I think Apple’s emphasis on the privacy and security stuff would have happened anyway, because they’ve been positioning themselves as privacy focused for several years now.

I definitely see your perspective, but mostly wanted to make sure I wasn’t overlooking some obvious downside in my risk assessment.

I figure my chances are low that I will get into the situation where an authority demands access to my phone but I also don’t have the opportunity to lock out biometrics. Like if I get pulled over I just hold power and volume up buttons for three seconds and biometrics is off. That said, it certainly doesn’t eliminate my risk completely, and I wouldn’t consider anyone crazy for just opting out completely.

Regarding biometrics, I’ve felt that one advantage is that if I’m in a public space, I don’t have to worry about someone watching me enter my password over my shoulder. If I got into a situation where someone is physically overpowering me to get my finger onto my device against my will, I’m probably going to give them whatever password they want so I don’t get a beat down.

I think this is where the specific definition of “nice” is crucial. I think it’s very possible to still be “nice” while also being confrontational or standing up for things, and in fact, doing it nicely but without backing down can sometimes be extremely effective.

I know the “nice” you are referring to, where someone uses it as a shield for uncaring, selfish behavior. I’d of course rather have someone who isn’t so “nice” who earnestly tries to do the right thing than that kind of nice.

I don’t know if this only makes a difference for me, but in case others find it useful: I use an e-reader and set it to have very large font size, resulting in a small amount of content per page. For some reason, when I spend too much time on a page, my mind starts to wander, but if I’m moving on to the next page quickly, I feel more engaged and stay with it more easily.

Neither can ChatGPT

Wouldn’t that give an extra incentive to raise the retirement age?

The fact that it happened more than one time makes it so much funnier

You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.

While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.

So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.

You have to be an exceptionally shitty person to be one of the richest people on the planet

The context in which it is used makes sense, but the extra “is” is just there. By all rights it should be ungrammatical, but people pretty frequently have that extra “is”, and I do find it absolutely bizarre how pervasive it is.

Laughter can’t melt steel beams!

“I don’t really like X, but as long as they don’t then do Y I guess it’s okay”

They always do Y

If you’re absolutely scraping by, where you can’t even spare a few bucks a week on something like this, then yeah, maybe you just can’t do it. But if you can spare even a tiny amount, then it’s wise to do that small amount starting as early in life as possible.

That’s really all you have to say? Your statement that I responded to strongly suggested at least one, if not multiple, clear opportunities to make major changes to marijuana law that Democrats didn’t take. Are you not interested in the fact that that is not true?

Your reaction is like if someone pointed out factually wrong statements made by an antivaxxer and the antivaxxer responded with “I guess I shouldn’t try to protect my body”. No, that part is perfectly fine, it’s that you should just use actual facts or you could end up deciding on a course of action that is diametrically opposed to the outcome you want!

I expect better – from you!

I hope you don’t consider the 50-50 split Senate to be one of the times we “gave Democrats Congress and the presidency”. Do you think they were going to find 10 Republicans and overcome the filibuster for that legislation?

The last time the Democrats had control that gave them a realistic chance of doing something like this, marijuana legalization didn’t even have majority support in the US. Even among Democrats it was pretty divided.

The time before that, Bill Clinton was president and was under fire for admitting he had ever tried marijuana in his life, and had to claim he “didn’t inhale”.

And those were all the times in my life that the Democrats had any sort of majority in Congress and a Dem president.

You make it sound like there have been these chances over and over. But there isn’t even one single time you can look back at and say “right here, you had all the opportunity in the world and we asked you to do it, and you didn’t do it”.

I have YouTube premium and an adblocker and I don’t have this problem. I’m skeptical that it’s related.

The sun

That sounds badass

deleted by creator