True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.
Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.
Senal
joined 1 year ago
I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.
Fair enough, i don't agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i'm not sure it matters.
Assuming his stance wasn't antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that's an entirely different argument.
He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.
Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.
Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn't, is a common bad faith tactic.
Perhaps that isn't what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that's what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.
Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.
Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = "people don't like the truth".
Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.
That you weren't actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )
There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.
Agreed.
Oh it’s definitely a right-wing thing but I wouldn’t exactly blame Trump for all of it. He even got booed at his own rally for telling people to get vaccinated.
In a context where you know this was after a relatively long period of him not doing that.
It's disingenuous to the point of bad faith to present that as a bolstering remark (with no context until someone called you on it) to reduce accountability.
This reply was also in response to someone using masks and vaccines as conversation points, you responded to this by citing an event out of context and completely ignoring the mention of masks.
Downvotes simply mean people don’t like what I’m saying - not that it’s wrong
Also incorrect, they can dislike what you are saying and it can also be wrong, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Given the quality of your other responses i'd assume you know this (though i could be incorrect), so presenting it as a fact is either an oversight or intentional.
Santa and Christmas now a days is hardly a religious holiday, and most certainly just a “Consumer” holiday.
For you and me perhaps but there are plenty who at least pretend to appreciate the religious side of it.
How is a Santa hat at all related to any religion?
It literally has "Christ" in the name.
It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.
about this specifically:
It’s true that Christians have killed more people and commited more genocides
Than who ? and where is that information coming from ?
As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.
But what are you using for sources here ?
Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.
Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.
I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn't seem like that's what they are trying to address here.
From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to "decouple" it from google search.
If that's the case it's a dumb move if it's the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.
It even says that in the article.
It would be interesting to see how they'd deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.
They'd struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting...well..everyone.
TL;DR;
They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.
One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.
A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).
Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it's worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.
Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn't.
Now, developers/businesses have a choice.
- A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
- B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
- C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.
In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.
A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this "just so happens" to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.
They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can't use the most effective adblockers.
Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.
There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.
IIRC there was a film as well, i don't remember how much of the story was covered though.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314063/
I also can't vouch for quality.
view more: next ›
You mean the hat exclusively worn by the character featured in the religious holiday Christmas.....i can see why making that connection yourself would be difficult, but hopefully it's clear now.