My question is: What rules out the bigger size itself (irregardless of overall brain size) causing differences? Perhaps, the ratio of amygdala size to brain size does not matter but rather just the absolute size.

I'm not well read on this topic but I would like to be. I've never heard this solution presented, likely due to my lack of research. Can you provide citations of this solution being suggested and/or implemented?

Besides that, while I agree it is better than pure blocking I still feel it would be a government over-reach. I wouldn't like a company doing it either.

The person you are calling inaccurate said as much in different words.

If it wasn't exactly 6 then you shouldn't call it 6.

IMO, anything that doesn't include being at work as part of your actual job duties should have no number of required work hours. You either get enough work done or you don't. If you aren't getting the expected amount of work done, then you'll eventually get fired. If you can out perform everyone else on the team and work 8 hours a week, so be it(just don't expect to get any brownie points when it comes raise time unless you put in more time).

Things like retail/food service are obviously things that require being at work certain hours so talking about shortening hours for that time of work is productive. For creative work/management/executive work though, I think we should move to a more flexible approach.

Edit: Well not all of it. I'm also learning rust and scheme in my free time.

Interestingly, the current tax structure somewhat encourages single income families.

This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things. Making sure our population is at least being maintained and preferably growing.

In addition, if you dislike the large amount of kids that grow up in orphanages/bad homes things like this should allow people to have more time to take care of their kids during their first several weeks of life as well as potentially encourage more people to keep their kids instead of putting them up for adoption.

ERC is built in, pretty good for IRC, very easy to use, and very configurable. There are other IRC clients as well.

There are RSS readers in emacs as well but I don't currently use them. I think elfeed is the cool one to use nowadays.

Unless they are harassing you about it (in which case first step is to block them), I don't see how this is a problem.

Does being aware of other's opinions and/or reading about them hurt you somehow?

No. For a place of discourse to become major requires a large amount of people to be actively involved. I can't just "form my own" because for it to be major other people have to get involved. If I were to form a new place of discourse due to being banned, it would most likely become an echo chamber of other people that have been banned not a major place of discourse.

Unless they are literally calling for people to take action and kill/harass/otherwise harm people I see no reason to "censor" them. From what I've seen, most of that subreddit is hating on other races(which definitely is hate speech) but not calling any real action. I also don't consider calling for legitimate political action to be worthy of "censorship" either, only going outside the political system to directly harm.

Sure, it doesn't violate the constitution but it still is a serious issue.

You can say something hateful, disrespectful, and even threatening to/about a white person(or people) and twitter doesn't care even if you are reported.

However if you say the same thing about/to a black person (or people) [literally the same sentence with only those words switched out] then when reported you will be banned.

If twitter(and others) would actually apply their rules fairly, a lot of people would be a lot less upset.

"Censorship" just forces people underground to talk amongst other people with the same opinions. While it has some kind of measurable effect on preventing impressionable people from being exposed to their opinions, it also prevents people from discussing alternative views with the ones who were "censored". This is a large part of the reason why everyone was blindsided by Trump, the trump supporters were largely either not speaking up due to social penalties for doing so or only talking on-line in forums where other people agreed with them.

If the goal is to "defeat" the alt-right movement, then I don't think it is necessarily obvious that banning them is the right move. As I said though, maybe it is since it does limit exposure to their views which in theory limits their membership.

Note: Scare quoted censorship due to it not being government run which is what people usually mean when they say censorship.