1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 24, 2023, 01:36:16 AM »

With everything that Trump supposedly did that was illegal, it feels like going after him for a campaign finance issue is grasping for illegal straws.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 08:35:59 PM »

Imagine unironically paying someone for the fact you didn't have sex with them.

It could be that she was lying with the intent of making it into the news and then getting paid.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 06:55:23 PM »

Trump is too powerful to arrest. It's been proven!

4

Technology & Information / Re: Cybertruck

« on: March 20, 2023, 02:53:12 PM »

In my experience, this applies to pretty much all vehicles at any dealer. The "real" price is always way more than the advertised stock, barebones model. And a stock, barebones model never seems to exist on the lot and is impossible to get.

Yes.

I think you can get your 100 bucks back and the 100 bucks is applied to the final price, though that's 100 dollar credit, so to speak, on an $80k hunk of dangerously sharp delorean stainless steel...

Yes, but only if you take final delivery of the vehicle. If you choose not to buy it, Elon still keeps your 100 dollars. If someone doesn't get a refund before Tesla issues the price statement then they'll never get one. Their choices are a $100 credit to the final price or to let Elon keep the $100.


In other news, here's a picture of a Cybertruck from about two weeks ago:

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Biden is using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans

« on: February 28, 2023, 08:51:47 PM »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64802849

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will make a final ruling on the cases in June.

Very nice. Can't wait for my Biden bucks.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 24, 2023, 08:14:17 PM »

To show you exactly how ridiculous all of this is, I was actually sanctioned and banned here for using the word abnormal, because some people want to think abnormal is personally insulting.

Directly insulting another user outside of CN/AR is against the forum rules. If you would like to question forum rules, you may do so in Suggestions & Concerns. Do not do it here.

I would also like to remind Rama that it is possible to not reply to the things Action80 posts. We've had you two ruin enough threads. Do you really have to do it here, too?

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 23, 2023, 02:19:23 PM »

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

If I only censor things a little bit instead of a lot, that's okay in your world?

if you're not even going to bother reading what i write, then i'm not sure why i should do the same for you.

"Dude, I just redefined what censor means, now I don't have to address your argument because I just don't consider censorship to be censorship, lmao, gg"

Very good meme, bravo. Maybe you should stick with the mockery shtick instead of letting the mask slip and pretend you had anything meaningful to write in the first place.

my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship.

I don't think that's true, and I'm having trouble finding a source that confirms it, and given that it's possible for one to censor oneself, it seems absurd. Can you link to something that supports it, or is it just your personal opinion?

It seems absurd because it was the only way to make it seem like he had a salient point. Otherwise, he might accidentally agree with us after mocking us and calling us all 14 years old. No, he must disagree with us to the end.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 22, 2023, 02:20:16 PM »

no, it's a way of saying that no idea, opinion, or plot device present in the story has been removed. my big-picture viewpoint is that the coercive suppression of ideas is a necessary component of censorship. it could be similarly helpful for one or more of you to define what you think censorship is instead of just asserting that it's obvious.

If I only censor things a little bit instead of a lot, that's okay in your world? This sounds like you just think censorship isn't a big deal unless it happens at some larger scale (and, to the point, it is happening on this scale in many other publishers).

i quoted changes in adjectives. descriptions. you said that the revisions push a new message that is different from the original. can you elaborate on the old and new messages and how they differ?

I already did. Do I need to explain the definition differences of precisely every word to you? Why are you doing this? Just to be obtuse or annoying?

so again it seems that your definition of censorship is just "change." i think that's too vague to be useful. "nuking certain words and replacing them" happens literally every time any written work is edited by anyone.

Changing something for the purpose of altering the message is literally a form of censorship... and yes, editors can censor some ideas and amplify others. That's the purpose of some editing. Editing when done to emphasize a message and delete another one is censorship.

what controls for me is the use of coercion and the suppression of ideas and opinions. sure, you can say "every word relates to an idea," but i don't think it's useful to call all forms of editing censorship.

The difference between simple editing and censorship is intent, not coercion.

whether or not an edit causes confusion for the reader really doesn't have anything to do with the question of "is this edit censorship."

Funny, I didn't say anything about confusion and you knew that when you wrote this. Again, why are you doing this? Are you just deliberately trolling at this point?

feel free to elaborate. i made it clear what i think censorship entails and why this doesn't fit the criteria. "i am obviously right" doesn't interact with what i said at all.

