I'm fine with throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that case and just calling the whole article misleading.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that he livestreamed it on Facebook and their moderators refused to delete it.

Of course thats far from the only time that somebody planning an act of terrorism has a history of concerning posts but somehow other social networks are hardly ever held to this standard.

>Parler? AWS said that they'd reported over 100 posts to Parler that were active and specific plans for violence and incitement, and been ignored. Following the FBI investigating Parler for its role in coordinating violence on Jan 6, AWS pulled the plug.

Well if they were really that "active and specific" they should have called the FBI too. But once again, this sort of standard should have sank every other social network decades ago if it was actually applied equally. Social media is always used to incite riots. Why are you acting like this is unheard of? We have entire social movements with hashtags in their names.

The bit about "the worst people's accounts" just sounds like a refutation of everything else in the article. The problem was always that it was up to interpretation who "the worst people" are.

IDK why so many people want to die on this hill of not forcing social media companies to extend free-speech rights to their userbase. Facebook didn't accidentally wind up in this position where their TOS can effectively censor entire political movements on the Zuck's whim. They spent decades purposefully angling for this by acquiring competitors and encouraging people to use their platform for any and all communication. They own the audience.

>But there is a better solution: build tools that are open, decentralized, and user controlled. And then actually use them instead of just giving more power to Mark Zuckerberg to shut down a protest organization’s account in the middle of one of its big protests.

Not happening LOL. The decentralized platforms have been there for 10-20 years, hardly anybody uses them.

Back when the shoe was on the other foot, the right tried to make *several* alternative platforms and there was widespread collusion amongst all levels of infrastructure providers to push them off the internet. The same will happen to any platform which seeks to effect political change and attains enough critical mass that it could plausibly do so.

There was a proposal at one point for NASA to deploy a 21st-century automaton to Venus because the atmosphere is too corrosive for an electronic computer. Supposedly it would have delivered its data to an orbiter using a balloon and then the orbiter transmits the information over radio. I really wish they'd do that, I would love to see what could be done with mechanical computing using modern technologies.

Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of situations where clockwork logic makes more sense than semiconductors.

>Batteries do indeed compete with power plants, every day of every moment they are on the grid. They are also consumers from power plants, they go both ways.

Hey don't tell me that, tell the BBC. They're the ones who wrote an entire article about "replacing power plants with home batteries".

>Through GMP's programme, its virtual power plant has quietly become Vermont's biggest source of power. Now, the state is testing how far this "hidden" form of power can go.

Does anybody at the BBC actually understand what batteries are, and why they cannot possibly compete with power plants!?!?

>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Although more generally I do believe even without the preamble it would still be implied that the US government does not have jurisdiction over the entire planet. We would never be able to invade a foreign country if their government was entitled to third-amendment and fourth-amendment rights.

Of course it would be absurd to cast that judgement based of what could easily have just been a bad season but by this point its pretty clear that nobody running the star trek franchise actually wants to be running the star trek franchise. Thats why every new show has some bizarre cross-genre gimmick and they never try to just make a proper star trek.

Of course thats not actually tenable because virtually every society anywhere on earth is predicated upon treating animals as a commodity resource in ways that are horrific even compared to some of the worst things we've done to other humans in the past.

My point here is that it is vain and narcissistic to let computer programs have rights above those of animals just because they can speak English and pretend to be your dream anime trad-waifu.

Fix the fucking animal problem before you compare my relationship to inanimate objects unfavorably against the trans-atlantic slave trade of all fucking things.

I know consciousness is notoriously difficult to define or prove to anybody other than yourself but thay doesn't mean anything which a third party believes to be conscious is actually conscious.

The games that it gates are probably about 95% porn and only about 5% racist but the racist games are there ("tyrone vs cops VR", "cuck simulator", "goyslop", etc). I will admit some of them do at least look funny based on how they present themselves in the trailer but they're all obviously low-quality asset-flips that would've been considered slop even before the age of modern AI.