If you’ve spent any time on the “dark web” this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.
On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?
I can link conspiracist websites too. The fact that someone can buy a domain does not automatically confer credibility. I own a domain, does that mean that anything I post to it is automatically credible. If so then why wouldn’t anything I post to Lemmy sites be credible? Including this very own comment.
I fail to see how this is an example of abuse. If someone is lying to you about evidence they have of a crime, then why would that induce a false confession? At worst you would plea guilty in court, when all the evidence (or lack of) would be presented.
This argument requires assuming that people are literally mentally incapable of knowing what they have done. They would have to be so susceptible to manipulation that they would accept any statement as true.
His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.
These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.
I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn’t using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it’s not exactly alien to everyday individuals).
How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.
The actual argument I made, that MycoBro’s personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.
I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.
The amount of people that move simply for abortion laws is miniscule. It’s such a small part of the lives of even the people that opt for abortions, that it is of little consideration.
Marijuana on the other hand, might actually have an effect on the population because drugs are a major part of a lot of peoples lives.
I know literally hundreds of women were this is not the case. The fact that I can only find them on a web forum that specifically selects for people that have your viewpoint (a far-left {no you’re not mainstream Americans no matter how much you want to believe it} website with a post that specifically targets people interested in abortion), is pretty strong evidence of how little it factors in.
“Marijuana is and has already been effectively legal”
Absolutely. The war on drugs failed, not because of abuses of police or that it’s impossible to ban products. But because Americans love drugs and has always culturally permitted it’s use. The reason why countries like Singapore don’t have drug problems is cultural suppression, in addition to draconian laws.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant conspiracism. Prison labor and private facilities comprise zilch to the US economy (billions sounds large until you realize that the US economy is on the order of 20 trillion), infact many people are released specifically because it is cheaper.
Marijuana use additionally increased with cultural acceptance, it wasn’t illegalised when it would actually have been an effective way to hassle innocents.
Is there evidence for this? People move primarily for job, education opportunities and existing family. Local laws don’t really factor in that much, again unless you are participating in activity that your daily life revolves around, like drugs or maybe guns if you are a real freak about them.
You’re worried about something only supported by a fringe group (some conservative Catholics) and legal for your entire lifetime. Keep in mind that the only opposition that the general pro-life movement has is towards abortifacients, of which IUDs are not.
Just because something is vaguely similar doesn’t mean that it is necessarily affected by a policy. Banning slavery, doesn’t mean that you can’t make your children do chores.
“The 'pregnancy crisis’s centers that are legally allowed to spread misinformation” Everyone is legally allowed to spread misinformation.
Maybe your heart wouldn’t be so broken if your head wasn’t so broken. But who am I kidding, you likely don’t actually care about this to any actionable degree, just typed out a response since the topic was broached.
You realise industries built up around a workforce? It’s why you have complexes of related companies in regions because they poach each other’s workforces. They don’t just build a multi-million/billion dollar facility and hope that their workforce materialises out of thin air.
Tech companies like any high-skill field, built up around universities that produce the talent. Unless you think UT-Austin is suddenly going to stop producing students, why do you think that tech companies are going to abandon all their investment?
“Look at the demographics”
Why don’t you read the US Census inflow and outflow of populations between the states? (I don’t have the software to read it on my phone rn, but I seriously doubt it supports your argument, as far as I know low COL states are attracting everyone from high COL states. The low COL states are due to low market demand from being rural and just happen to be Republican).
If it were really true that “red states” only import “red voters”, then how come cities in “red” states become increasingly “blue” over time? Keep in mind that the majority of the population even in relatively rural states is in cities. If they were really just importing Republican voters, then one would expect the voting patterns to stay the same. Anecdotally, basically every state in the West Coast and the adjoining states have been flooded with Democratic voting Californians driven out by COL in the past several decades.
“You cannot claim to know the opinions of hundreds of women… Dunbar’s number”
Destroyed by a weakly defined social science term, that bears little application to the topic. One can easily exceed Dunbar’s number over a period of time spanning decades. If I ask hundreds of women privately their reason for moving, laws, specifically ones about abortion are going to play very little role. The primary reasons for moving are economic and familial, you know things that actually effect day-to-day life.
Additionally if the opinions of multiple women contradicted mine (as a woman), would I really have a logical basis for asserting that my opinion is representative of the group of women?
“right-leaning” You’re confusing criticism of a circle-jerk of unfounded nonsense as being right-leaning. If that’s the case then why don’t you want to be right-leaning?
The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.
Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it’s primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.
FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it’s rarely what uneducated journalists think.
