Bingo. It would also make it trivial to alter images just enough so that it wouldn’t match the hash, and then they can post shit that would need to be manually flagged and removed.
I already see things like this with pirated media; pirates will include extraneous material bundled with the target media so that it’s not automatically flagged and removed.
You see, comrade, terrorist attack is when Nazis attack bridge we stole, not when comrade bomb Nazi apartment building.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
…And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that’s ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I’d rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
“Truth” is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like–and this is an intentionally racist argument–53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact–what that fact means–that’s the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.
That seems like a dangerous approach to not care if you disagree with people. Shouldn’t you know if your disagreement with them is based on sound reasoning?
For Leviticus 20:13 to not be hate-speech, you have to start by proving, first, that any god at all exists, and second, that the Hebrew bible is the word of that god. The approach advocated in Leviticus assumes that morality is predicated on the will of a god; if a god wills a thing, then that thing must be moral, because that god creates morality. So unless you can demonstrate that a god exists, and that the translation that we have of Leviticus is the will of that god, then it should not be assumed to be moral. Perhaps you could prove the morality of it in some other way, but you haven’t made that attempt yet.
The Hebrew bible also explicitly condones slavery and rape, which implies that god says those things are moral. Would you then agree that slavery in the American south prior to 1860 was a moral practice? Would it be a moral practice if it started again? The bible advocates for genocide; is genocide moral?
BTW there’s disagreement about the meaning of that verse, from rabbinical scholars no less. Seems to me that evangelicals might want to do a little more studying to understand context before they make assumptions about the foundations of their religion.
Mmmmm, it’s more like no one can reasonably demonstrate the truth of any god, rather than any specific god being demonstrably false. It’s an important distinction. You can’t disprove a thing, but you can prove that alternate explanations are far more probable, or that the thing doesn’t fit the evidence.
I don’t have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I’m not proving my point because I haven’t yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.
And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they’re (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.
Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don’t bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English–or based in the US–which makes determining the veracity difficult.
In short, you aren’t acting in good faith.
Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
…And a Twitter account that doesn’t link to a credible news source.
Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?
…Ah. That’s super shitty. I’m in a pretty small town–about 5000 people–but we still have three large grocery stores (if you count the WalMart as a grocery store), and a small, higher-end health food store. There’s heavy competition, which keeps prices down, but also leads to wage stagnation for workers, and means that poor people get fucked by rising food prices.
All grocery store margins are tight. Historically, grocery stores are not enormously profitable. Most of the price gouging that you’ve seen in food lately has been at the manufacturer level, not the retailer level. That’s why you don’t see a lot of price difference between substantially identical items at different stores in the same region; the same size box of Cheerios is going to have roughly identical pricing at both Piggly Wiggly and Kroger. You start seeing price differences when you go to an upscale store like Amazon’s Whole Foods (prices go up sharply), or when you’re buying in bulk at Costco or restaurant supply stores (such as Gordon Food Service). That’s also why you see self-checkouts everywhere now; once one company cuts their labor costs by introducing them, everyone has to, because otherwise they can’t remain competitive. …And then prices stabilize across the industry at roughly the same very slim margins. The company that cuts costs first sees a slight initial uptick in profit, and then competition forces them to cut their margins back again.
At the store level, there’s not a helluva lot that can be done. The obscene profits are farther upstream.
See this as an example. Grocery stores are making profit in volume, but not a lot of profit per item. Typical margins are 1-3% per item. That means that, if you cut off every single bit of profit that a grocery store makes, your $200 worth of groceries would cost you… $198. Maybe as little as $194. Saving you a whopping $2-6. But when you have hundreds of transactions each day, that 1-3% per transaction adds up to profitability for the store.
That last one is more of a problem. Grocery margins are usually very slim. In most cases, a grocery store can’t reduce their prices by any significant amount and still remain profitable.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent to the ruling joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision “unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment.”
…What the fuck? Am I taking crazy pills? In what fucking world do Thomas and Barrett advocate for a sane and rational approach to anything?
“Disagreements” are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. “Disagreements” are not for things like, “jews should be gassed”, or “trans people are all pedophiles”.
Ah ha! Okay, now I see it. It took me a while. I was clicking on the ‘Moderators’ that’s on the lower left, and that was the one that’s giving me a 50x error!
I will definitely check it out. I’d love to see an open world game made now with the same kind of scale, but I don’t think you could. IIRC, it would ahve taken something like a year in real time to have your character walk across Tamriel.
…Or Oblivion. Or Daggerfall. Probably not Battlespire or Redguard though, and I don’t know if you could get Arena to run on a modern computer. Daggerfall was a bit tricky; I think it bugged out for me before I got out of the first dungeon.
I’d need a Real Attorney to chime in, but I think that, once you’re actually in a trial, you can’t dump your client without the permission from the judge. (You also can’t intentionally stop providing your best service for any reason at all, not unless you want to be sanctioned or disbarred.) So while an attorney could insist on money up front, if the money they were paid didn’t cover the real expenses, they could still end up getting stiffed. I suppose the ‘smart’ thing to do would be to have $100M put in an escrow account, and the money can only be released from the account if both parties agree. So if Trump tries to stiff you for the bill, he’s still out the money since you don’t have to release it back to him. Kinda like what The Silk Road used to do, only even shadier, since you’d be working for Trump.
I have a pair of Bellville MiniMils that I wear every single day; I had the last pair for about three years, and I’m at about a year and a half on this pair. I work and hike in them (although I want to get nicer hiking boots, something like the VivoBarefoot Tracker). They are minimalist boots though, so if you don’t already like and wear minimalist shoes, you’re not going to like these.