base698

Yeah, but how many doctors in those other countries have a 600 bottle wine collection or a Bentley?

Think of the climate change!

MLK supported a unifying vision of humanity and was not down with identity politics as they are today in 2024 (or 2022 I should say). MLK addressed economic and racial issues, his work didn't explicitly incorporate concepts like intersectionality or modern discussions around gender and LGBTQ+ rights. He explicitly called out "content of your character". Whereas the woke crowd says you can't judge people that come from disadvantaged backgrounds. From a practical standpoint when you allow intersectionality and stack ranking oppressed groups (black, gay, trans) vs (latino, cis) for example it dilutes the whole conversation around legitimate racial inequalities and grievances.

MLK is not woke, neither are many of the others. Intersectionality and "content of your character" being subjective to culture are hallmarks of woke. MLK did not say, "content of your character unless you came from a disadvantaged family"

Project 2025 puts anyone caught watching television news in a forced labor camp racking servers in a data center.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/ When remote, pretty wild.

There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? "Awareness?" Do you think we all just learned "poles are just like us?" You think it was... education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?

If they are androgen insensitive they phenotypically would look female, but be unable to reproduce and testes would be where ovaries are supposed to be. Gray area.

I volunteer to load it to thespeakerscorner.ai and promise not to make a "SPEAKWITHBILLVON.com" LLM bot. I will also volunteer to make an AI agent out of the useful skydiving posts, curated by someone. We can call it femur bot. You can ask it questions like, "I just got my A license, what size Leia should I buy to impress the ladies?"

@billvon Is anyone getting a data dump of the posts?

TIL Kallend and I are Eskimo brothers for planes.

I used are incorrectly. I'm talking on a relatively short time horizon, say 5 years, where simpler fighters using AI systems that work today could be deployed. I personally don't want to fight a war against Chinese factory output. https://www.anduril.com/fury/ I think the AI had a bit of an advantage in this case based on other commentary I saw: https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fda

And? His comments were around spending billions on the F35 in an era where there are autonomous fighters. Autonomous fighters are smaller and cheaper and have the advantages of not having to worry about a human on board during maneuvers.

I've said over and over the illegal immigration issue isn't my pet issue.

I had not complained. I asked and you responded with standard NPC about government's definition of free speech.

Elon wasn't in the previous admin. We had that discussion previously. Ron Paul is an advisor so I'm irrationally hopeful.

I assume this is unrealized gain. I was assuming 10% realized return on a net worth of $9b across all billionaires. If you want to get all Kulak on it and take unrealized gain, then yes you could pay the debt.

I was asking if you had read or were familiar with enlightenment philosophers and their reasoning about what Freedom of Speech is and should be. You seem very not smart for someone casting aspersions about intelligence. > Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

You could tax all our billionaires at 90% and it wouldn't put a dent on our interest payment on the debt. In addition, I would bet those funds end up ear marked for whatever corrupt grift they come up with. Maybe it would be used for studying trans inclusive FBOs related to the propensity of skydiving acceptance of alphabet people.

By here do you mean DZ.com? Did you read or do you remember On Liberty?

I've stated over and over when given the choice between treatment with housing and staying on the street, they choose to stay on the street. They may not like it at first, but the decision they make is to continue with addiction and not seek treatment. Addicts given food stamps will sell them to enterprising restaurants for pennies on the dollar so the restaurants can buy rice. There are other benefits that incentivizes an addict not to seek treatment and stay on the street. Sometime in the last 20 years the containment of skid row (and similar areas) was allowed to spill out into the rest of the cities. If you want to let them wallow in misery at least go back to that. It used to be they weren't allowed to wonder out of the bad areas. The tolerance and treating it like a victimless crime is what got us here.

If that's the threat do drug addicts in general go other places? Would that free the police to intervene with the violent and dangerous ones? We can discuss root cause when addicts aren't attacking people and sexually assaulting them near their homes. No one has been able to reverse the trend and lots of excuses get made. This is not about newly homeless people it's about and environment that incentivizes and tolerates addiction at the expense of everyone else. This is refused as well.

The law can certainly never be changed. We are talking hypothetically about how you could solve it I thought. Yes, it is illegal now. We have thousands of homeless people strewn through residential areas. Some of them are violent drug addicts. Others just steal bicycles and catalytic converters. They refuse shelter and prefer to stay in the street. The prisons are full, the police are busy. Innocent people in the residential neighborhoods are harmed by this situation. It's been going on a decade. Do you wait to build more jails? Hire more police? Build a camp in the desert?

Ok then. If you find a guy who has murdered and dismembered his wife, is he defenseless once he is in jail and away from the scene of the crime? Guess we need to let him go too.