Actually yes, another country should "lead" the transition. It's a global issue. Doing a good thing for your own population while continuing to export fossil fuel is hypocritical.
Just not a big fan of hypocrites. I see it as similar to a country that preaches peace and diplomacy while manufacturing weapons and selling to beligerants.
China has been a threat to US interests in the Pacific for decades. Now China is the regional hegemonic power which dwarfs the weak US Pacific partnership. China's international influence will continue to grow and they will likely achieve their 100 year plan. That's not really fearmongering, China has plenty of problems but they will eventually succeed.
I've never been to an Aldi, but at this moment in my life I would have a hard time switching from HEB/Central Market. Perhaps I would have liked it as a student.
I'm not really a fan of copycat brand labeling though. If a product is going to be plagiarized, I would hope they would produce original labeling. That takes money though, and would affect their slim margins.
They're irrelevant differences to me. I care about local and state issues. For instance local infrastructure, local school districts, local road maintenance, local taxes, etc.
Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
> Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if:
1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex.
2. You have anyone you care about who has been affected by federal drug laws.
3. You have any close relatives who are citizens of another country.
4. You are a woman who cares deeply about her own reproductive rights. Conversely, you believe that human life starts at a stage earlier than currently recognized by the Supreme Court.
5. You have a pre-existing medical condition.
I could go on, and of course there are loads of ways federal policies affect virtually everyone albeit in a less direct manner (tax policy, monetary policy, foreign trade policy, etc.)
But congratulations, I'm sure those only apply to other people, so fuck them.
I'll add one hilarious thing to this list - local school districts. Local school funding is usually done out of the funds of the local government (sometimes city, sometimes district, sometimes county) which means that poor locales don't have enough money to fund their schools. This was a famously contentious issue where I grew up in MA and where inner city schools were and continue to be terribly underfunded.
That would be great. You don't need a floor length mirror and changing rooms if you can just have your rendered body and face to exchange clothes on. Need to get accurate measurements for the right dimensions though.
3D body scanning to get a representation of your body. Than use software to automatically generate and cut clothing patterns to get the exact fit you're looking for. TNow all that's left is stiching, which would be fairly difficult to automate when patterns are variable so would still be a significant cost point for custom clothing.
That would depend on very accurate cloth physics simulation as well. This is way beyond what the article is showcasing, it's not even in the same ballpark.
So you want to give the homeowners houses to the homeless people and your "disenfranchised" problem will be solved. Great theory, you should definitely pursue it.
Look closer at my comment and keep the sarcasm to yourself. I’m talking about ownership, not forced wealth redistribution. Ownership can take many forms, from owning a house, to owning a project at work, to building a garden, and so on. I don’t know how to more equitably distribute ownership for various aspects of society, but I have a feeling that it’s part of the puzzle.
"Communications Decency Act, which says that internet companies are not responsible for what is posted on their platforms"
So Pelosi opposes this and thinks "internet companies" should be held accountable and monitor every single communication or media file posted on a website/platform. So it's just private censorship mandated by the government. Pretty unoriginal work around to suppressing free speech.
This is only my subjective opinion but it seems to me that this is nothing more than electioneering, feeling around for an issue to run on, throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks since they don’t seem to have a marketable enough issue to congregate behind for next year.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like do filter what is recommended to a person though; that is a form of editorial control, even if it‘s mostly just algorithms behind the scenes.
If they were neutral platforms just showing you what you‘ve specifically searched or followed then that would make them more of a common carrier. But the recommendations are an issue.
And the funny thing is, that's not what CDA 230 does... If a company does no moderation whatsoever, they aren't liable for the content posted, and that's been the case for decades. It's why AT&T doesn't get sued every time someone plots a murder on the phone. CDA 230 just said that you don't become the publisher and assume liability for moderation.
I guess the difference might be that Google and FB want to become publishers while pretending to remain neutral platforms just to continue to remain under this law.
Do you feel that they should be held to a different standard to every other media? Television stations are responsible for what is televised, radio stations for what they broadcast, newspapers for what they print - but somehow internet companies are not responsible for what they store and communicate due to the number of messages they must monitor?
OK, that's fine, we'll treat them like common carriers and regulate them.
Television and radio are heavily regulated in part because there is limited spectrum set aside for broadcasts. Television, radio, and newspapers exert a great amount of editorial control.
Common carrier is a great model for this. AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. Many popular platforms are kind of trying to be free to do whatever, but also exert editorial control, which seems untenable.
Disclaimer: i work for a silicon valley company; opinions are mine, not my employers.
> AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them.
AT&T is a common carrier for mobile and voice services so I'm not sure why you are raising them as a counter example. While they are not responsible for the content that is sent on their network, they do work with law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that specific crimes which occur only over telecommunications (i.e. threatening someone over the phone) can be investigated and proscecuted.
> and they also don't exert any editorial control over them.
Also, this is a requirement of being a common carrier. They have to send everything from A to B regardless of (lawful) content. Facebook, Twitter, et al, seemingly want to create an environment in which they can self-editorialise but are not held up to even the basic standards of a common carrier.
A correction to what I said - they are not common carrier for mobile data. They are common carriers for mobile voice communications.
There is a whole series of FTC v AT&T lawsuits which outline this argument and the extent to which they are subject to FTC regulation, if you're interested.
Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them? Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines?
> Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them?
A case could be made that, yes, they are if the leaflets are obviously threatening.
> Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines?
No, but they are responsible for a) not self-editorialising them (which Twitter, Facebook, etc are) and b) are responsible for assisting investigations where such crimes take place. Facebook cannot even tell who is paying for their advertisements. This wouldn't fly for a telecoms company.
