I'm having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn't there.

Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I'd put good money on it not being google free.

If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn't be using either.

Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?

To me this reads as:

< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >

< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >

"Not going to explain because it's obvious"

Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce

cheery picking laws aside

That would imply there was "cherry" picking to be set aside.

cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.

I'd be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

"This stops them from killing babies" and "This also predominantly affects the group I don't like" aren't mutually exclusive ideas

Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.

There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.

There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.

you mean the faces that are already posted by the FBI for everyone to see ?

Brazil (1985)

You don't need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.

I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."

A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."

This is not a good argument.

As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.

Unless you're a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the "cost of doing business" tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?

Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?

I doubt "Absolutely wrong" would be read as "shut up and listen" in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.

Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.

Agreed , i do it too, frequently.

Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

i don't have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.

Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i'm not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it's not life or death here or anything)

In this case i (personally) read it as "I block people who don't agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won't listen to me and keep replying".

and most of that comes from the use of the term "Absolutely wrong" which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.

As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.

Also money

Indeed, the paradox of tolerance is real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

At least for me and by the sounds of it, you.

Describe what you mean by "freedom of speech" here, I'm assuming you don't mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I'm not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it "fact" i suppose, but it's not really accurate unless it's an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn't what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact

Isn't the whole point of this article to point out that no, in fact, you won't ?

Less volume perhaps, certainly less obvious, but not "without".

Each to their own, I too have pre-blocked on occasion.

I probably wouldn't hold myself responsible for angry internet people, if I'm engaging in good faith and they get angry that's not on me, trolls gonna troll, but again each to their own.

I don't have any studies to hand, but isn't the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?

But lets look at your argument both ways.

On the one hand you'd be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn't exist at all and so wouldn't apply here.

Or

Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn't apply for some reason.

If that's the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn't apply in this specific circumstance?

Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn't fall in to the above categories?

That "rape aside" is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn't the "had sex, your fault" narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the "this book is the literal truth" christians i suppose.

or you're trolling, in which case, congratulations...i guess.

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

I agree with all of this, I was just pointing out that common understanding (read: my own) of civil and rational discourse doesn't usually include immediately blocking people who don't agree to you telling them they are wrong in absolute terms.

I could be wrong however, happens a lot.

Edit: that is not to day I don't personally block people I think are being arseholes, i 100% do, I just don't claim to be doing so in the defence of civil or rational discourse.

If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well

While technically correct, to me this sounds like "You haven't managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?" which is personally not my approach.

Not to say that my approach isn't effort and is even effective, but I'd much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn't want to put in that kind of effort though and i don't fault them for it.

Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect

Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.

The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn't a guarantee they aren't doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.

Though, yes, it's almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

I'm talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.

I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I'm talking about "authority" in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.

For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term "anti-authoritarian" as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.

At a lot of companies "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn't allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).

Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I'd guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.

Which i'd imagine is what @bouh meant when they said "But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones"

Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). "Anti-authoritarianism" and "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" are not mutually exclusive.

As with most things it's contextual.

I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for "United States"

Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we've skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I'll just assume you don't have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question

The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.

It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.

Agreed, but "didn't do the most optimal thing in a given situation" isn't the same as "deserved to be dragged out of his car"

Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.

This confusion is easily resolved though, let's clarify with a couple questions.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?

I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.

I'd personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you're sorry it happened.

Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.

And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.

That doesn't even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.

So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it's going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.

Which is what is happening here.

This could easily happen to a white person.

That's subjective but again, let's clarify :

In these exact same circumstances, you'd expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?

Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.

The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.

Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD's isn't usually worth it.

If you want some real in depth explanations there's probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.

Is...that not what's supposed to happen?

I don't have any other socials so I'm not too up on what the standards are.

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.

I mean, yes? That's a good summation.

The part where you get to call something "open source" by OSI standards (which I'm pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don't want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn't adhere, because that's how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an "open source 2 : electric boogaloo" licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn't adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the "true" ^1^ open source licences and the other, "closely related, but not quite legit" ^2^ variations.

^1^ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

^2^ Any other set of standards that isn't compatible with ^1^

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

The only "legal" thing you can do

That's reasonable

Do you have an example of this ?