Technically 0% of their problems and 100% of their former problems.

I kinda like the depiction of a man, visually disconnected to life and focused on wealth/social norms, asking for the meaning of life from a guru instead of seeking out his own meaning, highlighting the consumer/capitalist mindset of the man in suit. And the guru is taking advantage of the flaws of the man to radicalize him and eventually making bringing death the meaning of the man’s life. Assuming the man is American, potentially even bringing his own death.

The perversion of life itself in the society that we all know too well.

Don’t you see the benefit of AI??? Wow this is such a good and helpful thing. This chatgpt really is a useful product. Good job!

We exploit “cheap” labor “foreign” countries and create a hostile environment online (and possibly remote work job market) for the citizens of that country and look at all the good stuff, we got from it… Look at it… It is going to somewhere right?

Small businesses like Microsoft don’t have the funding to develop such an advanced system.

“Princess Zelda” is a weird way to refer to the original Legend of Zelda NES cartridge.

I really don’t understand this one. with triforce, it wouldn’t be funny but it would make sense but Zelda?

People who joke like that are disgusting.

I don’t care who you are, if your best option is suicide, we failed you and we should be sorry.

SpaceX’s reusable rockets is from SpaceX if I understand it correctly but…

Obviously musk didn’t build the rocket or planned the rocket but that is not the point.

Nasa had plans for reusable rockets but for the longest time, the financial risk of development was higher than the value of reusable rockets. SpaceX didn’t care about the financial risk because they needed thousands of satellites for the most brain dead idea ever, starlink and because Elon is bad with money (Twitter…)

So SpaceX was “successful” because they were crazy enough to run 2 extremely dangerous projects.

That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok… Well think about it.

I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.

You could easily create that meme for the tolerance paradox. Just saying

Signal is like WhatsApp but you don’t even need to share your phone number for it anymore. You can have an username and share that with people.

Being against, doesn’t make you hateful anyway.

I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.

Honestly I had too many people insist that Tedx has any value

I didn’t exclude them. And I want to make clear that I strongly believe women to be equal to men. Ofc there are men who want to be dominated.

But I was giving a critic to the idea that women wouldn’t be able to freely consent due to some vague sense of possible abuse from a man. Because that would imply that e.g. if a man chains himself on a board and give a woman a cat o’ nine tails, the woman couldn’t freely choose to hit him as the man is still a source of some vague sense of possible abuse in the future as a consequence of her decision. Which isn’t completely wrong, of course there are women to are in such a situation, but as a general condition, it heavily implies that women can’t consent to anything, even to anything that would less the threat of abuse. Which is simply insulting to women, and invalidating any woman’s opinion on these things, especially those who prefer something that it viewed as possibly abusive.

Like take people seriously, and support the creation of supportive structures for those who need them to get out of a situation where leaving is difficult.

Yeah it does and you couldn’t really change it. As women would act based on internalized sexism and even if a man wants to respect the wish of a woman and give her 100% control, she would act in the sexist norms, which would signal to the men that women want those sexist norms. So men would continue to “enforce” those norms as women would fear to stop the men.

So sexism can’t be solved; and then we can ask why bother trying to change it then?

Stupid line of thinking that is insulting to both, women and men. No means no, my friends. No means no. Respect your fellow humans.

The Venn diagram is a circle but the outspoken XYZ Venn diagram is not a circle, some are smart enough to shut the fuck up.

Honestly I don’t remember anything directly antisemitic from him, some of his guests were, if I remember correctly, but not directly from him. Do you happen to know an example of him being openly antisemitic? Not that it matters, he probably is in private.

To be fair, he is racist too!!!

In percentage/fractions, yes. As you asked about absolute numbers, it is a difference of 9 missing votes for both. I am sorry that you don’t understand that. No one taught you that, I guess.

But let’s say that your ridiculous goal post move is a fair critic, then let’s talk about details in the American election system. It is not a popular vote, as the electoral college decides who will be the president and the vote of the elector in the electoral college doesn’t have to follow the popular vote held in the state, while some states require them to. How many electors each state has, is based on a system that is a bit too complicated to explain here but you can Google Huntington hill method. But the result of that system is that 1 elector in Wyoming is 193.000 votes but over 700.000 in Texas and California. Which means that a single Wyoming vote is 3 times as valuable as a Texas vote. So in other words, the whole percentage thing is more complicated than just a popular vote. But you didn’t actually want to have a conversation about how valuable a vote is (assuming that the elector doesn’t ignore your popular vote which they might can) otherwise you would have pointed that out in my response.

And you would have known all of this, if you would actually care about the question and the elections. Like I am not even American, but even I know that little.

Edit: why are you dming me? You asked a public question. Why move into private one now?

Also in case, someone doesn’t know how he doesn’t understand how voting work and how the whole .05, .02 is moving the goal post, basically if people always case whole votes, so in a normal popular vote, if you need 9 votes, you need 9 votes. There is no practical difference between 0.5 and 0.02 in this case. People cast whole votes. Now in my response, I make clear that Wyoming are more valuable but that is only the case if you treat the system as if it was a popular vote as commonly done, both in these comments and the general public discussion. If you look on the election on a state level which is a totally reasonable thing to do as generally speaking, the statement that he asked you to prove, could have been state between to people from the same state. If you do so, then my point about the value of the vote is irrelevant but then we can talk about votes are a static value and then a vote is always a whole vote and my point about people cast whole votes apply, then we have to realize that if we save he needs 20 votes to win, that technically he doesn’t need 20 votes to win but only 19.0000000000001 votes to win but as people cast whole votes, you “can’t” get e.g. 19.32 votes. So we say 20. By reducing the required votes to win, we morph the value of a singular vote. Because A and B still needs the 20 votes to win but C only needs 19. So 1/20 is .05 but 1/19 is .052… So now we can take the .052 can create a fraction for it, that would be 1.04/20. Oh look, trump can win with 19.04 now. The difference between 0.05 and .052 is irrelevant for this situation.