https://insight-quality.com/what-is-fcc-part-15/
If EVs produce so much harmful interference that AM radios do not function, that would be really illegal. Devices are not supposed to create harmful interference.
If EVs produce so much harmful interference that AM radios do not function, that would be really illegal. Devices are not supposed to create harmful interference.
"I know that free OTA AM radio was an option, but instead go with a 100/mo unlimited data plan on your phone!"
From the same people who are saying "Just buy an electric car"
From the same people who are saying "Just buy an electric car"
That's true. I probably could have left that part out, but given the irony of such people relying on them so strongly and the baggage of the term I couldn't help myself.
I watched the video when it came out, and a bunch of the way through, I came to realize that the question is wrong. There's an implicit fallacy built into it.
The logical fallacy is as such:
V has property W
X has property W
Therefore, X must also have property Y.
This can be proven with the ideologically neutral comparison between an automobile and a rail car.
An automobile is called a car
A rail car is called a car
Therefore, a rail car can drive on the highway.
Of course, that's not true at all. The fact that two things arguably share one attribute does not necessarily mean it shares all attributes.
The sophists use the logical fallacy to win losing arguments. If they can get you to accept one arguable link, they argue that you must then accept every other potential link.
We have a word for it that the people making such arguments should know: "Stereotype". Sometimes stereotypes are a useful heuristic to reduce the complexity of infinitely complex problems, but something being a useful heuristic doesn't necessarily make it a good argument.
The logical fallacy is as such:
V has property W
X has property W
Therefore, X must also have property Y.
This can be proven with the ideologically neutral comparison between an automobile and a rail car.
An automobile is called a car
A rail car is called a car
Therefore, a rail car can drive on the highway.
Of course, that's not true at all. The fact that two things arguably share one attribute does not necessarily mean it shares all attributes.
The sophists use the logical fallacy to win losing arguments. If they can get you to accept one arguable link, they argue that you must then accept every other potential link.
We have a word for it that the people making such arguments should know: "Stereotype". Sometimes stereotypes are a useful heuristic to reduce the complexity of infinitely complex problems, but something being a useful heuristic doesn't necessarily make it a good argument.
Yeah there was lots of hype for stadia, and now it's dead. That's another thing that I think society is quickly learning, just because someone is very loud doesn't mean that they have the most widely held or the most valid opinion.
Seems to me that there are parallels to be made between stadia and the current situation with paypal.
Tech companies grew so fast that they never had to understand that over time the primary commodity in business is trust. It's very difficult to build trust, but it's even more difficult to maintain it, because it's very easy to get too big for your britches and start thinking that because the group trusts you they will never not trust you.
Ironically, I think that the so-called trust and safety departments in these companies have been leading the diminishing trust. Not just in terms of people who look at speech police and decide that they don't trust a big website to be the speech police, but also in terms of people who look at a promise of speech police, and that promise isn't kept because it can't be kept.
In all these ways, it's entirely possible that we've already passed the point of peak social media, of peak big Tech. I suspect that gen alpha and the generation that comes after it may be raised with the knowledge that social media is a dangerous vice perhaps to be tolerated, but not to be fully embraced. The stories that we see of cancel culture do work as allegory for the upcoming generations, they get to see what happens when you share just a little bit too much with your big and best friend, the internet.
Tech companies grew so fast that they never had to understand that over time the primary commodity in business is trust. It's very difficult to build trust, but it's even more difficult to maintain it, because it's very easy to get too big for your britches and start thinking that because the group trusts you they will never not trust you.
Ironically, I think that the so-called trust and safety departments in these companies have been leading the diminishing trust. Not just in terms of people who look at speech police and decide that they don't trust a big website to be the speech police, but also in terms of people who look at a promise of speech police, and that promise isn't kept because it can't be kept.
In all these ways, it's entirely possible that we've already passed the point of peak social media, of peak big Tech. I suspect that gen alpha and the generation that comes after it may be raised with the knowledge that social media is a dangerous vice perhaps to be tolerated, but not to be fully embraced. The stories that we see of cancel culture do work as allegory for the upcoming generations, they get to see what happens when you share just a little bit too much with your big and best friend, the internet.
No kidding. I'm strongly leaning towards homeschooling, and the schools *wish* my problems were something as neat and tidy as the things politicians of either stripe complain about.
Imagine your house has a broken window and your husband has a bleeding leg, and you're calling the thing that did that unprovoked innocent.
This is a good example of how you can be focusing on the hypothetical victims while ignoring the actual victims... Typical reddit.
This is a good example of how you can be focusing on the hypothetical victims while ignoring the actual victims... Typical reddit.
I could come to agree on a structure stronger than a mere nuclear family, such as a multi generational home (I grew up with my grandma living with us, it was great), but as long as they're actually throwing us in radioactive waste that's the problem.
I dunno. Will one parent have to become the expert on every issue or hustler or on every xxx porn novel?
If we can't come to agree that some books are appropriate and some are not, then maybe it's time to end the public school system altogether and do something similar to Arizona so parents can choose where to send their kids and the money follows the student. If you have multiple mutually exclusive standards of what's ok for kids I don't see how you can bring everyone into one system without offending everyone somehow...
If we can't come to agree that some books are appropriate and some are not, then maybe it's time to end the public school system altogether and do something similar to Arizona so parents can choose where to send their kids and the money follows the student. If you have multiple mutually exclusive standards of what's ok for kids I don't see how you can bring everyone into one system without offending everyone somehow...
