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.
For those horrible enough to like this.
Sometimes each other too if my information is correct. So even if you are a bad person and want to harass innocent people, kiwi farms isn’t the place to be.
Bad people are bad people towards you too if you give them the chance. Just don’t be bad, much better. Don’t hate!
I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.
Vanilla might not be good in a lot of things… Ice cream… Se… But here it is pretty nice!
I can’t test it right now but I would love to know. Is it true?
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.
I think the biggest flaw is the name.
energy would be used by the Linux guys. That energy is probably equal or less than what the turbine produces. That makes it not a perpetual motion machine. It is free energy for the owner though as long as the speakers don’t consume too much energy as the Linux guys will come and for free to no cost of the owner
I hope these aren’t real. I, and most people here, could probably write these codes top to bottom on paper without an eraser or strikethrough parts because we have it fully solved before the interviewer finished the sentence.
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.
Math works with assumptions all the time. Math itself is based on assumptions. Logic is based on assumptions.
And I have explained that going from 10/20 to 11/20 or 10/19 is functionally the same as in both cases, the person only needs 9 more. If you don’t understand that, I can’t help you
The argument is quite simple while it carries an assumption.
If you have 3 options, and depending on how you want to frame it, one is outlandish or the other 2 are simplify more similar. You have following issue.
In this example A and B are similar and C is the outlandish one.
Let’s say: A has 15 votes, B has 3 and C has 17 votes.
Then C wins while it would be reasonable to assume that B voters would have chosen A over C, as A is more similar to B than C. So now the A and B voters get together and talk about the situation. A voters argue that A had historically far better results than B and B voters should have expected A to get more votes than B, and as B voters prefer A over C, B voters risk that C wins as A is missing the votes from B voters. So while not voting for C, B voters voted in a way that is unlikely to result in B winning, while hurting A winning chances as they didn’t vote for A, which results in C requiring less votes to win and could help C in winning
So in other words, if not C, is a shared interest of A and B, voting B is expected to reduce the amount of required votes for C.
If C needs 18 votes and a “not C” voter votes B, A cann’t reach 18 anymore, ofc B can reach 18 but historically B never got close, so effectively C requires 1 less additional vote to win, just like when someone would have voted c.
Well, I don’t wholely disagree but the laws are different and the application of the law is different.
But yeah, distrust is appropriate in both and all other case.
You are learning which is great.