Plenty of great projects are developed by people working at Meta. Doesn't change the fact that the company as a whole should be split in at least 6 parts, and at least two thirds of these parts should be regulated to death. And when it comes to activities that do not improve anyone's life such as advertisement and data collection, I do mean literally regulated into bankruptcy.

Of course the business which depend on harvesting data will do anything they can to continue harvesting data. The regulation just makes that require consent. This is good.

If businesses are intent to keep on harvesting data by using dark patterns to obtain "consent", these businesses should either die or change. This is good.

Sometimes the regulations are heavy-handed and ill-conceived. Most of the time, they are influenced by one lobby or another. For example, car emissions limits scale with _weight_ of all things, which completely defeats the point and actually makes today's car market worse for the environment than it used to be, _because of_ emissions regulations. However, it is undeniable that that the average European is better off in terms of privacy.

When a model that has this capability is being distributed, copyright infringement is not happening. It is happening when a person _uses_ the model to reproduce a copyrighted work without the appropriate license. This is not meaningfully different to the distinction between my ISP selling me internet access and me using said internet access to download copyrighted material. If the copyright holders want to pursue people who are actually doing copyright infringement, they should have to sue the people who are actually doing copyright infringement and they shouldn't have broad power to shut down anything and everything that could be construed as maybe being capable of helping copyright infringement.

Copyright protections aren't valuable enough to society to destroy everything else in society just to make enforcing copyright easier. In fact, considering how it is actually enforced today, it's not hard to argue that the impact of copyright on modern society is a net negative.

A website that sticks to being a website does not need cookie banners.

The main difference at least in my region is that if you're a contractor then it's much quicker for you to quit and find a better job so the incentive to stay isn't as strong. In other words, tech workers who become contractors here usually are better contributors and have an easier time finding good offers.

Dems have to appear to be pro-immigration for reasons (honestly I don't know why this is like this, historically). They are genuinely less xenophobic than the Reps, so they respect the rights of recent immigrants much better. But when it comes to preventing more poor workers coming in, they are just as tough as the Reps. And I believe that's because ultimately they are slightly less captured by capital and therefore more amenable to balance the economy in favor of workers.

Reps on the other hand have to appear xenophobic once again for reasons that aren't super clear to me, but when it comes to actually preventing immigration, they always manage to torpedo their own proposals. And arguably that's because if they passed effective anti-immigration laws, that would negatively affect the interests of capital, the very obvious reason they're in politics for (and Trump is certainly no different).

Maybe now we can resolve this apparent paradox and simply accept that the Democrats are first and foremost the party of the educated, metropolitan and utterly disinterested in matters of material conditions. Whereas the Republicans are the party of people who are bitter towards the first group. Which leads to the conclusion that exceptionally few people in the US are voting according to their own economic interests.

Of course in rigorous fields of study this is hard to do but if your rich kid is studying art, the grades are almost entirely arbitrary.

The problem isn't so much how admissions are selected, the problem is that admissions went from a fairly normal thing for any educated young adult to an extremely rare privilege.

To solve the problem, there should simply be more supply of quality higher education. And the government should stop funding institutions that profit from deliberately making their education exclusive.

There's a reason the amount of self-described gay and lesbians has dropped massively in regions where it is no longer transgressive at all (but being trans is, so there's a massive increase there). It could be that homosexuality was actually just a mask for a trans identity, but that's odd because it would invalidate virtually everything that has been said in defense of tolerance of gays and lesbians.

Similarly, all this "mental health awareness" has done anything but normalize mental health issues. I'm sure this is well-intentioned however intentions don't count for much. The normalization of "minor" mental health issues has led to a situation where many more people start treatment with heavy side-effects to address issues that are often less serious than the side-effects of the treatment.

Worse, and here I'm thinking mostly about ADHD, what has been normalized is not the fact that some people have less attention than others. What has been normalized is to diagnose kids with ADHD and start medicating them. We have done the opposite of normalization here: it used to be that people with rowdy behavior were just expected to naturally grow out of it. That their education would take a little bit more time. They weren't considered broken or lesser or, crucially, abnormal or sick. In effect, we have turned slight deviations from the norm in terms of this one personality trait into a disease that must be treated. And because I can already read the comments: yes, some people legitimately have ADHD to such a degree that it interferes with their life and it makes sense to medicate. However, basically nobody starts taking ADHD medicine when they're already an adult, the decision is always made for them. And few parents, doctors and teachers will advise _against_ making an annoying child more docile unless they're acutely aware of the risks. And this tendency is further reinforced because the entire school system is run by people who have no idea what being a 4-to-18 years old boy is like and don't want to know.

Even the demographic dynamics of the real world suggest that we're on the path to a state-driven reproductive system.