The same impulses that make people search for religions (and when they can find none to their liking, invent them) is what leads to that particular brain disease. I have no need of the religion. I mean, it's already a dietary code, it just needs a prophet and it's complete. Animals are food.

What happens if you see Brown Jenkins?

It may be true that if they just put a little bit of fecal matter in the soup that they could give the soup away for free... but why would I want to eat shit soup? Even if you were to tell me that rationally there's so little shit in the soup that I couldn't notice the taste, and that there'd be no statistically significant health risks from it, why would I eat it? "Both rich and poor pay the same amount for this soup" doesn't sway me either.

And never mind that me, looking from the outside inward, I see them cranking up the shit percentage constantly.

If banning fecal matter in soup means the world has less soup, I've already made peace with that consequence.

>phone and video calls of unlimited duration,

Perhaps I'm so old now that I've lost the plot, but my phone calls (what few I make) are paid for explicitly and directly. Them being unmetered has nothing to do with advertisement revenue. Care to explain?

You've really lost the plot.

Anything that's so agreeable to abiogenesis that life might spontaneously manifest, is actually pretty tasty for things already alive. They swoop in and eat it before it gets started. So, I suspect that even what the article says isn't that they both arose in the same place, but in different places separated by distance, time, and/or environmental barriers.

Citizenship is the most absolute (though diluted) ownership possible. I own a car, but if I commit a crime heinous enough I can have that confiscated as a penalty. On the other hand, in the United States there is no crime for which my citizenship can be revoked. What about the other elements of ownership? Participating in the decision-making process of the disposition of the property for instance... that's called voting or representative democracy or whatever you want to call it. At times, the government, acting on behalf and with the consent of people, has bought more territory, or traded it away to other nations. We employ a policy of absolute defense against any belligerent encroachers.

Looks like ownership to me. Calling it a "trust" is just the weasel words.

Citizens do own their countries. In any meaningful sense of the word "own", they do own them. Legally, morally, and philosophically.

> And especially they do not "own" the culture

This is a strange non sequitur. Sure. No one owns culture. The immigrants can take their culture with them back home.

Apparently some of those profits now go to the studio too? Some of the deals being made sound borderline criminal to me.

The same way, I might add, that you or I want to exclude squatters from our homes, and the same way (I assume) most of us don't invite hobos in to sleep in our beds.

If you say that's bad too and that it's much like Apartheid, then all I can conclude is that maybe I need to learn more about Apartheid. Maybe it's not so bad as I have been told.

I'd take your bet, while trying to hustle you to raise the wager.

It's how it works now, and we don't much have the ability to change that. If we tried, the pharmaceutical companies would be in danger... those countries can spin up factories to make the same drugs and just ignore the patents. A behavior/strategy they want to avoid encouraging.

Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out.

And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem.

Why would the first AI we create necessarily be "rational"? In every other type of software we've ever built, it's always been far more likely that we build malfunctioning, difficult-to-anticipate examples. Any reason it'll be different this time? If psychos and lunatics are rare (arguably they're not) it's because evolution has purged them mercilessly ever since there have been humans at all.

Optimists will be to blame when we're extinct. Not that anyone will be around to care.

Where to allow them to do this with posts outside of their subreddit is an implementation detail.