I do not like people like you who are intelligent enough to be intentionally intellectually dishonest while being extremely malicious underneath.
You fool people for sure. I do not know why you do it, though.
There is no manipulation going on by “Big Tech”. Your fear mongering is unfounded. Pushing this sort of rhetoric is what created the insurrectionist events a few days ago.
> There is no manipulation going on by “Big Tech”. Your fear mongering is unfounded. Pushing this sort of rhetoric is what created the insurrectionist events a few days ago.
There's definitely manipulation going on by "big tech". Social media has radically distorted political discourse and amplified some trends far beyond what Fox News style media alone could have accomplished.
What's debatable (and perhaps straying into crackpot conspiracy theory territory) is the idea that "Big Tech" has done this deliberately, collectively, and with goals of steering society at large in any particular direction. This hypothesis is a lot more far-fetched than the default assumption that big tech has smaller, more localized concerns about maximizing profit, and cares little for the broader consequences of the interaction between their algorithms and society. (Analogously, it is absurd to suggest that US food companies have a goal of making everyone obese and giving them diabetes and heart disease. They simply want to make more money, and have found ways to optimize their product until it becomes addictive, and they don't care about the long-term or large-scale impact on the public because it's not their job to care.)
> There's definitely manipulation going on by "big tech".
We do it to ourselves. I made this site [1] to review moderation on reddit. It works for accounts, subreddits, threads, and there is also a "top posts/comments" section [2]. When a userbase can review the moderation it becomes harder for manipulation to occur.
I agree that the manipulation is automated and intended to increase their profit. The effect seems to be that it creates really bubbles where you only see views that align with your existing world view.
My own experience - I have my own YouTube profile filled with videos which reflect my political opinion and the feed of my friend who leans towards the other side of the political spectrum had videos reasserting his world views.
I don't think the big tech is trying to steer socius towards one unified political view.
Nonsense. A former Democratic staffer employed by Facebook censored the breaking news story about Hunter Biden's laptop on the eve of the election which we now know to be factually accurate. This is a literal and recent example of what the person you accused of being malicious talked about. We all know that if it was a smear against the Trump campaign instead, that this would've never happened. You must be able to see the double standard at work.
No idea why this is downvoted, there's no better example of censorship than this.
We would be in a better situation right now if voters had the facts about these four FBI investigations back in 2018, so perhaps the Democrats could have nominated a candidate that isn't a criminal.
I still voted for Biden, already aware of his family's influence peddling, because Trump is a repulsive moron in addition to being corrupt... just to be clear.
The NYPost was removed from the platforms for releasing this info. After the election, it was revealed that yes, all the pictures of Hunter smoking crack, fucking prostitutes, and the communications about being inappropriate with his 14yo niece were not fabricated and he is under investigation for tax fraud... not a peep from the orgs that silenced them for this. Memory holed.
Then I copy-paste that into a self-Slack and `wget` it on the other side.
It's almost equivalent ergonomically to a `python3 -m http.server` and because it's the same whether I'm giving to someone else or to myself, I spend less thinking!
Two ways in Bloomberg. Either search in debug mode and disable two displays that are what is disabling them or simply disable Javascript on their page. It will be limited in functionality but you can read the article.
It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
He's not complaining about a paywall. He's offering a solution to get around it. The sentiment of paying for things so businesses can survive is also valid. The insult was what was unnecessary.
Comfort, maybe. Driving, hardly.
I drive both a Ford Focus and a small sports car. While the Ford Focus, my usual commuter car, is not bad at all, I still take the sports car to work about once a week, and it just doesn't compare.
In some ways, the Ford Focus is more "comfortable", but the control and precision that the sports car offers even when just cruising through normal traffic through the city is amazing. The Ford, again not a bad car, feels like "swimming" in comparison.
This is, to some extent, similar in the difference between, say, driving a Chevy and driving a BMW. Subjectively, one just drives much better than the other one, and given how much time you are forced to spend in a car in the US, why would I not opt for a car that implements the driving aspect better?
they mean the majority of people get them for the badging, AMG are definitely the most fun sonically but most people arent bothering with straight piping or any fun performance mods. its mainly a flex
Thank you. What you describe is exactly what I've noticed after delving into the car world via rentals.
If you're buying a sedan -- Toyota/Honda/Kia.
If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals. It's interesting because most of the BMW/Audi/Benz look terrible and are way cheaper than most expect yet still a terrible, arrogant waste of capital.
Only a few brands don't match this. Tesla and Range Rover. The former for obvious reasons. The latter because no comparable high-end SUV exists.
If you bought a Ford/Chevy, you're asking for reliability issues.
"If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals."
Err, the median income of a 2017 Mercedes-Benz E-class buyer was nearly $200,000 [1]. That qualifies as pretty high income. The numbers are similar for BMW and Audi.
You can argue that they aren't "wealthy" (as this isn't a measure of net worth), but people with high incomes are more likely to be wealthy than people without. Someone making $200K a year certainly isn't the stereotypical person "faking being rich" you portray them as here.
"Look terrible and are way cheaper": well, "look terrible" is all about personal taste. If it doesn't float your boat, then fine, but it apparently floats enough boats that the companies sell a lot of them.
"Way cheaper" is almost objectively false. Most reviewers like the cabins of the luxury brands far more than they like the cabins of the non luxury. You may think they aren't worth the extra dollars, but when someone is wealthy, the marginal value of those extra dollars is lower.
$200k in annual income is nearly four times the US median income. Sure, it's not "ultra-rich", but it the 94% percentile.
Don't know how what you consider "high income", but if "more than 94% of the population of one of the richest countries in the world" doesn't qualify, then there is basically no one who does.
If you want to know what the self-driving truly wealthy drive, in the USA it's mostly Jeeps, Chevy Tahoes, and the like. Sometimes a Land Cruiser or an old Benz, preferably a wagon. Standing out in a fancy vehicle like a lottery-winning rube isn't it.
That’s a great term. They write dozens of inaccurate statements stitched together with their own emotional baggage. What’s the result?
You have no idea where to attack/address/start because their entire wall of text is riddled with false assumptions and straight misinformation.
Never seen one Trump supporter have clear, cogent thoughts.