NoMoreNicksLeft

Apartheid was bad. Immigration enforcement isn't bad... it's what alot of people want. These people feel as if they are (in part, collective) owners of the country, and owning it they want to exclude people who do not own it.

The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds.

If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.

My grandpa was a card-carrying union carpenter. But all I remember is him doing general labor... all the actual carpentry jobs were gone before I was born, and I hit the half-century mark myself a few years ago. He worked with concrete and steel alot. I'd seen him put up cinder block too, picked that up somewhere I guess. And this was in the 1980s.

I'd take your bet, while trying to hustle you to raise the wager.

Poor countries aren't in danger from this... we can't ban price discrimination in other countries because they have sovereignty, and the pharmaceutical company isn't monolithic. The one operating in another country is another corporation that must follow that countries rules, and will be granted a license from the American parent company to decide for itself what pricing to impose there (which will be controlled by that country's laws on drug pricing).

It's how it works now, and we don't much have the ability to change that. If we tried, the pharmaceutical companies would be in danger... those countries can spin up factories to make the same drugs and just ignore the patents. A behavior/strategy they want to avoid encouraging.

Homes, not these buildings. Wood's a liability when it comes to fire suppression.

They never pursue court trials, because it's too much work. But they'll pursue plea deals, because there's this gigantic pipeline and everyone in it (including public defenders) is on the same team: Team Make Him Plead.

Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out.

And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem.

I'm not sure I understand the point. For small home networks, there is no bandwidth difference between this and streaming solutions like Jellyfin. Yes, this was a cool technology, and if some large provider like AT&T wanted to use this to broadcast channels to everyone at once it would've made more sense than streaming... but even for that use case the world has moved on. Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?

>Any rational AI would have their

Why would the first AI we create necessarily be "rational"? In every other type of software we've ever built, it's always been far more likely that we build malfunctioning, difficult-to-anticipate examples. Any reason it'll be different this time? If psychos and lunatics are rare (arguably they're not) it's because evolution has purged them mercilessly ever since there have been humans at all.

Optimists will be to blame when we're extinct. Not that anyone will be around to care.

A moderator has, presumably, chosen n posts, and by doing so has indicated that if you've downvoted (or upvoted, their choice) at least however many of those, you're on the shitlist in their subreddit. No AI needed, the moderator was the one to determine that you were criticizing something and that in their subreddit the criticism is unwelcome.

Where to allow them to do this with posts outside of their subreddit is an implementation detail.

I think my account's old enough to drink liquor. Or had been, before they banned it.

>Actually, that big stink people made over killing third-party Reddit client access was all powermods, because doing your job as a moderator is nigh-impossible with the standard Reddit tools. That's why we had so many subs get blacked out in protest, an

I sort of got the impression it was because of that back when it happened. But when I say it out loud everyone protested reddit because the moderators didn't have what they needed to ban people unfairly and clamp down on free speech it just sounded a little weird.

>That is, the vaccination subs that want to talk about vaccines have no tools to prevent people from the antivax subs from coming in and changing the narrative by downvoting everything vaccine positive[

I remember suggesting such a tool, long ago, when you could still talk to the admins on IRC. Would've been in 2008. I suggested that it would be possible to either ban or have votes ignored (by a moderator) of those people who were voting wrong. Hear me out... if the subreddit was r/tomcruiseisawesome, and there is a person (or many) constantly downvoting Tom Cruise submissions (or upvoting Tom "Cruise sucks!" submissions), then they're just in the wrong place and causing trouble. They retorted that the moderators shouldn't be allowed to see who votes on what, but when I pointed out that you wouldn't have to let the mods know who voted what, just give them the tool that says "banhammer everyone who downvoted/upvoted at least 3 of these" they shut up and stopped talking.

So, they've wanted it to be this way for a very long time.

When teenage suicide clusters hit all the small towns within 50 miles of each other, you're positing that they were actually half-siblings and didn't know it, eh?

I'm glad people like you downvote me, it lets me know that I'm right.

>Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed,

Retards in the 1960s believed such. But the reality is that it's not even needed a little. And subreplacement fertility isn't "population reduces for a bit, then stabilizes"... subreplacement fertility is actually "the population continues to shrink, accelerating and shrinking faster until extinction inevitably ensues".

So you're not really a "I want a lower population", you're part of a death cult that wants humans gone. Forever.

>this is good for pretty much everybody.

It hasn't been good for anyone, except some tiny minority that is measured as much less than 1%.

>There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).

Already shrinking. Visibly, indisputably shrinking. And the western world isn't doing the polluting.

>Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.

No, it already stopped growing. Ran out of gas, but as the car coasts to a stop you can delusionally pretend that the engine's still on, and that we aren't coasting up the hill. If somehow I were wrong, it wouldn't be unfortunate at all, it'd be a wondrous miracle.

>There are levels of depression (or other circumstances) at which people are actual drains on their family.

Committing suicide almost certainly guarantees further suicides within that close family. Children especially... years later. In certain social circles (teenage suicide), it heightens the risk of further teenage suicides, even among non-peers in some cases.

Unless the facehugger has just laid an egg in your gut, suicide is never rational and its consequences will play out over decades.

