When the state fully controls your property, it’s not private property and thus not capitalistism. It’s not socialism either, because they still give deference to the original “private” owner.

China is a perfect example of how a fascist country would operate, honestly. It’s frankly annoying that people don’t routinely call it a fascist state and instead call it communist.

Fascism is a modern iteration of an old problem. Not even the worst version of it. Plenty of theocracies and empires in history promoted similar strong group/national identity paired with subjugation of individuals to an authoritarian state.

And fascism is not even compatible with capitalism as it requires state control over industry. It would be more compatible with socialism except that it’s not nationalizing industry for the benefit of the working class explicitly, just the benefit of the nation/state.

Implementing climate control will be costly and is still controversial, especially proposed solutions that require polluting the stratosphere with chemicals.

I’m still optimistic about geoengineering research.

Of course, nobody will want to foot that bill until they’re staring the threat in the eyes.

It’s common knowledge that humans are accelerating climate change, they’re not the sole source of it. 🤷

You’re right, and there is no consensus. Companies, and even current governments, are ill-equipped for solving long-term problems. Especially a problem that won’t be a net harm for like 60 years.

My point was that all that money could’ve gone to a real long-term solution which requires a lot of research (and which humanity will need to finance eventually anyways). Reminds me of people who spend more money on car repairs than what the car is worth. They see a mechanic bill of $400 and think it’s cheaper than buying another vehicle. It gets it running for another 4 months. Then a dozen bills later…

“Another 4 months” for current climate change policies is like “another 50 years”… being generous.

Reducing carbon emissions is a temporary solution, buying a couple thousand more years. Taken to its most extreme, it requires human industry to ultimately cease and thus make it even more difficult to solve the problem permanently.

That would help, but definitely not stop climate change.

Humanity’s carbon footprint has been a distraction. All that money and effort (green energy legislation, carbon caps, etc) could’ve been funneled into geoengineering for proper long-term solutions.

Even if humans were eradicated, the habitability of Earth would only be prolonged a bit. So the idea that we just need to emit less carbon is just kicking the can.

If people willingly choose to shorten their life, I don’t consider it a problem.

Now, lying and manipulating people into choosing it, similar to what the cigarette industry did, is obviously a problem.

But at this point, everyone knows cigarettes and processed foods are unhealthy. People just don’t care.

Which is…?

Yeah. Those problems totally didn’t exist before capitalism.

When 1.6 came out I was stubborn and refused to install Steam which was needed for it. But I eventually did and it eventually grew on me even though recoil and everything is a bit different. Still using my 22 year old steam account.

Sometimes lawyers do preliminary motions like to suppress unconstitutional search warrants or change of venue and stuff. If it’s complex, it can take a while, and defense cannot request speedy trial if they’re filing things, but you also don’t necessarily want to forgo filing useful things.

Also, if they violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, you can file a habeas corpus or something and, even if you win, there’s still no consequence except them shrugging and saying oops.

Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You’re expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

Important for those who don’t know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they’re trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they’ll be like “we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it’s better if you’re just honest with us.” But they often don’t have anything which is why they’re desperate for a confession.

Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.

The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn’t need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn’t guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don’t operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.

This is where everyone here is being disingenuous, or are just completely ignoring opponents of DEI. When have opponents of DEI called for overlooking meritorious minorities? When have they called for discrimination? Because they must have explicitly done so if DEI combats this.

I know what the stated goals of DEI are, and it sounds good, but I also know how it’s often implemented: quantitative goals and affirmative action. These are discriminatory practices.

People routinely admit that white women are the biggest beneficiaries of DEI, calculated from things such as their access to STEM jobs (eg. IBM setting a goal of 50% female engineers), then they go right back to saying that hiring based on gender is actually not DEI. Pure gaslighting.

Yeah, but your code will be culturally one-sided! You need diverse coding practices, like three-space indentation!

My favorite was companies like IBM setting a goal for 50% female engineering representation even though barely 20% of the respective college grads were female. Like, they’re just blatantly picking from a smaller pool, making it statistically inevitable that they’re bypassing more qualified people.

But people here evidently support this sort of gender/race based discrimination. 🤷

White women are the biggest beneficiaries of DEI. So who’s being racist by being against DEI exactly?

The DEI people are against are policies that mandate discriminatory practices, making someone’s race/gender a qualification. It’s wild that people here actually support discrimination in hiring.

They coat it in a glossy shade of “equality for white people too”

No they don’t. The biggest beneficiaries of DEI are white women.

It’s about ending discriminatory practices designed to benefit underrepresented races and genders. The DEI debate is rife with people who are speaking different languages and willfully ignoring the other side.

I blame people more than Microsoft. People were either duped or too lazy to say “Microsoft Teams” in full. It’s not too crazy to have services like “Apple Music” because people aren’t allowing Apple to control the word by just saying “Music” casually. People need to go back to saying “Microsoft Teams.” Alas, it will never happen. 😒

Yeah, I wonder why that is. Could it be that getting hired and promoted is much harder so a lot of women don’t bother? I wonder how you could fix that…

Around 58% of college students are women. Of black grad students, the vast majority of degrees go to women, 71.5% of masters and 65.9% of doctoral/medical. Tech companies are starved for female representation. And you think it’s somehow harder for women to make it?

I’m curious why you think men are under represented in college then. I’m sure it’s conveniently not because they think they’ll have a hard time succeeding and “don’t bother.”

I’m supposed to think they won’t be underqualified?

You’re clearly a heavily biased individual, so who knows what you’re going to believe.

In what way am I biased? Use statistical probability and logic to answer the question, that’s all I’m doing. If I narrow my pool to a smaller subset, then are my chances of getting the most qualified people diminishes. Right?

Yes, good thing they’re IBM and can can pick the highly qualified women from that smaller pool.

You certainly see the problem with this. They’re not the only ones doing it, and even if they were, they’re still passing up more qualified people, assuming parity in the rates of qualified people in the 20/80% distribution.

Let’s be real, when you’re looking for an attorney, the most important thing for you is how much they charge.

Wrong. Out of the three I’ve gotten, I look for their specialization to the task I want first. Notice how you completely evaded the question?

Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone’s race does not represent that constituents of that race.

If you want to talk about someone who is incredibly unqualified, he’s your guy.

Oh really, care to provide any evidence of that? I assume you’re an extremely qualified lawyer? Maybe a professor of law? (see how dumb these questions are?)

Only anecdotal.

So no.

Personal testimony is admissible evidence in court, so it’s not nothing. Just not useful evidence for this discussion.

Ah yes, the lawsuit. What happened in that lawsuit?

The lawsuit was stayed pending binding arbitration proceedings, meaning they settled privately out of court. I think the employment contract he had forced him into private arbitration.