Two members of Moms for Liberty, a right-wing activist group, have reported several Florida school librarians to law enforcement. They claimed they had evidence that librarians were distributing "pornography" to minors and requested that law enforcement officers be dispatched. This represents a serious escalation of the tactics...
This requires many assumptions that you or any computational system have no formal reason to make. Having an interpreter that just guesstimates exactly how you want the program structured, is going to run into problems when you, say want to extend the program.
In order to judge the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, we need to look at if the usage of the banned weapons themselves decreased in mass shootings. If mass shootings dropped by half, but the banned weapons only compromised a third of the shootings prior to the ban, then clearly there is much more at play.
As is most mass shootings are committed using handguns, not rifles. Even on the higher-end of causalities, handguns comprise about 50 percent of the biggest mass shootings. (Incidents like Orlando and Virginia Tech were committed entirely with handguns, Ar-15s aren’t actually advantageous in most shooting incidents, it’s purely aesthetic).
Which includes being mentally ill in the streets. Despite what you are saying, it’s not because of a for-profit system, it’s because SCOTUS has literally ruled it to be illegal to involuntarily commit people who are not an imminent danger to themselves or others (a for-profit system actually benefits from involuntary commitment). This means that any mentally ill people can simply refuse treatment and roam the streets and that’s exactly what they do.
“Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button”
Why prohibit them? Everyone else can carry guns, why aren’t police permitted to have an equal amount of weaponry? In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.
Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton? It’s not that difficult, you characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.
“Let’s try to bring you back a third time” Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I’ve already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.
You’ve been playing a grand Motte and Bailey, alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job, to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.
“Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand”
No, I’m not the one here who talks out of my ass. So let me ask you two questions.
How many people have been shot by police in the US?
What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter? Not an armed person, an active shooter that is firing a weapon to kill either police or another person. (You know a clear and obvious attempted homicide case).
Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn’t mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.
People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Keep in mind that the vast majority of police killings would be classified as self-defence if committed by any other citizen. There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).
“Asking why not, and what would happen if they didn’t have them”.
You realise this is the basis for arguing for the permissibility of possession of any object? Why do you keep denying this as an argument? (Because you are stupid).
The problem is that many personal decisions have systemic consequences. Things like weight gain, smoking or even poor resource utilization cause serious societal and environmental harm, and yet terminating relationships over them is generally criticised. (Many of the biggest issues {climate change, healthcare, drug abuse etc} faced are directly caused by poor personal habits, not voting).
So the question is out of all personal decisions, why are political views being carved out as an exception that is worthy of terminating a relationship?
“is so threatening”
Sometimes when you are criticised it’s because you are a complete moron, not because your ideas are so brilliant they send people running.
And you are further sanitising the PC position. In the vast majority of cases abortion is not about health, but convenience. The vast majority of PL support medical exempts as shown by the actual wording of the laws passed.
The wildly speculative ones that were the result of an informal ( and since retracted) survey, that used a very broad definition of domestic abuse to include yelling.
It’s basically the 13/50 dog whistle of the ACAB crowd.
Because conservatives don’t beat women? For everyone talking about the conservative male that dominates and controls his wife, there is a liberal one stoned on marijuana that needs to be babysat.
These are of course the stereotypes for each side, the reality is that there is a wide range of behaviours that has only weak correlation with political views. But everyone here is too severely brain-damaged to be able to determine causal links.
“Slash a 100$ billion off … military budget and healthcare has all the funding it needs.”
Pretty misleading. That 100 billion isn’t enough, you’d have to raise taxes as well.
The actual cost is on the order of 3 trillion or higher per year. Larger than the entire US federal budget.
If you simply had looked at the cost of Medicare you would have seen how preposterous the 100 billion dollar estimate is. Medicare is not completely free for users and only covers around 18 percent of the population, has expenditures in excess of 700 billion.
That is absolutely not the Pro-choice position. Pro-choice literally means desire is the only criteria that needs to be met (the pro-life position is that desire is necessary but not sufficient). If it actually was as you described, then no one would have had a problem with any of the post-Dobbs laws.
You seem to have this bizarre interpretation of what a conservative means. It’s not the 1950s anymore, literally nobody lives like that and hasn’t since your grandmother.
This is false, every law has medical exceptions. Journalists wildly reported that doctors would be too hesitant to perform medically indicated abortions, but this is simply malpractice not any requirement by the law.
Weird I’m not seeing any links to metaethics, semniotics or ontology. Is that because you fundamentally don’t understand the topic?
Let’s pop that hubristic little bubble of yours.
