It might actually be fair to view and regulate the social networks exactly like public telecom utilities:

  - they are primarily for communication
  - they benefit (and suffer) from network externalities, which means the space will inevitably be dominated by large players
  - refusal of service has increasing potential for negative impact on users as the networks become more integral to commerce, employment, and other aspects of day-to-day life

I'm not sure exactly what the rules should be, but there must be something more just and reasonable than "Zuck's way or the highway."

And here's an even larger question about the new political dynamics: have regular people not been relegated to second-class citizenship behind first-class corporate "persons" that the Bill of Rights was never intended to protect?

You must be 20 years younger than me, video games have been stagnant since at least 1972. Think about it: Tetris was Pong with a Russian soundtrack. Super Mario Bros. was kinda only Pong with platforming. And Doom was just Pong but with guns and demons. Hell, even Minecraft is Pong with some insignificant open-ended lego aesthetics and a crafting system. Nothing anywhat innovative anywhere.

no. always be skeptical

"thereâ(TM)s no reason to be walking around with a mask" - Dr. Anthony Fauci

To be fair, though, his argument still makes sense if you replace "IQ" with "capability" or "potential:" low potential students have different academic needs than high potential students. Ignore this, and both groups suffer a less effective education. To the extent that we can measure how well prospective students are suited to a competitive academic environment, it makes sense to do so.

I prefer to be only moderately triggered while accumulating frags. Keeps me fired up, but not so much that I sacrifice good tactical decision making in a rage-induced tilt.

Stallman never defended child sex trafficking, prostitution, or paedophilia. His crime is defending his (dead and therefore unable to defend himself) friend, Marvin Minsky, who *allegedly may have* had had sex with an 18-year-old Virginia Giuffre in 2002. So far there has been no direct evidence presented that Minsky did in fact sleep with the girl.

Minsky is known to have visited Epstein's island in 2002, when Epstein sponsored Minsky to host a symposium. At the time nothing was publicly known about Epstein being a criminal pedo scumbag.

Minsky's wife and others deny any sex occurred. In her deposition Giuffre said she was "told" to have sex with Minsky. She did not know where or when the sex occurred; she never stated that it happened.

Stallman had the audacity to suggest that Minsky should not be accused of "sexual assault" because the most plausible scenario was that *if* Giuffre approached Minsky for sex, she would have presented herself to him as willing. That is, Minsky would not have done any coercing, but it would have been Epstein/Maxwell who had done the coercing.

The media ran with this and published a flurry of ragebait hit pieces (metoo era BS) against Stallman, spreading a warped image of the man and creating an unduly hostile public backlash against him, the repercussions of which we are seeing again now.

I take your point that my description of Sonos as just flatly "shitty" could be seen as gratuitous, but...

Even if HD audio were a real sonic benefit over 44.1/16 (which we agree is not clear,) a Sonos loudspeaker system would a poor medium for conveying that benefit to your ear. It would be like viewing an 8k video source through an NTSC standard CRT TV.

Undeniably they are shitty for this purpose. The article is literally headlined "Sonos Targets Audiophiles..." so that's the frame we are discussing this within. If you want audio quality, you don't choose Sonos.

If you want plug and play speakers with little hassle and don't care so much about sound quality? Sure, go for the Sonos, that's where they excel.

Just don't fall for their marketing hype about HD sound quality, it is disingenuous puffery of the highest order. Shitty, indeed.

Don't worry, Sonos speakers are so shitty no audiophile will be able to appreciate the supposed HD audio carried on those extra bits.

Besides that, it is not at all clear that 24-bit audio produces an actual, real-world, listenable difference even on audiophile-tier (aka not Sonos lol) equipment at this point. Misinformation and dishonest marketing on the subject are everywhere, and it has received a decidedly cold reception that audiophiles generally have still not warmed up to even though it has been available to consumers for more than twenty years.

tl;dr: dont buy the hype. this article is astroturf. HD audio to date has been an expensive and spectacular failure

tu quoque: accusing another of authoritarian hypocrisy does not invalidate your own authoritarian acts

it might make you feel better about the commission of those acts, however. might even help you to convince yourself that they are justified

get educated. you are on the internet. there is no excuse for being this uninformed

Ad Hominem

Ebay Marketplace is not a retailer. It is a platform that facilitates trade between private individuals; a piece of commercial infrastructure.

