jasory

@jasory@programming.dev

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you are in the US, and a karen threatens to call ICE on you, what's the best course of action?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The thing about all these conspiracy theories about false flag killings, is why would you choose such an incredibly risky way, where the target could just as easily be accidentally killed if you get the windage wrong?

  The reality is that is vastly more likely that they were trying to kill ICE employees, but since they were blindly firing at a van, they only hit detainees.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If you are in the US, and a karen threatens to call ICE on you, what's the best course of action?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Or get shot to death, when an anti-ICE activist fires on your transport.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft blocks Israel’s use of its technology in mass surveillance of Palestinians⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Israel was going for a death toll, they said it explicitly themselves.

  AI “errors” had nothing to do with the outcome in Gaza. The IDF would have used another sloppier metric for targeting, they flat out don’t care as long as they still get money and US troops defending them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Reddit users in the UK must now upload selfies to access NSFW subreddits⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Your solution is worse.

  As is, it is the responsibility of the content provider to make sure that they are distributing only to people who are legally allowed to have it.

  With age-verification the user has to prove that they are allowed to access the content, then the site can distribute it to them.

  Your approach is to distribute the content by default and only deny it to ChildDevices. In order for this to work at all, you have to mandate that children can only use ChildDevices. This is soooo much worse than simply requiring that adults who want to see certain content have to prove that they can legally access it. If adults have reservations about providing ID for pornography, the loss of such content seems to be much less than denying children Internet access. (Although, I’m sure that Lemmings would disagree for obvious reasons).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Socialism is the actual teaching of Jesus⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  But that’s not socialism, is it?

  Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can’t argue that the needs are being ignored.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Socialism is the actual teaching of Jesus⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for “Jesus was a socialist”, is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “you should vote for needs-based welfare programs”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Socialism is the actual teaching of Jesus⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does good faith matter ?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.