Pick some other topic. For example: are people who thinkthat slavery is inherently and always wrong just stupid extremists, compared to people who accept that 'some' slavery is fine?

I feel like you're the type to walk around with calipers.

Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 for a better written argument.

Painting all far-right voters as evil is wrong and unproductive. Saying this as a far-left voter.

What kind of question is that? Did I ask you if you're calling cameras in the UK mythical?

Same as what you said about London, I'm arguing you're dramatising the dire threat of terrorism on the good people sitting in the tube.

In a thread where we're discussing the systematically verified risks of a slippery slope of surveillance measures and the introduction of extremely invasive surveillance in the tube, clutching your pearls about the mean terrorists threatening the public transports for literal generations is a ridiculous exaggeration that carries the same value as "think of the children". How are cameras going to protect you? Do you think they see people's intentions? Even the police didn't use the terrorism excuse for this.

Sorry for the tone, but this wilful misunderstanding of my comments and your statement about the Irish being to blame for the Troubles make it difficult to engage in a gentlemanly manner.

Your comment very much implies a strong link between the two however. That you then switch from data centres to factories is also a shift that is not related to the discussion at hand.

Personally, everything I've read on the issue indicates that the water usage, for a product that I hear mentioned daily by people in the street, is insignificant.

I have many qualms with AI, mainly about the politics of AI labs and its effects on inequality, and I am active in this field. But I see its environmental costs as a weak argument and don't use it, despite of how receptive people that I try to convince are to it: it uses much less energy, harms many fewer animals, and serves more of a purpose than animal agriculture, so I prefer to move my environmental actions towards that.

> We have had generations of terror threats to and attacks on our railway system, trains, railway stations

I think your take might be based on myth and dramatisation too, as well as a misunderstanding of what the purpose of surveillance is (it's not about protecting children, or trains).

And agree with sibling about Ireland: the Troubles would have been solved by getting the hell out.

I invite you to check how the English government is reacting to independentist movements in Scotland and Ireland post-Brexit if you think they're happy to let people be.

I'd agree that entities that provide their users' data upon a simple request, and a carveout in regulations that allows (not forces) them to do so, fits the definition of proactive.

As sibling comments mention, countries exist with many cameras, public or private, where driving feels worse. I didn't look at road deaths, but I'd be surprised if Portugal is among the leading countries on this.

Equally, if you take a bit of distance, you can realise that Portugal has many other parents living there, yet they are not clamouring for more surveillance: it's difficult to imagine that the Portuguese dictatorial government is evilly preventing its people from accessing the benefits of surveillance.

Updated link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

Can you stop playing the game of owning people with teenager level zingers based on you yourself being too thick?

Whatever my personal opinions about copyright, this whole thread is about copyright set at 2000 years vs 20, so that answers your first 2 points.

For the last one, 'losing value' obviously doesn't mean they can be safely binned, but that the publisher has no return on keeping it in publication. Again, this is what the entire thread is about.

However, there have been a number of criticisms to the paper about data coding, methodology, and interpretation/motivated reasoning. Recently, the author has also acknowledged that governments have adapted since 2006: her data says nonviolent resistance is still more effective, but that the success rate has cratered.

I tried to find some of the criticisms, but it's recent, so all AI generated, so I won't link before reading, but the criticisms I'm aware of I think are robust. All this to say, the idea that nonviolent resistance is more effective is comfortable and feels better, and there is a paper that says so, but your examples and those of a child comment are not about resistance to armed colonial oppression and it's not enough to form a blanket opinion about violent resistance.

Justifications for copyright are always built on edge cases, seemingly moral justifications of an empirically immoral practice. Yes, it'd be nice if a single handicapped mother of 2 coild see her children rise out of poverty thanks to her writing talent after 50 years. In practice, this person doesn't exist and building society around that scenario is not a good thing.

These 'what ifs' have the same value and do the same damage as 'who will think of the children' do for human rights.

To your first point: inheritance has a concentrating effect on wealth. Concentration of wealth is not a good thing, as it breeds inequality by definition.

If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with.

If you have any experience of poverty, you should understand how viscerally unfair the existence of 'rich kids' seem, and how damaging it is to society.

Amazing question. I'm not spiritual, but regularly debate this topic with others (including here): this will be a useful way of approaching it. Thanks for posting the link!