If fetuses are infact little clumps of cells, then how do we differentiate them from other little clumps of cells? Clearly there must be some additional property that lets us differentiate them, and if an additional property exists then it has a possibility of moral relevance. In other words, the mere fact that we can distinguish fetal tissue from other tissue means that we can ascribe moral value, rendering your assertion that it must be morally equal false. Even more dumbed down for you, if A does not equal B then Moral value of A does not have to equal the moral value of B.
So completely contrary to your claim, the reasoning does not actually follow, because fetuses and cancer cells can be easily determined to be different and ascribed different moral value.
Edit: Oh my science! I accidentally steel-manned you. I’m so sorry. You’re not saying that fetuses are inherently morally equal to cancer cells, you are saying that self-awareness is the criteria for moral worth (it’s not) and that ascribing moral value to a fetus requires asserting that it is self-aware. Possibly even stupider than denying classification theory.
Citation? I can’t find anything to support this, just vague gesturing by organisations with no hard data. The only rigorous data I can find is a study from France which is irrelevant because France bans late-term abortions except for medical reasons. In fact I suspect that this is the cause of this belief, third trimester abortions are primarily medical, because most states in the US and countries in the world ban them except for health reasons. So of course the studies that address them are all going to be covering medically indicated abortions, and then journalists take this to the presses.
There is Kimport’s paper which doesn’t support your claim, but I find it quite shoddy regardless.
“This is such utter nonsense” So you don’t think that people choose to be wasteful?
Laws and personal decisions both cause systemic changes. And guess what, laws do not pass if people do not already engage in personal habits that the laws encourage. The tobacco restrictions would never have passed if it weren’t for personal decisions that lowered the rate of tobacco use.
“You strangely are more concerned about the one with negligible impact”
No, they both have consequences. I’m pointing out that the distinction being made that somehow political views have special considerations over all the other personal actions is worthless. (Remember what the actual topic was?)
Additionally do you realise how completely insane your argument is? A single voter does not determine laws, groups of voters do. Just like how a single smoker does not burden the healthcare system, millions of them do.
“Someone being overweight isn’t going to on measurably affect your life”
It is. Here’s the hard facts, overweight people are less happy, they have worse socialisation, they are unattractive ( which as much as people want to pretend like attractiveness doesn’t matter, it absolutely does when it comes to casual interaction), they have shorter, less productive lives, they increase health care costs. All of these effect society as a whole and the individual.
“And downplaying the actual effect of conservatives criminalising my healthcare”
I have no idea what you are talking about, I never downplayed any laws, you’re just fabricating that so you can justify your whining.
Look, I’m not a conservative but more importantly I’m not someone who conjures nonsensical arguments to justify some vague gut feeling I developed while eating poisonous mushrooms.
Because they have higher tax rates. Some people argue that the tax rates are actually equivalent to the US, but that only factors in income tax and ignores VAT (which the US doesn’t have at a federal level).
The claim was that a mere 100 billion would pay for it, proving that claim false does not affect the fact that other countries have it.
“The universal healthcare model is cheaper than the US model”
By about 10 percent. The problem with a lot of analysis of Medicare for all plans is that they assume that it would be able to run at the same cost ratio as it does now. But Medicare currently does not pay for the full cost of services, it’s essentially subsidised by the private insurers. Replacing private insurance would require increasing the Medicare payout percentage or else hospitals would lose money, and have to cut services.
Additionally if you actually poll the public, they do not want to pay the additional taxes to fund this universal healthcare. The US is in a weird position were a chunk of the population has government insurance, but the bulk is pushed onto employers and that’s basically the best place to put it if you want to minimise the burden on the public.
Did you miss the part where nearly all insurance people have is subsidised by either the government or their employer? People don’t actually pay these costs there employer does, usually as an employment incentive.
“But people in the US pay it too”
Insurance is optional in the US. So no they don’t necessarily pay it, infact it’s not uncommon to skip coverage to save some money. This would not be an option under a taxation system. And yet again, it’s primarily employer-subdised.
“People from countries with universal healthcare …,”
There are many different types of universal healthcare, the fact that you are making such a broad statement shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Some countries implement it by forcing people to buy private insurance.
“All you have to do is allow poor people to have coverage too”
Okay, so you actually are too stupid to have this conversation. Lookup what Medicaid is, and additionally realise that needs-based programs are by definition not universal. In fact this is one of the biggest criticisms of Medicare for all and UBI, they involve giving money to a large percentage of the population that don’t need it. In fact universal systems literally tax the poor to pay the rich, it’s the epitome of a regressive policy.
The current US system is inefficient sure, it’s not as inefficient as widely claimed and arguing that universalising it makes it cheaper for the user is simply false.
