just won't get chemo at all (and you'll probably die). This is a little better now with the medicaid expansion, but not perfect, and not all states expanded medicaid.
Even today we have people dying of complications related to diabetes -- a serious but very treatable affliction -- because they can't afford supplies. In the US! The world's richest country!
For what it's worth, my employer does make a bit of a production about how much they pay for our insurance. They make us all look at a document that gives a figure that includes our salary and benefits, plus a breakdown. I guess the point is to make us more appreciative in the face of rising costs? That said, I don't remember the amounts being clear at the time I chose a plan, though maybe they were.
> Yeah, I'm with you there - but I don't think most employers are like that.
The leadership at my employer talks big about how much they care about their employees, and indeed, the vacation and benefits are very good. Yet even in the face of record profits they gave me a 1.5% raise this year, despite the 8.5% inflation. I'll believe that they'd pass benefits package savings onto me when I see it.
> the government will pay for folks who can't pay for them
This depends on your state. Some states, like Wisconsin, won't offer medicaid for income reasons alone. I'm unaware of health insurance policies being cheaper in Wisconsin, though perhaps it's the case.
It can be a little more toxic than I'd like, but I don't find the issue to be how nice people are about correcting others' mistakes. Instead it's the undercurrent I occasionally see of reactionary politics and weird misinformation. It's not usually horrible, but I tend to stay away when the subject turns to politics or social justice.
Sometimes I wish I were a little more like that. Instead I agonize over wording so I don't sound impolite / stupid and often choose to say nothing, even where my input might be useful. I guess there are worse things.
Art is not entirely, 100% subjective, or else there would be nothing to say about it, nothing to discuss. Authorial intent is not the last word but it can be interesting, and it can impact the interpretation we come away with.
Honestly, I hardly ever used the function keys either. As a result the Touch Bar doesn't really bother me -- but neither does it seem the slightest bit useful for the most part.