prpp0ndj

Perhaps it’s a simple case of “Gmail users label her messages as spam more than other Dem candidates.” and Google is using that to train their filter.

Social norms have never been decided in an entirely open and objective way. We’re free to speak. Not be heard. Tulsi isn’t owed an audience of Gmail users.

Look at all these “but the free market!” type pols who got us to give everything up to corps getting bit. Suddenly investigations and regulations be coming!

Not a peep when, you know, they started bulk collecting the general public’s phone calls and emails.

Yeah you get the majority easy enough. They’re mostly law abiding anyway, so you conjure up as much petty crap to pin on them to justify the police state.

Meanwhile the connected and savvy minority coddle pedophiles and grifters among their lot.

These are not really new concerns or ideas. The context has shifted from “meatspace” to “cyber space”. Generally the old ideas of trust and verify, avoid unenforceable, spurious, overreach still apply.

There’s an interesting parallel to the Pareto principle here, IMO. Society is pushing for more and more policing of the 80%ish and less on the 20%ish.

Wealth inequality, and civil rights inequality, filter into our tech contexts.

Too bad we largely focus on these things in our favored context rather than see it as the general political plight of the masses, as it really should be considered, IMO.

That’s not what the definition of the word aristocrat is? It has nothing to do with HOW the wealth was acquired. Just that one is a member of the privileged class.

The origin of the word too has nothing to do with how the money is acquired. Just means “member of the elite class”.

It seems you’re attached to a romanticized/nostalgic spin on the term. Not concerned with the actual definition.

Pedantry fail.

That’s a heart warming story.

He’s a first generation aristocrat who has gone on at length about the right of the powerful to dictate the outputs of the less powerful.

He believes he’s truly unique and above the rest of us, without seemingly considering none of us will lie down and die if an early end should be his fate (I hope it isn’t, of course).

Such a smart guy, I suspect he’d agree there’s no causal link between his existence and the rest of us. He leans on convenient emotional frameworks society has carried along for years.

Oh of course he does a bit of philanthropy to point at. How gracious of him to hand pick those who should have their minds to themselves!

He thinks Elizabeth Warren is dangerous. Says nothing about the doofus in Chief, but the contender with relatively little power. Be afraid of change! It might prove I’m wrong!

The common features of an aristocrat: money and indifference of those without money.

Or at least that’s my take given his writings. Maybe have a peak and see.

I spend a couple hours a week practicing guitar, and dozens of hours doing computer work.

I don’t consider myself a guitarist.

“Freedom to get stuff done.”, it says on the Fellowship site. For the few young folks that qualify.

The raw numbers tell the story better than a stat: some folks, not most folks. Most folks gotta shovel the money onto the pile so bits and pieces can trickle down at the rate he approves.

This isn’t limited to Peter Thiel. It’s the same old: kowtow to aristocrats.

Perhaps Peter Thiel should allow his engineers to work on something other than “yet another spying tool” or financial transactions apps.

This is like Bezos saying he’s getting into space because the planet is going to hell.

“Look at these problems I helped create. Everyone better let me guide us elsewhere.”

Thiel won’t openly admit it’s self aggrandizing leaders like him that distract people with babysitting his wealth, instead of allowing them to chase their own novel ideas.