Given the multitude of items that individuals regularly trade on Ebay's platform, given that many of these items are potentially offensive to certain people, and given that Ebay generally allows all of these items to be exchanged without intervention, the present circumstance does raise questions about Ebay's decision to interfere with the private exchange of Dr. Seuss literature on their platform.

As one of the worlds largest online marketplaces, Ebay is indeed in a position to suppress free exchange between individuals on its platform. Luckily, Ebay is not the only marketplace on the internet and individuals who find themselves so suppressed can simply trade elsewhere.

However, Ebay marketplace is sufficiently large and ubiquitous, it's recent Seuss ban so bizarre, and the ban occurred in such a tight concert with the recent media reports and calls to condemn the "problematic" Seuss material that it is not surprising that some people find the ban to be concerning.

Is it within Ebay's rights? It would seem so. Will it be good for their business? Maybe. Does it make everyone feel good inside when an important trade platform bends to calls for censorship? Perhaps not.

What will the censors call to ban next time? Will Ebay oblige? Will others? Is this a slippery slope?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask in light of all of this. And while I don't personally find this story as dire as some are decrying it for, I must admit I am troubled at the morally-righteous trumpeteers who are celebrating the censorship.

hahaha more whiny and delicate how exactly? for standing up for his identity group? for positing exactly the same kind of shit victim argument in favor of white men that every "intersectionally disadvantaged" group has posited on their behalf constantly?

If you don't see moderately successful white men being repeatedly trashed in this sick ideology, then you are blind. Simply pointing this out as a white guy earns you fragile snowflake status apparently... lol

Our society has been based, for hundreds of years now, on the ideal of the individual as a sovereign unit. Now, you could argue that our baseline for what constitutes a sovereign individual has changed over that time, and in my view we have indeed made massive positive social progress on that front on the road to recognizing the basic human sovereignty of all people.

But what is happening today is we are watching that being intentionally torn down in favor of racial and sexual identity. Individual sovereignty is now in danger of becoming an asterisk behind your skin color and your genitalia. Somehow, racism is no longer racist and sexism is no longer sexist. And it's blatant, overt; members of the new KKK wear no hoods. We had all better just bend over and accept our place in the new identity politics hierarchy, individual sovereignty be damned.

And if you point it out that makes you a whiny snowflake princess. Laughable, really

no mod points here

but nice Smirnoff reversal

I feel like there's a lesson here and Tesla has failed to learn it...

Remember a few years back, when Tesla "Autopilot" first became a thing, and several people were killed when they took the name of that feature at face value, assuming it was actually a fully automatic driving mode for the car? Then when the driver slept on his commute to work the car slammed into a median at highway speed, unceremoniously ending him?

Now, Tesla releases a package called "Full Self-Driving?" Another "automatic" AI-powered driving mode that needs to be constantly monitored by the driver in a manner that makes it seem just as dubious a claim as "Autopilot" was? And the marketing buzzline is actually "Full Self-Driving?" Is anyone else raising their eyebrows over this?

It sounds to me like Tesla must want to get sued for wrongful death. Or maybe grievous bodily harm. Hopefully casualties are limited to Tesla customers who are too dumb to read the instruction manual. Based on initial reports, it seems the potential for harm to innocent bystanders is still quite significant.

Tesla considers it to be beta software and says it's not intended for fully autonomous operation. Drivers are expected to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel at all times.

Calling this feature "Full Self-Driving" seems downright irresponsible. I wonder--what they will call future iterations of this technology? "Actual Full Self-Driving For Real?" No really we mean it this time! It won't hit parked cars or pedestrians we promise!