Anomandaris

Obviously things cost money, you patronising jackass, but pining all your hopes on CEOs and the ultra-wealthy to cut in to their own profit margins for the sake of humanity makes you more braindead than I am. It’s scientific innovation that drives discovery, cost reduction, and economic growth, not profit-hoarding conglomerates.

A large portion of our discoveries and inventions in the past fifty years or more are building on top of innovations made during the 60s, 70s, and 80s by NASA’s launches. Electrical engineering, structural engineering, communications and data, materials sciences, all needed to be advanced for space travel. Handing this responsibility off to SpaceX just leads to all the data, discoveries, innovations, and corollaries being patented, trademarked, and locked away to make sure no competitor can take advantage of it.

Shell knew climate change was going to devastate the planet over 50 years ago. Did they capitalise on that opportunity to develop green and renewable energy first and completely dominate that market for the betterment of themselves and the planet? No. They locked down that information, spread misinformation for decades, and made short term profiteering decisions to advance their own individual careers. Now we’re watching the planet slowly burn. So sure, let’s trust the corporate pigs.

This is a horrible take. Absolutely awful, ultra-capitalist drivel. Why does every action or accomplishment have to be viewed through the lense of economic benefit? Not even holistic or utilitarian, just stakeholders and making the ultra-wealthy even wealthier… Who gives a fuck about space tourism? What the hell does that give us as a species?

The original comment about the importance of aerospace and space exploration is absolutely correct, but the idea that the end goal is space tourism is more than enough to make me turn against it also. The end goal is exploration, technological advancements, and a greater understanding of how our universe works. We should be taxing the ever-loving shit out of sociopaths like Musk and Bezos and feeding some of that in to NASA, and ESA, so scientists can make discoveries for us all, rather than businessmen making discoveries so they can exploit, gatekeep, and profit off it.

But the other side of that is no political accountability. There’s no risk of punishment, so why should they care? Insider trading, corruption, nepotism, general lying, acting in bad faith, and intentionally misrepresenting facts to disrupt useful debate.

Politicians get away with all of that and more, and get paid massive amounts of money, above and below the table, while they do it.

It’s so weird to me, what do they expect to happen to the economy of their state when their workforce has such a poor education?

Honestly I don’t get why this is so surprising, humans have been drawing graffiti for thousands of years. There’s plenty of Ancient Roman graffiti to attest to that.

While yes, we should discourage it where possible, we also need to acknowledge that it’s just as big a part of human nature, and culture, as the colosseum itself.

Like most things, it’s about balance. All changes to open source software must be approved by the community managing it, and if that community is lazy or poorly managed or simply too busy then there’s an opportunity for new vulnerabilities to be created, either accidentally or maliciously.

But for well managed software, as other people have said you can get more changes more frequently, more security as many people are evaluating the code base, and greater attention to what users want rather than what’s profitable. Whereas with closed source software there is a greater focus on profitability, and sometimes that leaves vulnerabilities open when development is rushed and/or vulnerabilities are not seen as important enough to justify the cost to fix, but sometimes that tendancy towards profitability can also ensure the product stays a market leader. Steam may be a good example of a good closed source product.

I don’t know if I’d go that far. If you’re talking about a quick script then sure, whatever gets the job done. But for any actual project the use of good, consistent typing does a lot for readability and future-proofing. And in strongly-typed languages it can have a notable affect on the overall functionality too.

If you can’t tell from context whether something is a float or if it’ll overflow the int max then you probably need to re-think the entire method.

But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

No I didn’t, I think I was pretty clear. We need to reduce the number of guns available, nothing else will be effective until we do. I do believe any solution that does not involve removing guns at some point is incomplete. But removing guns on its own is not enough.

Yes, technically weapons are tools

Again, I’m not arguing a gun isn’t a tool. In fact, in the very comment you’re replying to I said they are.

But all of this is besides the actual point, you derailed the point of gun culture and availability driving gun violence with an ultimately meaningless conversation about semantics.

Yes, technically weapons are tools, that’s because the definition of a tool is so broad, just a device used to carry out a particular task.

That’s why I never said he was wrong to call a gun a tool, I said it was misleading, which it is. When a reasonable person thinks of a tool they do not think of a gun, you think of a wrench or a screwdriver or a swiss army knife, or something like that.

Calling a gun a tool is intentionally misleading. A gun’s sole purpose is as a weapon, using it any other way is a misuse of that “tool”. Whereas knives have various practical purposes. Which was obviously the purpose of my initial reply.

In some cases, yes, having a gun is entirely legitimate (assuming used safely) such as protection from dangerous wildlife. But the number of legitimate cases does not even come close to justifying the number of guns, or the gun culture, in America. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, the presence of guns, the acceptance of gun culture, and the normalization of gun violence are things that contribute to the frequency of gun crime.

The removal of guns, and restricting of them to legitimate use cases IS dealing with the underlying social issues. But it’s definitely only part of the solution, that alone is not enough, but nothing else will have a strong effect while so many guns are on the streets and easily accessible.

Yeah man, let me just get my kitchen gun or my box shooter or my letter pistol.

Oh wait, sorry, it’s not guns I’m thinking of that has many completely harmless uses, it’s knives!

Nice, thanks, I didn’t know about this! I assumed the ads were just an unfortunate necessity to maintain the site, but you can definitely tell there’s a bigger difference when you compare the two.

Aside from email already being federated as others have said, there’s a site called PrivacyTools with lots of links for the other things you talked about and lots more.

I think you do have to be careful here though. If you’re too permissive you allow bigotry, but if you’re too restrictive you cut off honest, good faith debate and create echo chamber silos where beliefs are never challenged.

Bigotry should never be accepted but that means non-discriminatory opinions, especially ones you disagree with, should be allowed.