Why do they put any stock into what a psychologist has to say about climate science? He’s not remotely qualified to speak on the topic.

I understand being upset with AMNESTY, but having people pull support is exactly what JK Rowling's goal is. This call to action is a house dividing against itself.

While choosing to live outside their means, for their children, is commendable, it’s not a great example of the problem. Many people never have the opportunity to make that choice at all and are now homeless as a result.

Run off elections or ranked choice voting. fairvote.org

Feels a bit like a slap in the face to the moderators to boot.

I’d argue the main difference is that it involves a crime.

I’m not completely sure that torture itself constitutes a crime (though I’d be surprised if it wasn’t), but manslaughter/murder is. With few exceptions for medically assisted death, killing someone is a major crime. Presumably, we don’t want to promote people profiting from extreme suffering and death.

I also think there is a time and place for censorship (ex CSAM).

“Objectionable” is a subjective term, but “illegal“ is not.

They could take action themselves and enact better climate policies. Could have done so decades ago and maybe we wouldn’t have record wildfires every year.

Personally, I feel the attention would be better focused on the many people who can no longer afford shelter at all. I think a lot of people don’t realize just how close they are to being in the same situation, through no fault of their own.

This isn’t the first article I’ve read about the housing crisis that felt disconnected from reality. A few weeks ago it was the tragic story of a family earning a six figure income who had to downsize from a 3200 sq ft home to a 2400 sq ft. It just feels disingenuous that these are the issues they decide to report on while a quickly growing number of people can only afford to live in tents.

Doesn’t really feel comparable, to me.

This sounds like the opposite of a correction. If no one is building housing, the existing supply will become more valuable.

I can kind of see what you are trying to say, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion.

I’d make the distinction that free climbing, while dangerous, is a recreational activity. I can reasonably conceive of people watching that for entertainment. There also isn’t anything morally questionable about it.

On the face of it, I don’t think you could reasonably argue that torture is a pastime.

All of that aside, torture is against international law. It is illegal in all circumstances.

From the United Nation Convention Against Torture:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

For that reason, I would say the platform did have an obligation to de-platform it.

Arguably, the police should probably have put a stop to it as well.

Well said:

We call for policies that are consistent, evidence-based, and based on harm reduction rather than vilifying drug users with a false morality framework.

If the province and municipalities want to address the murderous toxic drug supply, they should provide a safer supply and expand supervised consumption sites.

If the province and municipalities want to address the housing needs of the thousands of people who cannot afford a place to live, they should prioritize protecting tenant rights and explore non-market housing solutions, such as investments in social housing.

We cannot hide the problems we are faced with in Ontario or warehouse people to pretend we’ve solved underlying issues; we must highlight and challenge systems of neglect, exploitation and harm.

Not an endorsement, but I just found out about the existence of this phone today: FLX1 which purports to be based on Debian.

Slow Horses The Rehearsal Patriot

Thank you for putting it in perspective like this. I agree, this should have been an opportunity. My take was not well considered, my apologies.

I had never looked at it like this before. Your proposal makes much more sense than any other I’ve seen. It really illuminates the fact that (most) politicians are far less interested in solving problems than they are in keeping their seats.

Here’s an interesting podcast on the topic of lab meat that shows just how much grandstanding this “fight” really is. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4yCKSioorfxTL6x7PaunOR?si=fCHOyvmgSXqITX9x7_6GxA

TLDR: they’re banning a product that isn’t even commercially available to the public yet.

You actually can set up the sidebar to use a local LLM. In about:config the key is something like “browser.ml.chat.hideLocalhost”

I have it setup to use my local Ollama instance and it works great.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to specify an alternate external server, which would be nice.

Peace brother, may your tomorrow be brighter than today.

He definitely got the “I don’t know” part right.

Yeah, it’s not great that it isn’t visible by default. Would be nice if they had an “add/remove” option as well.

Glad you were able to get it set up!