It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.

People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.

The benefit of the 4k is that you get HDR. On a good TV, that’s far more noticable than the resolution improvement and certainly worth it.

But then you’re looking at 60-100 Mbps bit rate for good quality (50-80 GB file size for most movies).

Where are you getting that? This says 15 Mbps.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

I’m sure you’re going to have a worse or slower experience particularly when scrubbing, but it should be just adequate.

The issue is energy density. There’s a reason why boat tanks are ~6 times larger than a cars gas tank. That’s why they’re so expensive (plus batteries are much heavier).

The Bolt EV or the Leaf are just that.

It’s more that do far I haven’t seen anything wrong with the browser itself.

If it were full of shit, then you wouldn’t be discussing the exact he pointed out in this book.

There is some racist discussion in there, but that’s secondary and doesn’t detract or impact his main point about what increasingly complex labor does to a society.

This was exactly the problem that Charles Murray pointed out in the bell curve. We’re rapidly increasing the complexity of the available jobs (and the successful people can output 1000-1,000,000 times more than simple labor in the world of computers). It’s the same concept as the industrial revolution, but to a greater degree.

The problem is that we’re taking away the vast majority of the simple jobs. Even working at a fast food place isn’t simple.

That alienates a good chunk of the population from being able to perform useful work.

I wouldn’t say that at all. Chernobyl was so much worse than this. It wasn’t a single first line supervisor who asked one worker to do something who said no at first.

They’d asked multiple nuclear plants to perform that test. Been told that it was not safe to perform multiple times. They finally got an upper management individual at one plant to agree to it. Then they had challenges completing the test and due to plant characteristics that were not apparent to the operators (as well as violating other procedures) the event occurred.

The premise of chernobyl is a series of systemic failures of barriers. Not an addition of a single step not specified in a maintenence procedure.

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.

If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?

It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.

The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.

That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.

How did they send it out to you, via message or email.

I submitted my gdpr a couple weeks ago, but my accounts all used temp emails that I can’t access anymore so I wouldn’t get it if they sent it there.

I agree. It’s absolutely absurd that would say something along the lines of “Fuck, I got r*ped, what do I do?”

I’m of the opinion that you shouldn’t censor any words. If you feel the need to censor it, then just don’t say it. If you want to discuss it, then be able to say it. You should be able to say something like “X called Y a nigger”.