The world record holder vegetables are all grown in Alaskan summers, up north... where they get 20+ hours of daylight per day. Dunno, maybe the CAM plants would do bad (pineapples) but just about everything else benefits.

>Why use someone else's non FOSS, locked down linux, when you could

All my life I have had to make do with junk I could get at Walmart or Best Buy. Got tired of it. Cheap plastic shit that would inevitably shit the bed just a month or two after the warranty expired. I'm not making the IT helpdesk wages I was making 30 years ago... fuck that. While I couldn't spend ten grand on home networking, I could finally spend a little something on hardware that's not total shit.

Got the CCR2004-16G-2S+. No stupid ONTs, either, just the SFP+ modules. Plenty of backup 1gig ports if I get a third WAN (thinking about getting Starlink on standby). Actual proper fucking APs that do seamless handoff (hell, one of them probably covers the footprint of my house, if I'm honest). And no more shitty GUI configuration pages. I just shell in and band out commands on the command line (at least three times til I get the syntax right, but who gives a fuck).

Wish they made something with 3 or 4 SFP+ ports that I didn't need a rack for.

>Now, all the villagers can get cheaper horseshoes, so they don’t have to spend as many resources on shoes for their horses, and can now invest more into what their village is best at, and sell those goods to other villages.

And for a village that had 50 such specialties... they can make do with 49 specialties. Then with 48. And 45 as well. 25 eventually. But some day in the future, their great-grandchildren wake up, and there are no jobs. That Korean factory even ships in tractors, so there's no farm labor work to be had for the 200 who didn't have a specialty. But the food still costs money. And it doesn't matter if the village is gone because those people moved to the city, there's not much work there either. And maybe there are even fewer people to worry about this, because when the moved to the city, those people stopped having children.

Who is this good for? Is it good for you?

>Which, for me, raises the question why weren't these things passed down? Why weren't the young a kind of apprentices to the old?

Because at that time, the younger generation outnumbered the old. And today, the older generation outnumbers the younger. They grew up in a growing world, and you have grown up in a shrinking world. Not shrinking quite so quickly that you can't help but notice... not yet. We're not Japan, not yet. When you read that heartwarming story about the Japanese train line that stays open until that one Japanese girl finishes high school, that happened because she was part of a shrinking society. Do you think they had dances planned multiple nights per week in her prefecture?

There was a gold badge given out if you got 100 edits approved. And another if you got 100 edits reversed.

I was under the impression that yellow was a better candidate for this. But whatever. Can hardly wait for RGBCYM televisions that will make my wallet bleed.

It's a truly weird scenario... why would you consider it property when it resides on another person's computer?

Can I load this with Sideloadly?

If Walmart sold you a lawnmower, but you had to leave the lawnmower in their store, would you consider it your property just because they let you start it up and hear it rumble?

If you wouldn't do that for Walmart, why would you do it for Sony?

Maybe back in some earlier era when we all had so many children that 3 or 4 were basically disposable, stupid parenting methods like "letting them learn to deal with this ruinously dangerous vice on their own" would have worked (or maybe there's a reason no one did that then). But for those of you that have just the one or two, this is well beyond reckless. Nothing I could ever say will persuade you otherwise, and even observation of reality won't help since the aftermath will play out for 50 or more years. Good luck, you'll need it.

>Same deal as what the GP is pointing at: you need to train kids to deal with slop,

Sure. That's why I have mine mainlining China White. How will they learn to deal with addictive substances unless they're waist-deep in it?

God help me if Claude starts using inline parentheticals, I might just have to take a vow of (online) silence.

>So I guess, AI is whispering things into our ears whether we notice or not.

Humanity is a weak hive mind species. You can, with effort, keep it from whispering it into your ears, if you really want that. But it's impossible to keep it from whispering in another ear attached to your hivemind. And the only difference in those ears is the propagation delay before it's rattling around in your own skull.

Overly generous. I suspect that there was this crowd that has replaced their unthinking with machine-thinking. Might or might not be an improvement.

> And of course they need a phone when they go out like these girls.

Do teens need phones? Sure, they need a phone. Arguably any child old enough to know how to make a phone call needs one. But do they need a miniature computer to scroll through AI slop 10+ hours a day?

These aren't the same question. Confusing these two is dangerous.

Parental controls, at minimum, need to be unified. I should be able to deal with the Xbox at the same time as the iPhone. Need a new standard. I need to be able to whitelist and blacklist times and dates, drill down into particular apps/games/services with some decent granularity, do conditional whitelisting, etc. I need a big red killswitch for these right at the top of the parental control app.

Parental controls aren't baked in, they're bolted on and half-assed. One of them I've noticed over the years... I can't disallow Plex except at the app level (outside of Plex entirely). I can't easily give access to the educational libraries, but disallow it to the entertainment libraries. There are a million little anecdotes like that, because no one gives a shit about the problem.

Many parents, I think, are left with all-or-nothing choices. And it's not long before the reddit crowd starts insinuating that the reason your kid doesn't have a phone is so they can't call for help... from you.

It's a big clusterfuck.

>It makes it impossible to click on any links in the footer of the page or even really reading what's in the footer.

But you can see the links! Maybe if your reflexes were just a little faster, if the mouse didn't lag!!!