He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws.
There's dishonesty for you.
Yes, you’re being dishonest.
If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.
He spelled it out in the post you’re aggressively misinterpreting and it’s decidedly not the fiction you’re peddling. So are you really losing track of what’s been said, in which case it’s time to step back, or are you being dishonest? You don’t seem like you’re losing track, so...
I'm not "misinterpreting" anything, aggressively or otherwise.
He is lumping all states together as "the state", giving an example of some unethical states, and arguing from that that no state is ethical, or pays any attention to ethical concerns.
You said He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws.
Which simply isn’t true. He actually said outright:
If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.
Now, you may think that’s garbage, but you’re not free to pretend that he said completely different things he didn’t actually say. Remember how you hate inaccuracy? Do you think that what you were doing before was accurate? How about playing semantic games now with the word “state,” is that accurate?
This I just wrong from the start. If there’s a single overarching definition of mental illness, it’s “clinical significance” and not deviation from the norm. Of course it’s not that simple either, but it is a common thread throughout all of them.
This only moves the definition down one level. If clinical significance (in general, not just in psychology) isn't based on deviation from a norm, what is it based on?
The degree to which something interferes in someone’s life, their ability to function, etc. If you’re suicidally depressed, or psychotic, it’s a clear distinction for obvious reasons. It’s not about comparing to some standard, you can believe strange things, be unhappy, and so on, but if it starts to make you unable to live your life, it might be a problem.
It’s a warning sign for delusional and paranoid ideation, which can be the result of a pretty startling number of issues. Drugs can cause delusions/paranoia, schizophrenia, schizoid personality disorder, delusional disorder, mania, and so on can all present in that way. It’s important to remember that it’s quite rare for that kind of person to be a threat to anyone other than themselves though. Most poled who think like her, or think they’re being “gang stalked” or any of a myriad of strange-to-delusional beliefs are just miserable, exhausted people, not a threat.
However it’s also true that of the small number of mentally ill people who on to harm others, people with paranoid ideation are one of the two groups who are more likely to be violent. The other group are people who are psychotic, and may harm people under the instructions of “voices” or in extreme cases, just not have any idea what they’re doing.
Again however, those “likely” groups are still seriously unlikely to be violent against anyone other than themselves, in general.
We are not Equifaxes customers. We are Panera Bread's customers. There is some risk if you directly expose the customers. There is less risk if you lose a third parties data.
Just from speaking to my friends who are not tech people and regular Panera Bread customers. They don't care. Sorry for using this language but as a direct quote one of them said "dude who gives a shit, everyone is leaking shit these days."
Absolutely agreed. It feels like corps are developing thier own infosec version of the four dogs defense.
4 DOG DEFENSE
My Dog Does Not Bite.
My Dog Bites, But It Didn't Bite You.
My Dog Bit You. But It Didn't Hurt You.
My Dog Bit You And Hurt You, But It Wasn't My Fault
Probably won't happen until some Senator gets personally burned. Equifax hasn't suffered much, for example, and they released almost all of their info for every adult in the US that ever used a credit card or had a mortgage.
I'm almost wishing some activist hacker would buy the data for the House and Senate reps and go to town...just to get their attention. Purchase pornhub accounts , shady drug site stuff, escorts, etc, and start sharing it publicly.
> My guess is that senators that have been burned have been done so secretly and are being blackmailed.
The whole bunch has been blackmailed for decades. Just not "ordinary" blackmailing, but threatening by big funders to cut said funding unless, for example, the politician keeps supporting NRA/BigAg/BigFinance-favorable policies...
I know HIBP's Troy HUnt has very carefully detailed his ethical and moral tradeoffs in what he does, and I appreciate that as a benchmark.
But I so want to lose my mind, start getting these breach db's and start emailing Congresscritters with "This email was hacked, you're screwed, we're screwed, and here's legit links to help fix our lives back up... (eff.org) (hibp) etc"
And now I'm on the watch list for when someone crazier than me actually does this. Sigh.
I feel like there could be an xkcd-style greasemonkey script that adds a winkey face to the end of any of those phrases to make them a little more accurate.
First I just want to say that I agree with you, that was an explosion; explosion and detonation aren’t necessarily the same thing. Loud noise and rapidly expanding gas = explosion. One correction though, which is that a shockwave is supersonic, and just judging by the fact that burning fragments were on the floor and not punching through the wall, I’ll guess it wasn’t supersonic.
Ah I wasn't aware of that distinction, I thought a shockwave was any sudden rise and subsequent fall in pressure. Learn a new thing every day, thank you!
The problem is that they’re the single largest television broadcaster.
Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, the company is the largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations, and largest by total coverage; owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country (233 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest.
With the shift to the various 21st century streaming platforms, broadcast TV in its traditional form is rapidly becoming the bastion of the elderly. The average traditional broadcast news viewer is 50+[1] so very soon Sinclair will be dominating retirement homes everywhere in America. It's a demographic that will literally die out from under them, and seems like a poor long-term investment.
You may not be aware of this, but typically you don’t enter a nursing home at 50. Either way, Sinclair is also well into streaming services, which you could have discovered with even a cursory glance at their Wikipedia page. Of course, a huge number of people, especially people who vote, are in that same age bracket.
Following that through, you clearly hate being backed into a corner, and don’t mind engaging in “innacuracy” when it suits you.