No offense intended, but that is an ignorant take. The law of the land in the U.S. was that one human could literally own another human being (with all the implications of property ownership, including disposing of it and abusing it at your leisure). How such a despicable mindset took hold and was allowed to go on for so long, is beyond modern comprehension.
You mentioned many other injustices but none of those are "slavery but just different with slightly more rights."
you are just describing the shades of grey, even if one looks brighter, doesn't change the fact that it is still grey, I think your take is too simplistic.
Human nature didn't change, it is still power hungry, small percentage of narcissistic people want to control the masses and exploit, give them a chance (I mean to current capitalists), you will become a slave.
Look at the Elon and what he did to X employees, some were sleeping in the office "proudly", who still got laid off anyways, look at the Bezos, who fought against forming unions. So you think those people are different then slave owners? deep inside they are same, power and capital hungry, ready to do anything to get more powerful (see any big tech corporate, blood bath of politics at the top to fight for staffing and stack ranking to show "impact")
> So you think those people are different then slave owners?
You said "slavery wasn't abolished." Now you're comparing X and Amazon employees to the experience of American slaves. Those aren't shades of grey, they're not even in the same color space.
What an excellent site! It addresses a widespread concern that AI applications will be taken over by ads, as so many technologies have before. The site takes a humorous approach, because sometimes humor is not just a great way to call attention to a problem, it’s the best way!
That's definitely in the soon camp but I've also seen quite a few of those notices come and go without strikes happening too and rarely the day before, that's not really enough time to get out even if you wanted to.
I agree; exact day was predictable enough for people to place confident-enough bets on. Notices to evacuate non-essential personnel from US military bases, embassies, & consulates in the region also went out 1-2 days prior to Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13, 2025.
My social circle had largely expected that Iran was getting bombed on Saturday or Sunday once the evacuation notices went out Friday, and this intuition was merely from laymen who follow the news. I don't doubt that insider trading was involved as it's the norm with this Admin, but I also don't doubt that many savvy people could've legally placed successful bets.
> The Windows 95 user interface design team was formed in October, 1992... The number of people oscillated during the project but was approximately twelve. The software developers dedicated to implementing the user interface accounted for another twelve or so people
I still don't understand what happened starting around 2010-ish (from my observations at the time) that we went from being able to handle a company's worth of software with 30 people, to needing 30 people for every individual project. Startups with minor products had team-pages with 15 people.
From what I remember, Windows NT kernel 3.1 team had about 50 persons, and when they reached 4.0 it was about 200 persons. And then there are application writers. It was definitely a lot than just a few dozens.
Microsoft had around 5k people in r&d in 1995. And that covered the full wide product range, win95, nt, office, visualc, sql server, and all the other stuff.
Those numbers are UI only. 12 just to design it, another 12 to build it. That's not counting the vastly larger number of developers who built all the various elements of the underlying codebase.
Team bloat is a real issue but I don't think this case is relevant.
It's not "easy" but it remains true. We can play the moral-decision game and I'll ask you whether killing one child is justified to save 5,000,000. If you answer "yes" then from that point it's just about agreeing on numbers.
What is the alternative you propose? Just to give a hypothetical-but-realistic example, let’s presume that khamenei’s continued existence results in 100 civilian deaths per day. Under that assumption, what one-time cost would you accept to end his life?
Whether or not one would accept deaths of civilians to get rid of Khamenei, I don't think anyone should accept a school full of children being blown up for no obvious reason. If there was somehow a reason why Khameni could not have killed without attacking that school, then those reasons should be plainly spelled out and evidence presented. As things stand with the limited information we have now, it just looks like a war crime with no strategic upside.
Most Iranians outside Iran fled from the current regimes terror, they are happy with this. My country took in a lot of Iranians when the current regime took over in the 70s and those are very happy about this. They are out on the street celebrating the attacks on Iranian leaders, not protesting against them.
Amazing explanations!! I absolutely love this. In 10 minutes it’s given me a huge boost in my intuition on diffusion, which I’ve been missing for years.
You mentioned many other injustices but none of those are "slavery but just different with slightly more rights."
reply