cazum

The only difference between trump and any other right leaning politician since the 80s is that trump says the quiet parts out loud.

Being a criminal doesn't automatically win you a ~90% party approval rating for wanting to build a massive racism wall or banning Muslims from entering the country. A hegemonic power structure and violent ideology does that. To say that the horrible shit trump has been pushing is not a symptom of a larger structure is to ignore the fact that equivalent horrifying injustices have also been committed by other Republicans (ICE, Patriot Act, invasion of iraq) and Democrats (civilian drone strikes, refugee child concentration camps) alike.

I think the opening was meant to show the opposing perspectives on each politician.

There's no question that the Fox Newses of the world like to portray AOC as a raving lunatic who is moments away from erecting guillotines and starting another October Revolution.

Mainstream liberal outlets have similarly detached problems with trump, with their primary criticism being that he's crazy and an asshole and says stupid things, and not that he's an instrument of neoconservative nihilism and promoter of the American White Ethnostate.

So what?

If anything all this does is show that being an old school hacker doesn't prevent you from becoming an ineffectual small-r-republican with a donkey pin

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/...

Google photos is absolutely struggling to load my jpegs right now, though I'm not sure how separate that service is from Drive, if at all.

The list only includes single, widowed or divorced women, so in that regard the list has been created from a bit more filtering than just age.

EDIT: to your point however, being married would not preclude a woman from being "breed ready" as we understand the phrase. So clearly there is some missing context needed to really understand what that column represents.

What? Nobody is claiming that they don't.

What is being claimed is that the majority of those employees are not seeing an increased benefit (wages) proportional to the increased profits of the company they work for, whereas shareholders and executives do.

There are plenty of examples where rising profits in an industry have led to workforce downsizing, not job creation.

Is there any data to show that these excessive eyewear profits are being used to create new jobs?

If you didn't do QA, can you really be sure the results were amazing?

Telco contracts are not (ever?) written in language parseable by non-technical people. In addition, the people selling these contracts are incentivized to mislead customers in order to make sales.

While you can make the argument that what Bell is doing is legal, the point of this discussion is to engage with the possibility that maybe it shouldn't be.

>while everything keeps getting better.

Are out of control wildfires, intense tropical storms, prolonged heat waves and rising sea levels a part of your analysis there?

You can't deny creation science, as creation science hasn't yet formed a coherent hypothesis capable of being denied.

Climate science has testable hypotheses that continue to give reliable, observable and consistent results. Claiming that its conclusions are wrong requires denial, as no one has yet been able to demonstrate that that they are wrong.

Creation science hasn't even yet been able to form a framework that can be tested, let alone denied. I'd argue it doesn't even qualify as a science.

Yes I'm being pedantic. Yes I will die on this hill.

All science is 'advocacy science' when you deny the conclusions.

Just a warning to mobile users:

The upper link can absolutely grind Android Chrome to a halt.

Force closing the app doesn't fix it either, as chrome reopens the last tab you had open, so the only way out is to completely wipe the browser data which is a little annoying.

I think this should go without saying, but this is obviously untrue. Yet, I've heard it more times than I could ever recall.

Where did this myth come from?

Well, Microsoft does own GitHub. Who else would be behind it?

At risk of going well off topic here:

The exact situation that you described happens a lot closer to home than you may think.

Insulin prices have inflated by about 500% over the past two decades in the United States.

Novo Nordisk's profits have seen a similar rise.

Now, im no economitician, but I'd wager a vial of Fiasp® that there's more than just supply and demand going on here.

Novo Nordisk has yearly profits of somewhere in the neighborhood of 10b a year.

Those numbers are partially generated by pricing insulin products out of reach of many people who died from not being able to afford it.

Sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

I think they mean Applecensorship.com

It's not theft because that would require Israeli law condemn the action. Given the kind of things they currently do at other border crossings, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

What do you mean "now"?

This is the way it's been done for decades.

This is the most cynical, but probably the most pragmatic perspective.

I'm not a fan of Gates, but if this is his gameplan, I'm all in.

If we can ditch coal and fossils for nuclear, we'll have a new set of problems, but nothing as dire as "12 years before we all cook to death".

Game prices are going to increase anyway.

Last year, EA made over a billion dollars in profits. If they aren't using that money to improve the working conditions of developers, what makes you think the solution is to give them more money?

"socialism will never work!" He exclaimed, as the boundless growth of the current economic model pushed the Earth and all its inhabitants toward an entirely needless global extinction event.

In Firefox, Ctrl-K selects the address bar, and doesn't trigger the "New Node" action.

It's pretty tough to be optimistic when so much unnecessary death and suffering happens daily to ensure that those 26 people remain extremely wealthy.

Technology doesn't even need to factor into it.

Wealth creates wealth, regardless of the available gadgets. We are now at a stage where the wealthy have used their wealth to accumulate more and more wealth. And as we speak, they are using that wealth to get more and more and more.

That's the feedback loop.

The marginal tax rate might help the American poor, but for the rest of the world, where the majority of poor people are, this, on its own, isn't really going to do much good.

It's a matter of oversight, transparency, accountability and motivation. In the case of Google, they have very little oversight, nearly zero transparency, they are accountable to only their shareholders, and their motives are exclusively profit.

They have no interest, or even means of producing, a publically good internet. They can and will only produce an internet that is best suited to make them money. And with that there will be inherent conflicts with what is best for the users.

At least with a government you get some of the transparency and oversight, public control and no profit motive (if you cap campaign financing that is)

Some organization structures are better suited to do different things.

Does chip and Medicaid cover absolutely everyone who might need it? Are there people who, despite the coverage, are still left with outstanding costs they can't meet?

My understanding is that in Cuba, there is no applying to services like Chip, or Medicaid. Theres no chance you won't get coverage, as everyone, by default, gets the care they need. Wait times are non existent for the pregnant or disabled across the country, not just in certain regions.

It doesn't seem totally unlikely that the people that """"fall through the cracks"""" in the American systems are enough to swing infant mortality rates.