The state says a lot of things that arent true. Just look at "don't worry, we aren't spying on our own citizens" or "we really hate racism" or "we are temporarily suspending convertibility of the dollar to gold"
Actions speak louder than words.
Actions speak louder than words.
You can subtlely promote the nuclear family without forcing people to stay married, and you can dissuade the nuclear family without ever coming close to forcing anyone to break up, alternatively it's quite easy to point people in the direction of making bad choices. It's quite easy to train people such that they can never be a good husband or a good wife or good mother or a good father, ensuring that the most toxic form of relationship dominates.
In one of the chapters my book, I talk about how some relationships just need to die, so of course when a relationship is just totally toxic it just needs to end. On the other hand, there's quite a few times where a good relationship just had some hard times and our society tells us to throw that away the moment that it becomes remotely difficult.
In the black community for example they used to have one of the highest marriage rates and the highest rates of marriages staying together of any group of people, and that was a big problem for the ruling elite. So in the name of helping them, they created a whole bunch of incentives to split up a marriage that might otherwise have been functional.
The thing is, family is anathema to the state. Most people would die for their husband or their wife or their son or their daughter before they would die for their country, and while people may tolerate Injustice towards themselves, many would be ready to pick up arms when they witness intolerance against their loved ones. For this reason, authoritarian regimes either co-opt the family or seek to dismantle it. The Soviet Union was famous for pitting children against their parents. Of course the "trained marxists" at BLM explicitly attacked the family, because how are you supposed to mindlessly pick up their self-destructive ideology and burn down your apartment building when you know that the people you love the most live in that apartment building?
It isn't an exclusive or operation here. The basis for a lot of strong communities is a strong family. A strong family where one parent can provide for their children and for one of the spouses to be able to spend time raising the children and participating in the community. When you look at it from this lens, it becomes clear what's been done to the family: everyone has been turned into a worker for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the community and the family, which has driven down wages and therefore ensure that most families are required to have the postmodern family unit of a worker and another worker in the state to deliver them from all of the crises caused by constantly being on the brink.
It isn't an accident that as the more traditional family unit disappears, so has community and mental health issues have exploded.
In one of the chapters my book, I talk about how some relationships just need to die, so of course when a relationship is just totally toxic it just needs to end. On the other hand, there's quite a few times where a good relationship just had some hard times and our society tells us to throw that away the moment that it becomes remotely difficult.
In the black community for example they used to have one of the highest marriage rates and the highest rates of marriages staying together of any group of people, and that was a big problem for the ruling elite. So in the name of helping them, they created a whole bunch of incentives to split up a marriage that might otherwise have been functional.
The thing is, family is anathema to the state. Most people would die for their husband or their wife or their son or their daughter before they would die for their country, and while people may tolerate Injustice towards themselves, many would be ready to pick up arms when they witness intolerance against their loved ones. For this reason, authoritarian regimes either co-opt the family or seek to dismantle it. The Soviet Union was famous for pitting children against their parents. Of course the "trained marxists" at BLM explicitly attacked the family, because how are you supposed to mindlessly pick up their self-destructive ideology and burn down your apartment building when you know that the people you love the most live in that apartment building?
It isn't an exclusive or operation here. The basis for a lot of strong communities is a strong family. A strong family where one parent can provide for their children and for one of the spouses to be able to spend time raising the children and participating in the community. When you look at it from this lens, it becomes clear what's been done to the family: everyone has been turned into a worker for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the community and the family, which has driven down wages and therefore ensure that most families are required to have the postmodern family unit of a worker and another worker in the state to deliver them from all of the crises caused by constantly being on the brink.
It isn't an accident that as the more traditional family unit disappears, so has community and mental health issues have exploded.
The alternative to not having a nuclear family in practice is not some idyllic extended community, its having a tenuous grip to a single parent who is barely propped up by the government.
The data shows that like 90% of violent rapists come from single parent households, as well as an overwhelming majority of violent crime, despite being a minority of individuals.
The data shows that like 90% of violent rapists come from single parent households, as well as an overwhelming majority of violent crime, despite being a minority of individuals.
"learn about this but only learn about it in ways we approve of"
USA Today is Already a meme, because they've been so dishonest they'll tell your the sky is green and the ocean is dry if the right politician tells them to.
USA Today is Already a meme, because they've been so dishonest they'll tell your the sky is green and the ocean is dry if the right politician tells them to.
For some people they're going to have a role that can't be replaced. For a lot of people, they're basically just a credit card processor with extra steps.
There's a lot of different things that I would like to get rid of that I can't, so I can relate if that's the case with PayPal for what you're doing.
There's a lot of different things that I would like to get rid of that I can't, so I can relate if that's the case with PayPal for what you're doing.
Apparently they did it "in error".
But really, makes you think regardless. Who the fuck is Paypal? Why would I support them?
But really, makes you think regardless. Who the fuck is Paypal? Why would I support them?
PayPal just gave themselves the right to fine you for wrongspeech online.
Maybe it's time to delete your PayPal. Do they really provide a product so important that they deserve the ability to fine you for speech they don't like?
Maybe it's time to delete your PayPal. Do they really provide a product so important that they deserve the ability to fine you for speech they don't like?