yyuugg

Palm oil cultivation is wildly harmful in many cases. And palm oil is not a replacement for olive oil.

Have you spent any times with bees? Beekeeping really changed my opinions on bees. They are quite industrious and very gentle.

Are those body builders controlling for other variables? Changes in diet, exercise, performances, routines, etc?

I'd believe any number of things could correlate with body builders as they spend a lot of time changing their bodies.

I believe it's possible to improve things. I don't think this is an example of a material change. I, personally, find both the incoming and outgoing administrations to be truly repellant.

But where it makes sense to do so, I will give credit.

This just feels like something that can be undone with a few minutes of trump's time. If it stays paused then great. And I'm sure halting the practice even for a few months does material good for people, I just can't give more credit when the Biden admin could do much more to halt it.

Civil asset forfeiture, including by the DEA, is still very much a thing. Having a President end it in airports affects some tiny fraction of the broader problem.

And it only ends it until a future admin un-ends it. I could see both democrats and republicans deciding that they will allow this practice again.

I think it's much more correct to call the practice "paused" until we legislate it away. "Ending" implies a finality we cannot possibly be comfortable with.

Exactly what I'm saying!

The U.S. has funded terrorist organizations since forever. You think this is novel?

Maybe if your leader is a dictator and it looks like you are losing, defecting might be a better option than fighting to the death for a leader who doesn't care about you.

I don't know that I agree with this characterization. Was Assad particularly stable? Was he able to prevent rebel groups effectively?

HTS of today might be different from HTS of the past, but that's very much could be just their propaganda. We'll see. Given "guaranteed evil" vs "probably evil" I'd probably prefer the lesser evil.

I very much suspect Russia is fully focused on Ukraine and cannot or will not project force in the region.

Iran has been remarkably restrained over the past little while, and I suspect they want to keep things cool and not hot.

If by "for years" you mean "since its inception" then yes, 100% agree.

Did they stop it? Maybe in airports, maybe. The practice is still very much alive.

In general, I find the concept of originalism to meet this criteria. Especially as originalist justices are turning to tradition over originalism. The bend from "the words as originally written" to "our traditions" is a fundamentally conservative (lowercase c) one.

In cases like Vidal v. Elster, United States v. Rahimi, and Samia v. United States I think you'll see the justices straining to understand how how square originalism against the modern world, and having to turn to another justification, traditionalism, which feels more like a "I believe this to be true, due to my political lenses" than perhaps some originalist justices in the past.

That said, I personally find originalism to be pretty conservative already (lowercase c again), and kind of silly, but the recent justice appointments are dialling it up more and more.

So... nationalism? We like our surveillance state and demonize their surveillance state?

It's absolutely pseudo science. People love it, and it's useful as a tool to recognize "different humans problem solve differently", but like, taking it more seriously than that is a problem.

This ban has always felt so silly. If it's privacy and data harvesting as a concern, don't a million apps do that? If it's anti-China sentiment, why TikTok and not a million other things? If it's about protecting elections and propaganda, why not X and Meta and YouTube?

It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?

The latter, but it's always been the latter. But usually they've been better at using the former to hide the latter. Recently, there's been a much thinner veneer of "legal principles".

I'd be shocked to see a leftist still on Twitter, tbh. I'm sure there are plenty of Liberals, but I doubt there are many Leftists.

I talk about MySpace and Digg regularly, they are unpopular, and they are the exact thing happening here.

I think we're in the interregnum period between X and whatever picks up the crown.

Then it's a good opportunity for you to reflect on why it doesn't make sense, go and educate yourself a little. Congrats, you learned you need to learn a little today!

X, as a platform, is absolutely cooked. I'm sure it will remain around the same way Truth social is around. A small group of right wing folks will hang out there and argue to their last breath that it's more free speech or something, but increasingly having an X account will be seen as kind of a weird trait.

It'll make for some interesting stories a decade from now when we'll all reminisce about "remember how Musk fucked Twitter? Oh shit, is it still running?"

Ah yes, the Nuremberg Defense.

The author might be wrong. It can actually be racist in ways beyond "African people are genetically inferior."

I didn't find the author to be particularly deeply invested, they seemed to want to score some points over "social justice warriors" and then backed off pretty quickly with an "it's complicated" footnote.

This CEO, in particular, has almost certainly taken actions that resulted in preventable suffering and death.

To some degree, that's the nature of running health insurance companies, but if he put profits ahead of patient outcomes, I think we could have a very reasonable discussion on the morality of letting people die at scale vs murder.

I don't think this ceo should be killed. However it's absolutely the case that this ceo has taken actions that resulted in the deaths and suffering of others. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if someone lost a family member due to this ceo and that turned out to be the motive.

I'm nervous about the precedent this sets, if that turns out to be the motive.

Gun owners don't call them silencers. Movies call them silencers and non gun owners watch movies so that word has entered the lexicon.

But it's extremely incorrect-- suppressors don't silence guns. Suppressed firearms are still loud.

I don't think the parent poster is doing that, I think they are pointing out that when the ai products are faulty and result in the predictable deaths or suffering of people, someone out there might get angry enough to make bad choices.

Double check my thesis. Hint: It was not a judgement on the problematic nature of these laws. We can discuss that elsewhere if you want, but that's fairly orthogonal to the discussion.

Stronger hint: my thesis was focused on which groups the state legislates against, and how it wasn't "white men".

Case in point, Elon Musk thinking Grok thinking he's cool means he's cool, lol.

Something about the way you rolled your eyes around the use of cisgender made the comment read as sarcastic to me. Text is hard.

Age within different demographic groups isn't uniformly distributed, right? We'd be at the point when boomers are approaching end of life, but there wasn't an equivalent nonwhite boom, iirc.

I also suspect that the idea of whiteness has long held itself to be culturally exclusive ("you are not white if one of your parents is Black") while other racial groups are the inverse. There's a... lot of baggage and history there obviously. But I could see the manner in which the census asks about race being skewed by our cultural understanding of our race.

I also believe that wealthier, more educated folks tend to have fewer children. Which could suggest that, in the US white folks have more access to wealth and education.

Which is a long winded way of saying racial demographics is complicated and I can imagine many reasons why groups might rise or decline that are way less sinister than they are the enemy of the state.