“Further most of the regulations need to target corporations”
Guess what is also a way of targeting corporations? Market forces. If people aren’t buying your products/services, do you keep selling those products? The reason why boycotts generally fail is because people are spineless, not because the actual action wouldn’t cripple a business.
You so desperately want to prove the point that the only personal choice that matters is voting, that you are willing to deny reality.
“Then they probably save money”
Probably? Is that the strongest statement you can make? People who die younger don’t have lower healthcare costs (unless it’s an accident or homicide), because they are sicker throughout their end of life.
“Doesn’t effect you as much as people wanting to ban gay marriage”
Pretty, sure that more of my taxes go towards paying for emphysema treatment than are effected by the tiny amount of same-sex married couples (which incur costs how?).
“None of your business how other people spend there lives”
It’s everybody’s business. If this was true, then things like tobacco restrictions wouldn’t matter because healthcare costs are nobody’s business.
What happened to the good old socialists that recognised that if society has a responsibility to support you, you conversely have a responsibility to not be an unnecessary burden? Nowadays we just have libertarian-poisoned socialists who think that nothing you do matters.
“Nobody owes you attractiveness” They owe themselves attractiveness. It is an objective fact that obese people suffer socially, and that translates to societal problems.
“Not even to the degree as voting”
How many companies do you think have dedicated blocks of consumers amounting to 50 million people? A boycott of 50 million people would destroy most companies (if they even have that many customers). You are confusing the fact that most people don’t engage in personal action (because they are just like you), with asserting that personal action does nothing. The reason why political action works is simply because people do it in coordinated groups.
“Progressives are ending relationships based on taxes …”
Motte and Bailey argumentation. The topic was whether or not it is appropriate to end relationships solely on voting (but not personal habits), you explicitly argued that it was (because only voting actually matters) and are now narrowing it down to only “bigotry against marginalised groups”. When that was never the topic.
“You are deeply unpleasant yourself” Are you sure about that? Would you prefer a dishonest liar, who said “Oh my gawd. So true, sweetie.” to every nonsensical claim you made? (Obviously, yes you would, because posters like you are accustomed to sycophantic behaviour).
“is utterly insane” Asserting an opinion as objective fact. You have completely failed to argue that this is true. Also not only does an employer terminating coverage violate COBRA, in many cases it is also a violation of your employment contract.
“The reason I didn’t enunerate every option” You were never asked to enumerate every option, you were asked to not lie about how people don’t know what copays and deductibles are. That was the lie you made.
“The rich pay higher taxes… it’s immediately recovered”.
No it’s not. Unless you literally tax 100 percent of all money above a certain limit, the government will not get it back, only maybe 40 percent. You just threw away 60 percent of the funds.
“And making the rich use the same systems”
So what do rich people in countries with universal healthcare do? They use privatised services, just like in the US. So what incentive do these all powerful rich people have to improve the universal healthcare system that they don’t even use?
It’s unfortunate that you are selectively gullible to believe all the propaganda that brain-dead losers like Andrew Yang generate, but not actual factually-based critique.
“It’s literally an empirical fact” And an insufficient one. The fact that the US system is inefficient, does not mean that the end user pays more than they would in taxation. Private insurance is cheaper than Medicare for many people. I personally know dozens of low-income people who opt for private insurance.
“Facts don’t care about your feelings”
I hate Ben Shapiro, I think he has vacuous worthless opinions, the difference is that Ben Shapiro isn’t the one lying to people on this post right now.
deleted_by_author
Men of lemmy, what would you do if you woke up female one day
I'm going to my friends Hamas base RULE dinner (lemmy.tf)
Rule The Police (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Ohio voters enshrine abortion access in constitution in latest statewide win for reproductive rights (apnews.com)
Moms for Liberty members call the cops on Florida librarians (popular.info)
Two members of Moms for Liberty, a right-wing activist group, have reported several Florida school librarians to law enforcement. They claimed they had evidence that librarians were distributing "pornography" to minors and requested that law enforcement officers be dispatched. This represents a serious escalation of the tactics...
What’s something on your mind lately that nobody else would understand?
Which language you wish would really grow and reach mainstream adoption?
Assume mainstream adoption as used by around 7% of all github projects...
We have had guns for 200 years but mass shootings only became common in the last 30. So what changed?
Ex-cop who fired into Breonna Taylor’s apartment in flawed, fatal raid goes on trial again (apnews.com)
Do the right wing women in relationships with right wing guys think it's like a draco malfoy thing where they're a good guy underneath?
do the right wing guys think it’s like a draco malfoy thing where they’re a good guy underneath?...