omginternets

Sidestepping the entire issue of vulnerable people forming superficial relationships with computers, I'm struck by the line about how one platform ended up banning erotic roleplay ... why? I thought this was supposed to be an ersatz for romantic relationships. This contradiction seems relevant, somehow.

We can dream.

This is how I was raised. I’ll forever be thankful.

As a subject matter expert in things that appear on my screen, I assure you that I do.

To be fair, I think the 250k mark usually implies some kind of specialization.

Or the same process...

It certainly did not.

I regularly get nag screens though.

lol yeah, that’s what they said about cable tv.

Fool me once, …

It definitely is not.

> The right to petition for redress of grievances is not abridged by the creation of methods other than a civil suit to redress a grievance.

What a strange comment. Of course they aren’t. They’re abridged by the de facto obligation to get vaccinated (unless you want to lose your job) and — crucially - the total waiver of liability on the part of pharmaceutical companies.

It’s telling how you went from “you don’t have that right” to “okay, you have that right, but some particular thing isn’t violating it”. Im guessing the next stop is “okay, it was violated, but it’s not a big deal”.

Maybe read the dissenting comments? Some of these are rather articulate.

IBC?

I'm concerned about our track-record of producing synthetic foods. They're almost always carcinogenic garbage.

Sure, same argument applies to fake meat.

Respectfully, there is a vast continuum between “anti-vax” and “vax-maxxie” that a reasonable and prudent person can occupy. I wish you would extend us the courtesy of registering some of the nuance with which the topic of COVID vaccine policy is routinely discussed.

I’d rather pay a bit more for meat than be forced down the path of questionable meat-substitutes. Maybe meat has been unsustainably cheap for a long time?

I am quite far from the vegan ideology, but still willing to recognize that there is something untenable about our current relationship with livestock.

Yes, it absolutely is a constitutional right [0] and yes, we agree that some of the limitations imposed by the federal tort act are counterproductive. The latter is also irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about filing suit against a private pharmaceutical company.

> and is divorced from any preventative or punitive process applied to the manufacturer.

Yes, this is precisely what feels outrageous to me. I am constitutionally entitled to petitioning for restitution from the private actor, directly, and in a manner that does not a priori exclude punitive damages. I am rather concerned that many of us were coerced into waiving this right.

Aren’t you?

[0] see “right to petition” under first amendment, which includes the right to sue for the redress of grievances. I am surprised someone accusing others of being misinformed would overlook this.

>... because making things to inject in people is their whole business model and if the FDA says that enough they cease to exist as a company?

1. That's a stretch. These companies sell more than just COVID vaccines.

2. How does a patient that was injured by the vaccine, through manufacturer negligence, say, obtain restitution?

I'm glad the FDA is still regulating the vaccine. I wish my constitutional right to bringing civil suit were similarly preserved before I was coerced by my employer into taking the vaccine.

As if that were the relevant part of the imagery…

> You are very misinformed if you think vaccine manufacturers are not liable for their products. They are exempt from normal civil suits because of their mandatory nature (nobody would make a mandatory medical product at the usual rate of medical malpractice suits), but the FDA is authorized to withdraw products and levy fines for defective/harmful vaccines, and has done so many times in the past.

I must be severely misinformed as well, because I remember signing a waiver that prevents me from filing a civil suit. I don’t see how such things as negligence and/or willful misrepresentation of benefits and risks can be remedied simply by having the FDA say “whoops, actually you can’t inject this in people anymore.” That’s wildly different from being a able to provide restitution, let alone punish bad behavior.

Even if I were to accept your premise, I’d disagree with your conclusion. There will be powerful people with “personality disorders” [0] in any sufficiently large group.

Her analysis just isn’t very interesting. It’s merely a well-written rant.

[0] I am deliberately ignoring the fact that if we are being literal, these people most certainly do not have a personality disorder, unpalatable though their characters may be.

I’d be content with some recognition that there are multiple such figures with a plurality of opinions and impulses, and that this is the main driver behind SV’s apparent “personality disorder”. So framed, we can at least call for these shadowy figures (many of whom have names and public personas) to engage with some of the contradictions of SV and suggest ways to resolve them.

It’s hard for me to read this kind of article because I share the author’s frustration on the one hand, and can’t help but feel he is making a spurious comparison on the other. Silicon Valley isn’t a person. If you take any sufficiently large group of people, the mass behavior will appear as a personality disorder insofar as there is a plurality of personalities involved.

If you want another example, look no further than hacker news.

Amen. Being inside all day is the other big factor, it seems.

This is an under-rated comment. I had a similar revelation that eventually led to the conclusion that the computer is a crucial part of the distraction, and that many activities are best performed at least partly without it. Examples include:

- taking breaks

- thinking through a problem

>I think 2-5 are pretty unlikely and/or impractical given the conflicting demands on officer time in the real world.

Respectfully, you don't seem to have any experience with law enforcement or military. 2-5 happen routinely.

>There are 10,000 ShotSpotter events a year.

And that is a separate issue of capacity vs demand. Nevertheless, a system like ShotSpotter, when paired with resources and a triage system, is a very real augmentation to law enforcement capacity.

The problems with SpotShotter are completely separate from this. That's precisely why law enforcement seems to want it so badly.

Which of the listed items is not practical? This is all routine police business.

Having the resources and political will to respond is a separate matter entirely, but that has virtually nothing to do with the importance of treating gunfire as an emergency.

Right? I’m at a loss as to how someone could think an unhurried response to gunfire is appropriate.

Why are you focusing on cartoons instead of what’s actually troubling?