corbulo

If your first reaction to someone being literally stabbed to death is to write a comment about such a thing being literally impossible as political cover for your 'side'...you might be the problem

Now?

How is this a comment on...this...article...what even

Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all?

Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?

Do you think it's possible that drugs prevent the things on that list from happening? Drugs are more frequently causal of those things than a symptom.

It's more common to find people who start addictions from a financially stable position where they have some discretional income. Rarely do people begin addictions where they have to decide between food or a drug they're not addicted to.

not doing anything and overindulging in an activity required to live are not equivalents to a drug addiction.

100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?

The war on drugs is as winnable as the war on murder or the war on petty theft. Just because it doesn't go away doesn't mean you failed at enforcing it.

War on drugs is just a shitty political campaign slogan everyone fell for. It's a fantastic one from the perspective of the politician, because they'd never be held accountable for 'losing' it during their tenure.

Because if it were true they would lead with that. The only way to get you to read it is essentially make up bullshit and put a question mark at the end.

Fate loves irony

Japan is also geographically not in the best place for non-Russian energy.

Washing machine but for office work is a great analogy.

You lost me at iPhone for AI. I think I know what you mean but it can be expressed better.

processing. . .

The ingrained psychological/emotional reaction between international and safety orange is pretty interesting for such a minute difference.

It was a philosophical decision. Paraphrasing, he believes that if people live too long it will hinder political evolution.

Viewing every woe as a policy issue is actually very technologist/authoritarian.

The South obviously has a unhealthy diet, but the inner cities are dramatically poorer than blue state cities with even more crime to match (St. Louis in particular). It's not a blue/red thing. It's more income and culture driven.

Are the risks equally definable in both cases?

>film-makers to make insane, ego-driven choices without consequences.

Isn't that their job description? Which filmmaker doesn't fit this? The best art is often made by an 'insane' person.

Except it is. You're only considering this from a union PoV. Corporations are not endless pits of wealth extraction waiting to be tapped by a union, you have to consider what the consequences would be outside of the aspiring utopian objectives.

What does the games industry look like if it takes 1-2 more years to create the same products and with significantly less people?

Where do all the formerly employed QA testers, developers, project managers, etc. go? Start their own business? With what capital? Do they have to pay union rates and fees too? If so, how would it not be somewhere around 5 years before they can make a game? Thats an unsustainable model for anyone but the largest most profitable corps.

If dev cycles are increased by a year or two AND wages go up, they will hire a lot less people. Revenue will tank and overhead will skyrocket.

Just accept you were fooled...

Activision already has a hard enough time getting out of its own way. Can you imagine how ridiculous things would get if it had a UAW style union?

I'm not saying the games industry isn't terrible, its probably one of the worst industries to work in. I don't think unions in the games industry would change a damn thing except reducing net efficiency, adding 1-2 years to every dev cycle without much gain for really anyone.

Then the analogy fails to hold up to reality. There's plenty of information to contextualize. Assuming by default everyone but you is a naïve doe lost in a forest and therefore lacks the intellect to contextualize anything for themselves is undemocratic.

>But I'm not convinced we do.

That would likely be because, as mentioned previously there is still more to come out; it's not possible to be reasonably convinced yet. Going back to the original question:

>>What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives?

I think there is objective value to understanding propaganda's origins and goals. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand propaganda are highly likely to be controlled by it.

Propaganda can be a pretty vague term by the way. Can you describe how the public coming to a better understanding of the inner workings of the worlds most influential social media site is merely propaganda?

The degree to which it is selective has yet to be determined.

Are you claiming total ignorance is superior to partial revelation? I think we would all do ourselves better to go live on a desert island and abandon everything about modern life. A shovel might be useful to bury our heads while we're there.

I only see one social media site posts being constantly reposted on global news organizations. Are all of the corporations, world governments, and leaders with tens of millions of followers actually wasting their time by dedicating their social media teams time to twitter instead of focusing on some other social media site thats more influential? Which one is it then?

It's quite odd to attribute objective analysis to sycophancy. I intentionally didn't mention him but here you are bringing him up and fulfilling my point. Who is the sycophant?

This sentiment has high correlation to driving conclusions from a very time limited information set. This isn't the only part that is going to be posted to github.

What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives? I don't understand the purpose of that approach. Help me.

The standard should be higher for machines. Historically, they're inorganic tools.

If a hammer was only as dense as bone, would it be a good hammer?

I look forward to 10-15 years from now when lack of scalability is proven and comment sections will say exactly what you're saying here as if everyone knew it all along.

It's disappointing the comments are so obsessed with the political angle to this that there's a total lack of appreciation (or discussion) of opening up the most influential social media platform in the world.