I guess it isn't like they can put a tiny camera everywhere and try to see the molecules on tick teeth.
I recently wrote in one of the essays for one of my next books that space is not the final frontier -- there are new frontiers everywhere, we just need to understand they're there and underexplored.
I recently wrote in one of the essays for one of my next books that space is not the final frontier -- there are new frontiers everywhere, we just need to understand they're there and underexplored.
Alpha-gal syndrome sounds like something a manosphere youtuber would come up with. "These areas have lots of women who get alpha-gal syndrome, they get educated, they get jobs, they buy houses! Who are these people!"
The reality of it being an allergy to a specific sugar molecule found in mammal meat after it is injected into the bloodstream by ticks is something way more interesting (and tragic for people who get it). The world is infinitely more complex than we might imagine it is, isn't it?
The reality of it being an allergy to a specific sugar molecule found in mammal meat after it is injected into the bloodstream by ticks is something way more interesting (and tragic for people who get it). The world is infinitely more complex than we might imagine it is, isn't it?
New York City, 2 years before the first federal income tax, and 60 years before the first permanent state and federal income taxes.
The one thing that's a little bit different between the two is I would expect a web company like Mozilla could locally have whatever servers they need, which fundamentally changes the calculus. Paying for hosting separately on something as dynamic as the fediverse would get a lot more expensive.
Yeah, because everything has to fit with their brand image.
It's not easy letting go.
It's not easy letting go.
Around 2015 I had an Alienware laptop, and if I'm being totally honest, it wasn't worth the premium. As you said, if you can get a latitude with the specs, it's just a much better device, probably because they don't want to deal with all the issues of enterprise devices constantly being returned u der warranty en masse.
I know Mozilla needs to cut cut cut since the Google gravy train is going away imminently, but I'm surprised their mastodon instance is even on the radar.
I guess I just think of something like that as basically free, especially since mine is basically free.
I guess they can't run it that way though, since they're not an open web organization but an activist organization. That being the case, they need top down dictatorial control and that costs big money.
I guess I just think of something like that as basically free, especially since mine is basically free.
I guess they can't run it that way though, since they're not an open web organization but an activist organization. That being the case, they need top down dictatorial control and that costs big money.
Interestingly, a lot of the boomer/millennial kids shows like sesame Street basically have no influence anymore. They're showing up on YouTube channels to scavenge some scraps of relevance.
Logically debunking activist claptrap
If leftist activists are correct and black people can never be racist because racism is prejudice plus power, and white people are always prejudiced then:
1. Racism = Prejudice + Power
2. White people always hold power in all circumstances
3. Black people never hold power in any circumstance
4. White people are inherently prejudiced
So if this is true, then...
1. White people always have power anywhere they exist
2. Therefore in terms of having power, white people are always superior to black people.
3. Meaning, by the premises of critical theory as practiced by activists, honest white people are logically mandated to be prejudiced (at least in this one respect) within the bounds of activist CRT logic, becuase they always have power in all situations, and thus are always superior in this regard.
But why is racism wrong?
1. Racism is typically considered wrong because it is unfair -- if someone is capable of something but is kept from their potential by being prejudged as incapable due to race, then that's unfair.
But...
1. If racism is wrong because it is unfair, and critical theory logically proves that it isn't unfair, then racism isn't wrong.
2. It might look at first like the racism is instrumental to power due to our own biases, but that can't be the case because our axioms hold that white people always hold power, meaning that even in a scenario where there's one white and millions of blacks, the white holds power, suggesting that the white's mere whiteness gives them inherent power.
I don't believe in critical race theory, so I don't believe in any of the foundational statements above other than racism being wrong because it is unfair. I think of racism as any idea that one race is inherently superior to another, an older definition that doesn't self-refute like CRT racism does.
I do need to make sure I'm clear that I'm only talking about the activist version of CRT. Academic CRT may make mistakes, but not basic mistakes like this.
This also shows how postmodern-modernism is self-defeating. All you need to do in order to fix this is to accept that some black people have power and some white people don't and all the logic falls apart, but then you can't make the statement that black people can't be racist because racism is prejudice plus power which as I've shown is inherently white supremacist in its logic.
In fact, someone like Thomas Sowell (He's a world renowned economist) is inherently superior in all ways to Cletus the Goat Fucker (He fucks goats), and most people would admit that.
1. Racism = Prejudice + Power
2. White people always hold power in all circumstances
3. Black people never hold power in any circumstance
4. White people are inherently prejudiced
So if this is true, then...
1. White people always have power anywhere they exist
2. Therefore in terms of having power, white people are always superior to black people.
3. Meaning, by the premises of critical theory as practiced by activists, honest white people are logically mandated to be prejudiced (at least in this one respect) within the bounds of activist CRT logic, becuase they always have power in all situations, and thus are always superior in this regard.
But why is racism wrong?
1. Racism is typically considered wrong because it is unfair -- if someone is capable of something but is kept from their potential by being prejudged as incapable due to race, then that's unfair.
But...
1. If racism is wrong because it is unfair, and critical theory logically proves that it isn't unfair, then racism isn't wrong.
2. It might look at first like the racism is instrumental to power due to our own biases, but that can't be the case because our axioms hold that white people always hold power, meaning that even in a scenario where there's one white and millions of blacks, the white holds power, suggesting that the white's mere whiteness gives them inherent power.
I don't believe in critical race theory, so I don't believe in any of the foundational statements above other than racism being wrong because it is unfair. I think of racism as any idea that one race is inherently superior to another, an older definition that doesn't self-refute like CRT racism does.
I do need to make sure I'm clear that I'm only talking about the activist version of CRT. Academic CRT may make mistakes, but not basic mistakes like this.
This also shows how postmodern-modernism is self-defeating. All you need to do in order to fix this is to accept that some black people have power and some white people don't and all the logic falls apart, but then you can't make the statement that black people can't be racist because racism is prejudice plus power which as I've shown is inherently white supremacist in its logic.
In fact, someone like Thomas Sowell (He's a world renowned economist) is inherently superior in all ways to Cletus the Goat Fucker (He fucks goats), and most people would admit that.
"Gais we just need to figure out which is the empire and which is the rebels! Then we can be the good guys!"