Just a reminder, MLK Jr. was a centrist, at least so far as the parties go.
“I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” -- MLK Jr.
@b4bbc4d3
> #Wisconsin is wild! How was he not detained without bail the first time‽
I'm curious what the criteria are. My understanding the seriousness of the crime isnt as big a factor as flight risk, etc... but I could be dead wrong there. But if Chauvin could get bail for strangling a person slowly in front of a crowd this isnt surprising.
And yea its amazing ANYONE survived suicide by cop on this one.
That said why do you think its a failure of police? The police dont get to set bail, they arrested him, twice, with no deaths.. sounds like the police did their job correctly (for once) and if we blame anyone its the judge who issued the bail... or perhaps you had a different point?
@b2d9fca2
> Even the examples they give for the secondary definition that matches yours are archaic idioms.
When a definition is considered archaic it is explicitly listed as such.. These are modern idiomys, they just have been around a while. But they were also examples, so that doesnt mean much anyway. When a phrase is archaic it is labeled as such, these are clearly not archaic definitions according to the dictionary.
> If someone says "I dropped the check in the mail yesterday.", then no reasonable person would understand that to mean anything other than "the day before today."
Thats because as humans we are remarkably good at discerning the definition in use by context.
Here is a non idiomatic usage of this definition:
"No one wont wear yesterday's fashion to the Oscars!"
Not an idiom, clearly not archaic, and used to mean "the recent past" clearly and no one in their right mind would think they ment "the day before today" in this context.
@b2d9fca2 Even the examples they give for the secondary definition that matches yours are archaic idioms.
When a definition is considered archaic it is explicitly listed as such.. These are modern idiomys, they just have been around a while. But they were also examples, so that doesnt mean much anyway. When a phrase is archaic it is labeled as such, these are clearly not archaic definitions according to the dictionary. If someone says “I dropped the check in the mail yesterday.”, then no reasonable person would understand that to mean anything other than “the day before today.”
Thats because as humans we are remarkably good at discerning the definition in use by context.
Here is a non idiomatic usage of this definition:
“No one would wear yesterday’s fashion to the Oscars!”
Not an idiom, clearly not archaic, and used to mean “the recent past” clearly and no one in their right mind would think they ment “the day before today” in this context.
@de8e207b
Trump had 4 years and failed... Biden had 3 years and failed... nope.. ready for someone new. Hopefully someone a lot less racist than either of these ass hats.
@b2d9fca2
Thats not true...
Yesterday means "any time in the past".. though particularly used for the recent past.
Yestermonth is a word
Yesterweek is a word too
@728613c4
Moderates, as in the non-alt-left/alt-right... the "Reasonable" part of both those spectrum? Or did you maybe mean centrists? I mean id disagree either way but very weird to say being reasonable/moderate (not ideologically extreme) is going to destroy the world...
@025b770f Oh that would be pretty sweet.. I think its a lower priority than getting git itself to federate.. but i could see it as a very nice feature on a federated git, and of course useful on regular git as you point out.
@025b770f This Idea has been proposed some time ago and the project started to do it... it was stalled last I checked and made no progress.. but federated git would be very cool!
@2dfc6694 basically the arrows show consumption paths
For example LGPL v2.1 and LGPL v3+ are not compatible, neither license can include code from the other nor can you upgrade one to the other.
However both of these can be rolled into a GPLv3 license and therefore you can merge them under that license.
A federated comment backend for websites supporting static website generators:
https://cactus.chat/
Love the idea... my only question... why the hell matrix protocol. That sounds like an odd choice to support this...
@96fb9d01 enjoy.. If you want me to "get the point" try making the point the first time rather than being hyperbolic as you tend to do... since its much easier to disprove a hyperbolix stance and then when you go "no thats not the point" all that looks like is goal post moving
@96fb9d01
I dont address you moving the goal post.. you said something, it was wrong, if you want to move the goalpost first you have to admit it was disproven and wrong and then you move the goal post and set a newtangent, then i will bite and address your new point.. but i wont waste time addressing your new tangent if you arent closing up the initial point faithfully
@96fb9d01 No, I am addressing what you actually claimed rather than dealing in moving the goal post fallacy is all.
You said we dont have leisure from automation.. yet we do.. if you live a life like before automation (1000+ years back) your life would have a great deal of leisure relative to what it was like living that same lifestype pre-automation.
@96fb9d01 See titus in kentucky as an example.. He has no job, and very little expenses.. its a prime example of how people could easily have a life of leisure off just 5 hours of work a **month** but they dont because they want their iphones and electricity.
