powerslacker

> platforms with violent political rhetoric are still highly available to those who would seek them out

I would submit that they are no longer highly available or their core userbase has moved on to the "dark web". The genius of the centralized social media platform is that it lives on advertising dollars. The advertisers will pull back whenever a platform becomes too uncontrolled. This was the case when Pewdiepie's accidental Nazi reference video was released. A massive pullback in advertising dollars 'forced' YouTube to reconsider its previously lax content policies and policing. That's not to say that YouTube is some pleasant walled garden, but rather that those creating videos and making real money from the site are incentivized to police their own behavior and rhetoric. Most people talking about 'divisive' content are talking around the Trump/QAnon fiasco. Which is very different from the internet I grew up on where even on a 'kids site' you would often see users calling for outright genocide of specific racial groups.

> There was a period of time where social media was just starting out where the filter has essentially been removed (anyone can easily join and start producing & consuming content) but harmful content wasn't yet encouraged.

Prior to social media there was usenet, specialized forums, imageboards such as 4chan, and mass use of IRC. The average social media user would recoil in horror at the 'divisive' content that was common to that time period. REAL neonazis spread their message with impunity, anarchists gathered and distributed tutorials on how to make homemade weaponry, illegal pornography was rampant, and mass shooters were glorified. The 'divisive' content of today is quite tame and is focused primarily on promoting the interests of one of a handful of relatively similar political parties over the others. My point being that social media has amplified the voices of billions, but the money machine behind it has toned the violent poltical rhetoric of the net down to a dull roar. Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or has something they want to sell you. </rant>

The whole concept of quotas based on an immutable characteristic, while potentially of noble intent, would likely become disastrous in practice. Good to see California courts have erred on the side of constitutionality.

> I know some of you will say “Just ignore the status game altogether,” but this is easier said than done. Like many other animals, we are biologically wired to respond to status. Ignorance is not the way out.

> The way out is building a solid foundation of status in multiple things. It’s about becoming diversified in your life, not just your portfolio.

You don't have to pursue status. You can be aware of your innate desire to pursue status and then avoid doing it as much as possible.

Just a heads up for the author, if they are reading this thread at some point:

> Russia is a month into an invitation into Ukraine.

Probably should read 'invasion'.

> Most modern historians deny that the Roman empire suffered a brutal "collapse".

Who is claiming this?

Interesting, never heard this take before.

I'm with Newsom on this one. There's nothing compassionate about leaving the mentally ill in a pile of their own feces. If someone is competent enough to argue their rights to a court then that's one thing but the vast majority of homeless people in California are in desperate need of rehabilitation or care.

> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes.

It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful.

Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance?

You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*?

Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.

I don't think you are too cynical. This sort of thing leaves a poor taste in my mouth.

Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilliant?

I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it.

In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography?

If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.

I might have agreed with you a few years ago but these days I see Spotify's perspective more clearly. Today I see code as a liability. Like the parts in my car it is eventually going to break in some strange way and cause me a headache. The only real solution is to never drive a car, but that's almost impossible if you want to get around. Same with code, it's a vehicle that gets a business to a destination, which is nice: bit it can also be quite expensive when things go wrong. Efficient engineering teams balance this inherent risk against the needs of the business.

I've also seen this far more often, especially when there is a major change in a C-level position.

Agreed. Title is a bit misleading when 'how' is omitted. That being said, I found this section particularly interesting:

> The neutralizing ability of antibodies against all other spike variants showed a dramatic decline from 1 to 6 months after the second dose. While there was a marked decline over time after both vaccines, samples from health care workers who’d received the Moderna vaccine showed about twice the neutralizing ability of those who’d received the Pfizer vaccine. The data also suggests greater immune protection in fully vaccinated healthcare workers who’d had a breakthrough infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Seems that there is an element of protection from surviving natural infections and from vaccine usage.

Are there any official sources for this? I did a quick google search and couldn't find any announcements.

If I had to guess, I'd imagine this is the result of perverse incentives combined with the Peter principle. Consider a manager or corporate recruiter receiving a bonus for keeping down costs.

They are also slow as dirt.

Housing prices doubled for many places on the US.

Except the lenders do get something. A massive tax write off.

You either have a coherent answer or you don't. Objective morality either exists or it doesn't.

You might want to apply to work at GiveSendGo. They just got had a newsworthy data breach and could probably use your talents.

Not an insurrection. Not trying to overthrow the government. Not illegal to send money to people you like or across borders. Not an overtly hostile act. Truckers have rights too.

> So, I read the articles and, importantly, the comments. Rarely do I see criticism beyond simple ad hominem attacks.

My theory is that there is an ongoing media campaign being waged to discredit and demonize Joe Rogan. Ever since he publicly claimed his course of Ivermectin treatment he has been treated as some kind of public enemy by most news media. I find it strange because he has essentially promoted smoking DMT on his podcast - a practice which is likely quite bad for your health, but no really gave that any attention aside from a few memes. But he mentions taking an antiviral and everyone starts treating him like a serious threat to society.

Why is it morally superior to protect human life?

"All censorship should be deplored." - Aaron Scwartz

Always raise prices in relation to demand for your work, especially if you don't have any employees. If there is more demand than you can fill, raise prices until you can do the work. If there is less demand, keep prices the same and find new clients. If you can't find new clients, lower prices.

Chrome has such a market dominance that it effectively determines what 'fully featured' means. Regardless of what the specs say, if something works a certain way in Chrome the layman's expectation is that it should work the same way in every other browser.

> What keeps developers from building an open source alternative?

Well I can't speak for all software developers but I can tell you that for me the juice to squeeze ratio isn't in a good place. I already have a job and it takes up most of my time. The open source movement has turned out to be unsustainable in my eyes since its ideological roots are easily subverted by the project sponsors. Meanwhile commercial closed source software is only viable if you can find paying customers. Virtually no one is willing to shell out for a web browser since there are highly useful 'free' alternatives. Certainly I find it troubling that virtually all the data in the world is being collected, collated, and sold. Most folks don't seem to care enough about the privacy concerns to open up their wallets though. Google has effectively 'won' the browser wars barring a government solution. So why should I or any other software engineer enter into a David v. Goliath fight for virtually no pay or appreciation when I could go work on the next big web app and make a small fortune instead?

Many of us think the benefits do not outweigh the risks. I am opposed to virtually everything 'national' except military. In the United States there is a huge divide between the cultural norms of the city dweller, the suburbanites, and those living in rural America. That divide is even stronger on a state by state basis. The average San Franciscan has an entirely different worldview when compared with the average North Carolinan. The beauty of the American system is that each locality mostly has the ability to determine it's own rules while still sharing a single military and tax base. Certain tradeoffs have to be made to support such a system - meaning we have to put up with each others differences to some degree and potentially 'miss out' on the benefits of national programs. In the end, I prefer that about the US system.

This article has greatly improved the amount of respect I hold for sfgate. Quite brave to publish something so contrary to the chicken little narrative.

No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my original comment. The federal government of the US has not been given that power through Jacobson v. Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that is currently underway.

EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself.

> A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.