99_00

If you feel that the company you are getting porn from isn't respecting your privacy and your privacy is important, don't get porn from them.

The bill restricts distribution of porn to kids. It's up to the distributor to figure out how to do that.

The bill doesn't say anything about uploading government ID.

It says that it is illegal for a company to to give porn to kids. The company can defend it's self against the charge if they have a "prescribed age-verification method".

The NYT and elite Universities bit the hand that fed them.

‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gambled that a strong Hamas (but not too strong) would keep the peace and reduce pressure for a Palestinian state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...

Playing twilight princess made me appreciate the beauty of twilight in nature - the colors, lighting, shadows, sounds.

When there is a war there is no credible information.

Lying is not only seen as morally justified but as your duty because your life and your compatriot's lives are on the line every second of every day of the conflict.

When I do code reviews I always try to find something to comment on, even if it is just a optional suggestion or question.

If the code review system has a lot of approvals from me without comments in the code review system I suspect it will hurt the organization's perception of my work.

You're right. I'm abusing the word "truth" and "works". But you get a clearer picture and avoid the most obvious attempts to mislead.

In your example you looked at sources from two different sides of the debate and correctly identify the omissions and irrelevant information.

To me that says that looking at the two different sides and judging their arguments to arrive at the truth works.

A final test would be to see if your arrived truth is close to reality, without relying on human observers. This is done by using your truth to make predictions and see if those predictions come tru. To see if your model of reality has predictive power.

>Critically, if we are persuaded by either camp, we will find most of the sources in that camp believable. And most in the other camp to be not believable.

You don't believe one camp or the other. You look at how each camp reports on the same event. You use them against each other to get closer to the truth, like a trial where both sides argue their case and you are the judge.

So much better.

It's from a time when Democrats were casting doubt on the "Trump Vaccine" to advance their political agenda, only to do an about face once Biden was President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZnmbGPzR0

It was amazing to see skepticism and criticism of big pharma become forbid during COVID with many citizens happily shaming, ostracizing, and censoring others.

And then to see it suddenly be allowed again.

Extremely fascinating.

I keep the venitian blinds down but open for our problem window.

When you print a magazine or newspaper space is limited. Lower quality content is cut.

With web publishing there is no cap on space. You can throw up garbage that wouldn't have made it as a letter to the editor.

And if it gets clicks the temptation to give it a higher and higher profile on the landing page is likely too great to resist.

The article presents no evidence to support that Zachary McCoy was a ever a suspect.

If it turns out that he was present at multiple break-ins, or he spoke to police and gave suspicious and inconsistent responses that might have changed.

>It soon turned out Merck had known of potential lethal side effects even before launching Vioxx in 1999, but had brushed all such disturbing tests under the rug.

I don't trust this line.

I suspect that preliminary tests show all kinds of extreme possibilities. Positive and negative.

How many dangerous side effects never came to be?

How many supposed benefits never came to be?

Why should they have paid particular attention to this dangerous side effect? The article doesn't make it clear.

And for the record, I believe drug companies don't have our best interests at heart and that the FDA is captured by industry.

We don't have the mental bandwidth or responsiveness to perceive reality. Our brains use shortcuts to observe and think. These lead to errors.

We didn't need to be perfect to get to this point. Just good enough to beat the environment and the other meat sacks.

Predictiveness of a mental model is the the closest we can get to understanding reality.

You seem to be suggesting that humans are capable of perceive objective truth for non trivial things.

I say that we aren't. And given that, you are better off believing the lie that helps you or makes you feel good instead of the one that hurts you, assuming both have the same predictive power.

>“We’re all familiar with the Freudian idea that if we suppress our feelings or thoughts, then these thoughts remain in our unconscious, influencing our behaviour and wellbeing perniciously,”

The article conflates thoughts and feeling.

Thoughts and emotions are not the same.

Reducing negative thoughts is standard practice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_negative_thoughts

I'm not aware of any professional who recommends suppressing negative emotions.

It's probably just a coincidence that Brand is one of the biggest names and promotors of YouTube competitor Rumble.

>caffeine is addictive and when I am deprived of it my schizotypy flares up and I have paranoid episodes

Dose size matters.

Your post is a tautology because you define "wrong" as breaking the law.

Yes, of course, if a company is not breaking the law they are not breaking the law. And if we want them to stop doing what they are doing we would benefit from making it illegal.

This was covered in the book Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us (2013).

It's featured in the book. Odd that the only way you'd know, other than reading the book is by reading comments users left about the book.

Tobacco companies aren't mentioned in any of the mainstream publications that discuss the book which came up in my search.

Thanks for sharing. I find signals like this very useful.

What's the difference between this and a franchise?

They obviously have reasons. Without looking at the book, we can't say if it should be in schools or shouldn't. When explaining Racism to Grade 2 students great care must be taken. Imagine being the only black kid in all white classroom. You know you look different. Everyone does, but no one thinks anything of it. And then they tell you that you are systematically oppressed, and that your race, not your character, is the characteristic that will define your life experience. Good Luck kid!

Also, we don't see the list of other civil right books that may be in classrooms.

But the fact that "The Berenstain Bears and the Big Question", a book about God, was rejected suggests that this isn't some conservative conspiracy.

In fact, it sounds like a moral panic from the left.

I don't know if you've read the book or not, or heard the arguments against it, but your response sounds exactly like the response someone would give if they only know the title of the book and that others have defended it, but is totally unfamiliar with the content.

Heterosexual sex acts in books are allowed?

>I'd love to hear specific reasons why someone believes one isn't.

How can you disagree with the reasons those books were removed when you admit you don't know the reason.

What is the reason it was removed, and what issue do you have with that reason?

Your comment is ironic considering that the article is designed to rile up exactly the other side.