Please. Of course any president could always do anything, and of course it’s always up to the prosecutor to make a case. Are you really claiming that the Supreme Court setting the precedent that presidents are exempt from criminal liability is not a change? Does the weight of that precedent not make prosecuting presidents vastly more difficult and, apparently, impossible in many important ways? Does that fact not make it much more likely that presidents will commit crimes? You may want that change, but there is no merit to the argument that this decision doesn’t change anything.

Why should anyone believe either of those processes are possible anymore, now that the president has been granted the power to coerce members of both branches through threat of force?

We already basically do this with things like the differentiation between Varsity and JV. Not sure why this is such an offensive concept to some of you (just kidding, I’m pretty sure I understand exactly why y’all are offended). If competition is what is great about sports, then excluding some competitive participants because of arbitrary physiological characteristics actively diminishes the sport. But perhaps competition isn’t actually what some of you think is great about sports. I suspect that what some of you actually value about sports is to experience a kind of masterbatory high of seeing someone you can identify with, in shallow ways, achieving things that you yourself cannot.

I literally cannot understand the argument that you’re making. People with different physiological characteristics are not going to have the same skill levels. Nothing you listed argues against my proposal. All the physiological advantages that you listed are fine. Some females may be better than some males at some tasks and vice versa. Why not let them compete against each other. Seems like creating a larger pool of competitive athletes would improve any sport. Carving out leagues that cater to different capability levels would open opportunities for more people. I’m proposing that we have more, better, more competitive and exciting sports. What exactly are you objecting to?

Weight is the wrong criteria to use. Why not just have it classed by skill level. Enforce equity in school sports by mandating that a meaningful distribution of skill-based leagues are funded. This seems like a very simple solution to me that would address gender-based inequities in general as well as improve sports overall.

I’m old enough to have lived through the advent of the World Wide Web. I was so enthusiastic about the potential of these technologies. It was going to finally democratize information and do away with misinformation and pseudoscience, and promote critical thinking, freedom and democracy. I crafted an entire career around my optimism about this stuff. It’s now obvious in retrospect that none of that happened and we have collectively regressed on all those fronts. I’m not making a causal claim about damage that the internet might have done. I don’t know if this stuff would have happened anyway. But, it certainly didn’t deliver on the promise we were so excited about. IMO it all went wrong when we handed the keys to the whole thing over to commercial entities.

Let me clarify. My complaint about the retro-futuristic nature of XR is not the age of the idea. The problem is that this approach has been speculated about and productized in various ways for decades. Through all of that, it has never amounted to more than niche applications, has been rejected by wider markets repeatedly, and failed to inspire much more imagined usefulness beyond being an escape vehicle from some kind of real-world hellscape. Despite all of that, entities like apple insist on trying again, and again, and again. I am convinced that Tim Cook sees this as the future because of the residue of his childhood musing about the future. I know for a fact that Zuckerberg is motivated by exactly that.

Now let’s compare that to audio UIs. These have also been around for a long time. In that time, they have only become more pervasive, useful and inspirational (see again my reference to Jarvis). Additionally, I’m not just talking about the audio part of that interface. I’m talking about the agents that can act independently, and spontaneously to help humans do what the want to do. We are making tremendous progress on that front, but Apple is (in terms of this product line) mired in the past.

I have so much to say about this, I hardly know where to start. A few brief points:

Yes, this product direction is problematic in many many ways. There is a reason why science fiction has been speculating about these types of devices for decades and nearly always portraying the technology as an escape mechanism for a horrifying dystopian reality.

We’ve experienced several really big technology revolutions in just a few decades (pc, internet, social, mobile). All have brought wonderful improvements to life, but all have had profound, and unanticipated side effects. In all instances, we would have benefited as a society by interrogating consequences more completely at the beginning, rather than just letting market forces alone to drive them into mass adoption.

The good news is that none of this is really new. This appears to be a pretty good implementation of a UI model that consumers have been largely rejecting for over 30 years. There are absolutely very useful, very good uses for these UIs, but these are niche markets overall all.

In many ways, XR (a catch all term for both VR and AR) is a retro futuristic idea. This is a vision of the future as seen 40 years ago. Really innovative human computer interfacing doesn’t look like this anymore. Actually useful innovation involves things like agents, voice ui’s and so on (think Jarvis from the MCU).

The question is, can Apple’s marketing prowess and effectively infinite budget push a largely unpleasant, unneeded, and expensive product into mass adoption? I am hopeful that they can’t. I am hopeful that reality isn’t sci-fi dystopian enough to create a wide market for this. If they can, it may say more about how dystopian our real reality has become. That’s the really worrisome part to me.

No, we should act to prevent them from doing this. Instead of bombing (and risking further spread and escalation) why not remove their motivation for doing this? What is their motivation for doing this? Their motivation is to prevent Israel from genociding. Now, if we just prevent Israel from genociding, the boats flow, Palestinians don’t get murdered, people in Yemen don’t get bombed either, and we make escalation less likely. That sounds like a far better outcome to me. The only reason to opt for the more violent path, is that you actually want the violence. If that’s your goal, then you’re the bad guy.

Why not, um, just restrain Israel instead? Because we Americans value dead Palestinians more than we fear inflation.

You do realize that there’s another way to make them stop doing it, don’t you?. That other way also has the side effect of murdering significantly fewer innocent Palestinians. It would also act to prevent the conflict from spreading regionally.

I realize that retraining Israel would deny us Americans our dead brown people high, but come on, think of all the inflation we could prevent by not killing them.

Turn Palestinian kids into dust…to keep prices down. Got it.

JFC. It’s almost like Biden is trying really hard to lose the election.

The only pressure Biden feels is how to feign any concern about anything Israel is doing.

Totally not a genocide at all.

Also, where is the report? This link takes you to a page that has a headline, a subheading that duplicates the headline, and body copy that duplicates the headline again. Am I missing something? Are outlets like ABC removing the content from their content these days?

Hans, are we the baddies?

I understand this logic and I’ve made this argument in the past. As time goes on, however, I’m coming to the understanding that the major thing the UN actually provides is deniability. It creates an aura of accountability without actually accomplishing it. The pageantry of rhetoric around the UN’s mission would have us believe that merely shining light on the wrongdoing of powerful nations will lead to some kind of justice. It never does. It actually breeds complacency in the same way that ranting about politics online does. You feel like you are changing something, but you aren’t. I think we need something like the UN, but the UN as currently constructed is fatally flawed and may be making things actively worse in some important ways.

How about they take meaningful action legitimize Palestinian existence within Israel, end the apartheid and work out a plan for restitution? That would evaporate any shreds of support for Hamas nearly overnight and make it significantly easier to locate, and bring the terrorists to justice. Oh, and they could try to not actively promote and fund Hamas. That method would also have the side benefit of a lot fewer dead babies.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but why on earth would anyone trust what a fascist government says about anything? Israel has been an unrelentingly bad actor and every single bit of coverage should acknowledge that.

If the Biden administration really wanted this, they wouldn’t ‘call for’ it. They would demand it and coerce those fascist fucks to comply. This is theater. It provides Biden a talking point to claim that he isn’t quite as ghoulish as a few Americans are starting to realize that he is.