Billionaire is already a slur.

No one makes that much money without screwing over and abusing other people. There are no ethical billionaires.

I literally just joined, and I'm still wrapping my head around how all of this works, but I'd like to say this:

No matter which way this vote goes, I really appreciate how this is being handled: An open, honest and respectful debate amongst the users is by far the best way I've seen a "social network" try to handle content moderation.

Well done people.

How beefy of a PC would you need for that?

That would be freaking awesome if it actually runs on a regular computer and not computer we'll have 5 years from now (as was the case for a lot of emulators when they started working on them)

HE is free to say and do whatever he wants, he owns the platform.

He literally made it so his posts appear before others because he was getting less likes than other people.

You on the other hand? You better say what musky boy likes.

It gives an air of legitimacy to those thoughts.

Those people are LOUD but they aren't nearly as numerous as we, or they, think.

Most people, by and large, just want to do their little thing and want to be nice to others, and want others to be nice to them. Most people don't care that their neighbors are a black gay couple, as long as they're nice.

When we let 10 people who post a 100 racist memes a day drown out the 100 regular people who post 10 times a day gives everyone the impression there is more racism than there really is, which breeds more racism, and drives out regular people who don't want to be on a racist platform.

(Using racism here as a stand-in for whatever form of bigotry you feel passionate about)

It sounds absolutely great in theory, but in practice it could never work.

Say I want to build a house: As a society, we've come up with mandatory building codes that tell me how to build a house that's going to be safe for everyone.

Suppose we got rid of this regulation for libertarianism's sake.

Most people would still build to code because that's just the smart thing to do but a small proportion of people would build it the cheapest way possible because it is now their god-given right to do so.

When that house inevitably fails at the worst possible time, I don't care too much about what happens to the guy himself. He understood the risk and did it anyways. But in a worst case scenario, he could've been hosting a kids party that day or something.

Now apply this analogy to.. Basically any regulation you'd want to get rid of.

It's kind of always a balancing act between stopping people from killing each other from sheer stupidity, and letting them do and say whatever the fuck they want when they're between their own four walls, and pure libertarianism doesn't allow for that.

Huge companies used to make a lot of stuff back in the golden age of capitalism. General electric was a big chemicals and plastics company for instance. It was just normal.

Nowadays, those mega-corporations make more money acting as a bank than they do selling stuff. They've just kept some product lines rolling because they're profitable and safe.

You couldn't just start a motorcycle company and be competitive against Yamaha. The specific expertise they have took decades to build, so why waste it by closing down those weird branches when they're still making money.

At this point, Microsoft has become a pretty big publisher, moreso than a console manufacturer.

Of course they would like exclusives to go away, that means selling their own games to more people, and distributing Sony's games on their platforms.

Both combined would easily make them more money than selling consoles.

I would definitely expect the Venn diagram of neo-nazis and Karens who give trouble to retail workers to look a lot like a circle.

Depends on how you define deliberate. The wealth gap between the super rich and the rest of us is getting bigger and bigger, and a lot of those issues seem related to that.

"Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced [robots] wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." -Stephen Hawking

They love to tell us about how hard they had it because they worked 2 jobs to buy their first house at 22 lmao

Which is so fucked. The supreme court shouldn't "lean" one way or another. They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law, not give their own opinion on the matter.

I remember here in Canada, back in the days of Harper, just how many times conservative appointed judges struck down conservative laws because they were unconstitutional.

Whether they personally believe this or that shouldn't even matter at all.

Of course they do.

As we say: "Police partout, Justice nullepart".

For all the criticism towards Subban, warranted or not, he definitely always gave his 110% and that's gotta be worth something.

I wonder what the Habs would look like today if they'd named him captain instead of Patches.

IMO, the only logical part of the American date system is that it's the same way you would say it (July 1st 2023).

Since English is my second language, though, and in French you would say 1er Juillet 2023, it still fucks me up anytime a date is like 10/10/2023.

As long as you have clear boundaries as to what's acceptable or not, a population with critical thinking skills will always be able to tell what's going on.

I had this debate with a friend a while back. He said we should tolerate nazi flags because "what if the government decides the pride flag is a hateful flag". Well, the nazi flag (at least coloquially) stands for "Kill all jews", while the pride flag stands for "Be proud of your sexual orientation and gender identity". One of these passes the hate speech/incitement test, the other doesn't.

There just needs to be consistent and well thought out rules in place. If it's the case, I'm not scared of authoritarians using the paradox of tolerance to their advantage because it's so transparent.

Ah yes, "The Economy", the favorite catch all of politicians.

I don't know about you, but from here it looks like it's going to go to shit whether we burn stuff or not.

Aye

For now, I'm wondering what the Habs are doing exactly.

The Edmundston deal gives them 3.5M of cap space to play with, which seems to me like they're trying to sign someone, but which FA are they targeting?