"I am obviously right" is more-or-less what you've been doing this entire thread, which is why you start off with aimless mockery instead of points. You basically came in here to tell us all that you don't want to read the thread, you don't care about the topic and that you think everyone is 14 years old for talking about it at all. If you're going to keep doing this, can you just, you know, go away? If you want to condescend to people in a thread, you could at least have the courtesy of not bothering the people in it.

i'm not mocking anyone for having a problem with censorship. if the roald dahl books were actually being censored, i'd probably agree with you all.

i'm mocking you lot for sounding like a bunch of 14-year-olds who say bedtime is fascist.

At this point it's just splitting hairs. If you don't think editing something for the purpose of changing the message is censorship, then I don't see why we should continue the discussion. You think changing the works of an author to remove "bad words" isn't censorship and totally fine. I think it is censorship and it isn't fine. Boom, discussion done. One of us would have to change our opinion and that obviously isn't going to happen without you continuing your "lol everyone who thinks differently than me is simply immature!" tirade.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 07:05:40 PM »

Whatever...

The work of artists is always being messed with. This is just one particular type of example.

What about all the works where sex, violence, car crashes and explosions and cursing have been added to the writer's work. It's ridiculous, Zefarelli added a sex scene to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

How about when they have to add content to the story so a movie can get a PG rating instead of a G. Whether content is added or taken away, conservatives are going to complain. It's what they do.

This is roaming around the point without actually addressing it. Saying "this happens a lot" or "it's always been this way" is not a discussion point (and is, ironically, very conservative). How about explaining why you do or don't have a problem with changing someone's work instead of pointing out that it's a thing that happens. No one was discussing this as if it's the first time this has ever happened. Why bring it up that way?

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 06:22:04 PM »

i said it's not important to the story.

That's a way of saying it's not a big deal. I don't think that's relevant to the thread topic. People have a problem with the censorship itself, not the importance or lack thereof regarding it.

which new message deviates from the original work? can you be more specific?

You already quoted that.

i think censorship is about suppression/repression of ideas, coercion, force, that sort of thing. let's look at the actual chain of events. so basically no one was saying anything about the roald dahl books or asking them to change anything. then the people who own and publish the books voluntarily chose to work with a non-profit organization to change a small amount of the books' language to "ensure Dahl's wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today."

Certain words have certain meanings. Other words have other meanings. How is nuking certain words from the story and replacing them not censorship of the idea of the original word? When I say a person is fat, that means something specific (that they have an overabundance of fat). If I say they're enormous, that is much more vague. It could be that Augustus Gloop is a powerlifter. You don't know anymore because the new word is more vague. That's the whole point of changing it.

where exactly is censorship taking place? if that is censorship, then i would submit that the word no longer has any meaning. at least no meaning beyond "anytime anyone does something i personally would not have done."

Please, Gary, you're smarter than this.

also as an aside to the whole thread, this is not a fucking sacred text, written by god, where no word can be changed lest we incur The Wrath of the Dahl. lmao my brothers and sisters in christ, they're children's books. i love them too, but they're children's books. and the idea that making them slightly more inclusive by changing words like "fat" to "enormous" is some egregious violation of our collective childhoods is...i'm sorry, but it's fucking stupid lol. relax.

You making this post is fucking stupid. Mocking people for having a problem with censorship, even if you don't think it is important, is not okay. If you have a problem with the thread then you can proceed to fuck off and leave the rest of the people discussing the topic alone. The world does not revolve around Gary's List Of Important Things Gary Takes Seriously.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Absurd censorship

« on: February 21, 2023, 03:26:37 PM »

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158347261/roald-dahl-books-changed-offensive-words

The character Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer called "fat." Instead he is described as "enormous," The Telegraph reports.

Instead of being called "small men," Oompa-Loompas are now "small people," the article says.

Further, the changes to these books include adding language not originally written by Dahl. In his 1983 book The Witches, he writes that witches are bald beneath their wigs. According to The Telegraph, an added line in new editions says, "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."

i too am super mad about this censorship. and that's definitely what it is. anytime anything changes, that's censorship. i hate censorship!

it's just super important to me (and to the story!) that gloop is called fat instead of enormous. the story doesn't even make sense now. how am i supposed to explain this to my children?

If it is not a big deal, then why the bother of changing it in the first place?

If trying to convey a message different from the original work isn't censorship, then what is censorship? Should we just call it spindoctoring instead? Would that appease your child-like attempt to mock the thread?

12

Technology & Information / Re: Cybertruck

« on: February 20, 2023, 05:28:42 PM »

Correct.  An interest free $100 loan.  In my defense Elon has been very gracious about it.  He personally thanks me every time we meet over the many tens of cents he's made on that loan over these last few years.

The bait and switch is a very real possibility.  On the other hand Tesla may be compelled to give reservation holders the original price for something which should really cost closer to 80k.

