Thank you. That’s about what I suspected. And an email may not technically be a paywall but imo if they’re going to sell it or even just use it to spam me with shit that’s just another form of payment. I could make a fake email address or something but honestly I’m not going to go through all of that for what seems like a clearly shitty article from that parts that I can see.
Paywall link + no context given as to what actually occurred other than someone claiming that they are being silenced. That very well may be true but without more context I can’t make that determination. It may also well be true that the claims by the DoJ are true and that the narrator of this article is an unreliable narrator.
If you want me to think or feel a particular way then don’t lock the article behind a paywall and give actual context so that I can come to my own conclusions.
That is one of the most disgusting websites I’ve ever seen. If you’re reading this please don’t click the link.
What you’re referring to are legal classifications that prevent discrimination in very specific circumstances such as when applying for a job. When someone decides to make fun of vegans they absolutely DO NOT think to themselves “is that a legally protected class? No? Okay, I’m in the clear.” This reasoning is blatantly incorrect.
If this were the actual reason then why do people also discriminate against groups that are protected classes like women? The answer is because we aren’t in a court. We are talking about social values, not legal ones. Despite how much of a fucking asshole it would make someone to be misogynistic in their daily life there is nothing preventing them from doing so other than the fear of being outcast by their peers. It only becomes illegal in very specific circumstances.
I can’t speak for the people that made the community but I don’t think that places like this are necessarily made by vegans for vegans as you describe. Personally I can attest that it’s just extremely frustrating to be made to feel like an out group in the ONE community where you shouldn’t be made to feel like that. I personally welcome nonvegans to participate in discussion so long as they come with the understanding that they are a guest in our community and should respect the community as such which does include taking care to not come across as tone deaf. I’m not religious and in fact actively oppose religion but if I found myself at a church for whatever reason I’m not going to go in there and start a bunch of arguments and whatnot. I would be respectful because I understand that going to their place of worship and causing a commotion is uncalled for and doesn’t benefit anyone. To be clear, I’m not trying to say that veganism is a religion because it is not and it is not viewed in the same way as religion is by its followers. I am merely using the analogy to illustrate how you should act when going into a community that you are not a part of.
If someone is going to browse all then they should be aware that they are entering different communities and be respectful of those communities. If they are disrespectful, whether it is a result of being unaware or just not caring, in my opinion that should warrant an immediate ban pending a demonstration of understanding and admission that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately even that might not make a noticeable difference since many of the disrespectful people are probably not repeat posters. Beyond that the only thing that I’m aware of that could really be done is making the community private which is obviously not ideal. Perhaps there could exist some middle ground of a community not being private but also not appearing on all but I’m unaware of if that’s possible or if it would even be any better in practice.
In my experience it is not NEARLY as prevalent as when someone learns that you are vegan or finds out about vegan communities and whatnot. People make countless memes about vegans for example, but when was the last time you saw a meme about someone choosing to eat Halal? Because to my knowledge there is no scientific study on the different experiences of these groups it is impossible to talk about this topic in any way that isn’t anecdotal but for what it’s worth I have been all over the US and the anecdotal experience that I have had is so overwhelming that I refuse to believe someone is arguing in good faith if they are claiming that, for example, someone eating Halal has even a remotely similar experience to that of vegans.
My guess is that this is because people tend to associate other dietary or lifestyle decisions as being just a different way to live. Like oh, that person is Muslim or Jewish and that influences their diet. And they don’t take that as a personal judgement anymore than they do when they learn that that person is Muslim or Jewish to begin with. But with veganism it is usually not something that a person is raised into. It is a decision that that person has made after learning more about the animal agriculture industry and it is usually for ethical reasons primarily. Not because a religious book told them to. Therefore they hear that someone is vegan and are instantly defensive in a way that isn’t true with halal, kosher, etc.
There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let’s say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can’t KNOW that it’s at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won’t know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.
I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn’t for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that’s another argument.
👋
I agree that those people need to understand her point the most and that they likely won’t even if they did hear it unedited but even the people who are already on her side like myself still need to hear it. Not because we don’t already understand what she’s saying but because it shows that we haven’t given up yet.
(Not who you replied to) I think they might be more concerned about the possibility of Trump being in power than the litigation being shelved as a result.
I don’t think she’s really talking to them or expecting them to suddenly admit what they are doing and change their actions. I feel like she’s moreso talking to the American people. I know personally it at least gives me a modicum of hope to see that there are still people who will stand up for what’s right and call them out on the floor of Congress. It’s certainly better than living in a world where no one challenges them anyway.
The survey isn’t about the “niche” subset of the population that is religious. It is about the composition of the entire population. Not a subset of the population so that isn’t relevant.
Edit: to be clear, I understand that there may be some niche subsets within this survey that may not be represented because there are only 20 people in the US that believe in that weird religion, but again, that has nothing to do with the larger, non-niche subsets which are absolutely represented with enough accuracy to draw statically significant conclusions with a sample size of 1000
You probably want to just quit playing all games if that’s how you feel. They are much more standard than most people realize.
https://levvvel.com/games-with-kernel-level-anti-cheat-software/
Fortnite, Apex, Tarkov, Battlebit, Faceit, Activision games like CoD, Blizzard games, and literally hundreds more.
E: or better yet, probably just don’t use any technology because Google and other are constantly tracking you and what you do. Probably best to just throw the smartphone away
The only reason plant based meats haven’t been way cheaper than animal meat the entire time is because of how heavily subsidized the animal agriculture industry is. Without the government literally single handedly propping up the industry it wouldn’t be a viable way to make money.
That’s a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn’t matter what you do to it, you won’t get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don’t see how this technique couldn’t be applied.
Edit: and to be clear, I don’t know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn’t entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.
Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.
It’s interesting that they would choose to blur them if it’s that sensitive considering blurring things isn’t actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.
And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn’t take long to do either.
https://youtu.be/zHbv2YQ6yF4
Good video covering the incident in detail