@96fb9d01 Thats the fault of the people and their spendings not automation.
Automation has been happening for thousands of years.. plumbing automated the process where people would haul out shit on carts, the wheel and wagons provided an automation for transporting goods... it is nothing new.
The thing is when each new automation increased the wealth for EVERYONE people also had new demands on their quality of living.
Imagine if everyone lived like the amish, a life style similar to what it was 1000 some years ago.. no electricity, no modern anything... It would cost you 100$ to live and you could literally work just an hour or two a day and sit by a river all day. You can have that leisure from automation right now... but you dont want that, instead you want all the wealth and do more work, so you get the electricity and the modern home, and decide to work and pay more for it too.
In response to automation replacing jobs I often say "Get a career that is high-skill that cant be automated"...
What people thing I mean:
* Mathematician
* Programmer
* Electrical Engineer
What I mean:
* Everything above
* Magician
* Actor
* YouTuber
* Etc.
@b2d9fca2 I went from poor and on welfare to what some people might call rich (I wouldnt, but i guess it depends on where you draw the line)... regardless I did it on passive income. Its actually the one ofrm of income most accessible to the poor...
Anyone can learn to program as its all virtual, and programming is a gret way to write software and make passive income.
@0c02e477 You will find out in my next interesting fact of the day where I give tips as to how to get your family not to bother you when they need someone to watch their kid!
@ff56f6d6
I dont drink very often.. largely because one drink just makes me tired and feel shitty.. I drink, very rarely, but to get drunk, and pay for it the next day. Thankfully I'm only dumb enough to do that to myself like once a year max.
Only thing I will really ever be caught doing is the devils lettuce from time to time, usually as edibles.
@644cda1d
@71247a99
Enjoying a debate is fine.. if you take a contrary position for fun all I ask is you make it clear you are doing that... just say your playing devils advocate... Otherwise I may think you beleive a thing, and while I will respect you as long s you are respectful, I , liek anyone, will judge your character based on your opinions.. so you should want to give me an accurate picture of you so I can judge you accurately :)
@ec40ea5e
@71247a99 I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.
Ok certainly nothing wrong with that… ill listen. I agree with the general sentiment – a little bias can reinforce itself over time, until you have the highly polarized society that social media algorithms have helped create. So any bias should be examined critically.
Good, yes, agreed so far However, I’m sure that you’ll have a very hard time finding a news story that is accurate, complete, and unbiased, no matter the source.
Yes absolutely. In fact one reason I am so vocal about it is because very very few news agencies or journalist exist who maintain journalistic integrity. The proper response isnt to accept it, its to call it out when we see it and reward it when we dont, as consumers. Moreover, we should find solutions or ideologies that help ensure journalistic integrity is maximized. Accepting it doesnt do that.
I will tell you what does.. two things really.
1) lack of explicit bias or bias as a feature (like we have here).
2) lack of a for-profit model.
For #1 we discussed this already alot so ill leave that to the rest of the discussion
#2 is important though// Anyone who knows me on here will tell you, im pretty damn capitalistic, I start companies for almost for a living, I very much lean center (left of center, but center) and economically at least I lean right (socially and welfare programs I lean left). So I am the last person anyone expects to be anti for-profit… but there are two places I am non-profit all the way, healthcare, and journalism. Because in both these fields maximizing profits is counter to their intended purpose of making healthcare affordable, or journalism faithful to journalistic integrity. In short (j/k I talk a lot), I don’t accept the premise that good journalism is devoid of any kind of bias. It is reporting and story-telling by humans, and the intelligent consumer will weigh it appropriately.
This is again a misrepresentation of my stance.. you are disagreeing with somthing I never said.
My criteria is not “devoid of any kind of bias”.. the criteria is that bias is not baked in as a feature.. that a reasonable attempt is made to eliminate and reduce bias, NOT to intentionally add bias as a feature.
I hope you can see how these are two wildly different things.
@ec40ea5e
@71247a99 I don’t think it matters what they call themselves - Self-assigned names might be useful for clarity, but they don’t necessarily reflect the truth
I agree it doesnt matter too much, other than to reflect on their on mentality maybe. The point isnt that it matters, the point is that it is a fact that they call themselves something. If I say “I am a purple unicorn” then it is a fact that I think that I am a purple unicorn (it is also a fact that I am not a purple unicorn). So that matters.
What the journalist things they are is opinion.. If the journalist things they are far-right then that is the journalists opinion (just like before it is a fact that the journalist has that opinion, but still their opinion). Ergo the journalists opinion, even though it agrees with my own, has no place.