Elon, in loving Elon fashion, put in the fine print that there is no final price or product. The $100 "pre-order" doesn't mean anything at all. It says in the legal document that he isn't obligated to actually honor your pre-order, which is hilarious all things considered.

The $100 doesn't count towards the cost of the vehicle: https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=mp&saleType=Sale

You paid $100 for Elon to send you a sheet of how much the truck will cost, which means if you wait until that point and decide not to buy it, you don't get a refund and Elon keeps your $100. Just a heads up:

We will then issue you the Vehicle Configuration and Final Price Sheet based on the base price of the model and any options included or that you select. Your Pre-Order Payment covers the cost of these activities and other processing costs and is not a deposit for the Vehicle.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 20, 2023, 05:18:50 PM »

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/hobby-clubs-missing-balloon-feared-shot-down-usaf

It appears that the US and Canada have spent a non-zero amount of time destroying a hobbyist balloon that was worth maybe a few hundred dollars.

14

Technology & Information / Re: Cybertruck

« on: February 20, 2023, 05:04:58 PM »

I preordered one years ago.  It was only $100 which is refundable.

In other words you gave Elon Musk an interest free $100 loan.

  Also it was a huge bargain, 50k for a vehicle with I think a 300 mile range, dual motors, around 600 horse power.

Just like how the F-150 Lightning had an MSRP of $40,000 but the real price starts at $60,000 for a bare bones model that they don't seem to actually produce. Similarly, prepare to get screwed by Elon's bait-and-switch tactics.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 14, 2023, 06:27:19 PM »

Granted, but what kind of intelligent beings can conduct more intelligence operations if they not intelligent enough to detect slow moving, unwanted objects across their airspace; further, once having identified the objects, take over a week to remove it?

Did you have a stroke while writing this or something?

Further, what possible intelligent gathering other than taking pictures would a moving overhead object be capable of?

Use your imagination. I'd rather not spoon-feed people on this topic for a variety of reasons, but I can say there's a lot more than pictures.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 14, 2023, 02:13:47 PM »

I kinda think it's more about, "Hey! You can't violate our airspace with your looners!" I mean, doesn't everyone these days have satellite images and such of everyone's missile bases/silos? It all seems hardly "hidden".

A quick google search:

There's a lot more to intelligence gathering than taking pictures of an area...

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 13, 2023, 05:34:46 PM »

Okay, but it is aliens.

In that case we should all be very thankful that aliens are easily dispatched by cold war era anti-aircraft missiles and medium anti-armor munitions. Imagine having an interstellar spacecraft capable of physics-defying maneuvers and FTL travel but you get sprayed by the 20mm fixed guns of a F-22 and your ship explodes.

It is kind of strange. Apparently we used AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles to shoot down the balloons...at a per unit cost of US$381,069.74. The payload on the first one was the size of a bus if the reporting is correct. Perhaps worthy of a $400k missile. Not sure about the others. F-22's have a 20mm Gatling gun. I would think you could just plink-plink a balloon with a few rounds at a fraction of the cost. Guess not.

If you look at war economically the numbers will always look silly, but would you rather shoot down a $50 balloon staring at your missile silos or let the enemy get very valuable intel? It's hard to put a price tag on knowing precisely what occurs around your enemy's military bases.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 13, 2023, 02:59:32 PM »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64621598

China claims the US harasses its airspace with balloons as well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64620064

Really annoying that they're being so vague about what they shot down. Conspiracy theories are abound, from the more tame "they're too embarrassed to admit they shot down weather balloons with expensive missiles" to the more extreme "it's aliens!".

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Balloon Madness

« on: February 12, 2023, 10:18:22 PM »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64620064

Please help us, the balloons, they're everywhere, this may be my last message. And don't look at them. For God's sakes, do not look at the balloons!

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly

« on: February 12, 2023, 05:10:09 PM »

Imagine chiming in on this conversation just to be a twat.

Oh, I'm sorry, is it only acceptable when you do that?

You keep doubling down, muffin.

"Nooo, only I'm allowed to say rude things about people I don't like, you're not supposed to do it, too!"

Just another reason why I need to warn people not to engage with you or you'll just thork-out like this again.

Imagine being an utter dick, incapable of reading.

Kindly point out where I fucking wrote that anyone was forced to take the shot.

I'll save the fucking time.

I didn't.

Further, you and your ilk were on here for the entire time writing hymns and singing HOSANNA when these policymakers were mandating the shot and implementing forced lockdowns and quarantines.

Now STFU, you cock.

I already pointed out that Rama lacks the ability to debate intellectually. He doesn't actually care about what you did or didn't say, nor would he be capable of responding normally if he did. You're wasting your time.