Imagine enforcing shitty copyright laws on yourself like some code of honor. We developed the technology to make infinite copies of any media and then spend endless resources fighting it because it undermines our parasitic economic model.

Imagine for a moment that society embraced the full potential of digital technology. We could have a library of all human art and knowledge ever produced available for free, instantly, everywhere. If book libraries didn’t already exist and were proposed today the excuses for rejecting it would be the same. The answer is also the same, change our economic model to support people’s basic needs unconditionally and directly subsidize the production we need/want (like art).

Craigslist was always on the fringes, before Facebook marketplace came in there were a bunch of separate and disconnected online marketplaces. Facebook marketplace had the advantage of already having a massive user base (larger than any of the existing online marketplaces), causing it to become the largest one right out the gate, which then of course makes it the most attractive option for sellers since they will reach more people.

That also reminds me of this scene from Invincible where during the copying process their experiences are sort of “blended” making them see from both bodies at once, only here they both live and are separate afterwards.

Edit: is it obvious how much of a sci-fi geek I am lol

If anyone’s interested in a hard sci-fi show about uploading consciousness they should watch the animated series Pantheon. Not only does the technology feel realistic, but the way it’s created and used by big tech companies is uncomfortably real.

The show got kinda screwed over on advertising and fell to obscurity because of streaming service fuck ups and region locking, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s at least partially because of its harsh criticisms of the tech industry.

The animated series Pantheon has a scene depicting exactly this, and it’s one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen.

Edit: Here is the scene in question. It’s explained he has to be awake during the procedure because the remaining parts of his brain need to continue functioning in tandem with the parts that have already been scanned.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

Coming at this from an IT perspective, a lot of things that people “already know” seem to evaporate when it’s time to actually apply that knowledge. Keeping that in mind, I think a game like this helps to cement the idea in people’s heads in a more intuitive way. It bridges the gap between system 1 and system 2 thinking.

Their TV show Sense8 is also really great progressive sci-fi.

Don’t know and it doesn’t matter. The point is the kid, if informed properly and given the choice to go or not to go, is capable of making that choice.

You wouldn’t know what transexual means if you hadn’t been told or read or heard about it somewhere. That is as true of adults as it is of children. What you seem to be implying is that a child could not possibly understand the concept, and that is where we clearly disagree.

You don’t give children enough credit. Children are capable of understanding how they are different from others, even if they don’t have the words to describe it. They can understand that there are people with authority who make the rules, even if they don’t know the details. They are able to recognize when things are unfair and feel indignant about it, even if they’re unsure of why or how.

The mother can give her child the words to describe how they feel, the details of the world we live in, explain the whys and hows of it, and the child is capable of comparing that to what they know and thinking for themselves. Children are impressionable because of their lack of prior knowledge with which to make that comparison, but that does not mean they lack agency.

It is certainly possible that this mother manipulated her child, put words in her mouth, shielded her from information that could provide a basis for comparison, but that is an assumption for which you have no evidence except that you can’t imagine the alternative.

The alternative being that this mother raised her child lovingly, taught them all they could, trusted them with information from other sources, trusted them to make their own judgements with their guidance, and supported them when they came to their own conclusions.

That’s a lot of assumptions you’ve just made about this random mother and child you know nothing about.

They were there waiting to meet a Democratic supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, and did not seem to be seeking confrontation. Even the way the mother spoke to the Republican senator was about as non-confrontational as you could get, so I don’t see any evidence the mother is putting the kid in any situation she can’t handle. I’m sure the kid is glad to show up in support of her rights, and very much doubt she will regret doing so later.

Save your cynicism for when it’s appropriate.

According to this study LED lights made no difference.

Yep, it happened. Scroll up a bit and you’ll see evangelicals opposed the ADA because it included protections for people with HIV.

The only people who fall for this propaganda from upholders of the status quo are ignorant of history. Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

The only people who say this are people who are ignorant of history. Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.