I mean whats the problem.. im not saying this person cant post this stuff.. All I am saying is call it what it is, an place where people post their opinions about the news, and it isnt the news itself.. nothing wrong with being an opinion based editorial, just dont lie and call it news. We are allowed to label groups despite their own preferences. “Far-right” is accurate, and succinct. It is a useful shorthand for all the views and policies that you would have the author explicitly list (probably to the detriment of the writing quality).
Of course you are able to label them as far right, just dont lie about it and call it news when your doing an opinion piece, thats all. If this were labeled clearly as an opinion piece I’d have no complaints.
@ec40ea5e
@71247a99
I see i had an accidental paste int he middle of my post, im going to delete and repost.. please reattach this comment as I dont want you to be silenced, i want the comment to be visible for others (i will also respond once I read it).
@ec40ea5e
@2dfc6694 Not natural at all.. new divers take quite a few dives before they get their boyancy control in check... For me as an expiernced diver at the top of the expertise scale, yes its very natural for me and i can do back flips and blow bubble rings, and go through very narrow openings with sharp edges comfortably... but it took many years and many hundreds of dives to get to that point.
Even now when i dont dive for a year I need to spend a little time in a pool or shallow water on my first dive just remembering my skills.. They come back quickly, but they really do take some practice.
@71247a99 I’m back. This will be long.
No worries, you seem to be polite and arguing in good faith I think… So please take all the space you need. The main argument you’re making is that having a bias precludes producing responsible journalism.
I am not saying that at all, though I can see why you might think that as what I am saying is subtly but critically different.
What I am saying is that when you intentionally encode bias into your news as a feature… which is what you do when you label news as “for progressives” and choose intentionally loaded language.. only then does it preclude responsible journalism. A person who is simply biased but goes out of their way to do their best that those biases dont influence their reporting, in those cases they can be very responsible. But that not what we have here, we have a news agency who prides itself on being biased and offers it as a feature, intentionally. But if they publish a story that states facts, gives sources, and exposes information that is important to me (as this is, I live in the city that attracts these occupations), then that is valuable journalism.
Should be… but when there is intentional bias encoded as a feature when they do it then you are getting that information with intentional brain washing.. words matter, and when the news is presented with highly loaded and opinionated language sprinkled throughout the feed your hate, you wind up walking away a worse person, even if facts are sprinkled with it, you are effected by the news by being a worse human being, you just got some facts as you got it… It also means that almost always facts that are counter to the agenda wont ever reach the spotlight. So while you get facts, you get incomplete facts designed to persuade you to a conclusion rather than to inform you fairly. (You’re taking a hard line for objectivity, but there is no such thing. We’re all hairless apes constructing our own realities out of extremely limited sensory data with a brain that likes to make up stories so we can find food and mates, and avoid danger.)
There is a huge difference between people being flawed and being unable to achieve perfect objectability vs intentionally being bias and baking that into your news as a feature rather than an accidental effect. The rest of this seems to be differing opinions on the meaning of terms.
Not about the meaning of terms at all, its about the use of loaded language indenting to show intentional bias. “PressProgess”: This is a progressive journalism outfit. The name fits.
Yes the name fits, and makes quite clear they have the intention of being biased.. that bias is the goal, not a side effect.. thats the problem.. the fact that the name fits is exactly why they have no journalistic integrity. Try convincing any new organization trying to attract subscribers that they will succeed with an unexciting, straight-down-the-middle name and they will laugh you out of the boardroom. “18% Grey News! Not too dark, not too light. Perfect and featureless!”
You are absolutely right.. delivering news with journalistic integrity wont succeed.. That is exactly the problem. I dont blame them for selling out and becoming a propaganda machine, any business man would, its the same reason Fox news exists, its just good business…. This is exactly why for-profit news should already have you suspicious fromt he get go.. you cant maximize profit and actually have journalistic integrity, because thats not what people want.
This is exactly why the few good objective news agencies are all non-profit agencies… because they can focus on doing good journalism, not how popular they are.
@ec40ea5e
@5b5f86c2 AS someone who managed a few large open source communities I can say the solution is in modularization.. Just gotta make sure its divided into lots of smaller parts that dont seem overwhleming individually.
@ca980588
Ahh so we arent talking moderate in the political sense at all, MLK when he spoke of "white moderates" in this quote clearly was not talking in terms of political spectrum.
In fact when MLK did speak of parties he made quite clear he himself was a centrist:
“I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” -- MLK Jr.
@728613c4
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 | export