If the July 19th Crowdstrike incident had affected Linux rather than Windows, the impact would have been orders of magnitude worse.

People have so little awareness of how fragile the systems we rely on are - it’s not a matter of “if” - it’s a matter of “when” we’ll see a widespread incident that goes well beyond a mild inconvenience for most.

Or: Klandace Owens learns about using strong borders to keep undesirables out.

You’ve explained the mentality - people don’t particularly care to know.

Why would people put in the effort to solve a problem they’re barely aware of, and don’t understand - particularly if putting the effort in to understand and address won’t even solve that problem? If you want to add problems to people’s lives, you need to tone it all the way down.

Don’t get me wrong though - you’re fighting the good fight - and meeting people where they’re at helps, so I guess this is a decent place to start.

Oh don’t worry - Mega-genius Elon Musk will massively expand the space force with his brilliant, bargain basement equipment, so I expect they’ll finally get around to doing something about those pesky Jewish space lasers. Exercising military control over space is good for security and stability. Everything is great.

I’m not sure I could imagine a more catastrophically stupid timeline.

More fun still - prions.

Your autoclave won’t help you now, kids.

To me, the clear takeaway is that they’ve walked as close as possible to (correct) genocide charges while pandering to the US.

Breathing - famous for being optional for those that would like to live.

Yes, there have only been around 3 people killed by them (largely because they’re shy, aquatic, and somewhat uncommon), and intervention can be made to stop them from killing you, but they’re one of the most toxic animals on the planet, and are unquestionably deadly.

Can’t have those uppity workers understanding what you’re trying to inflict upon them…

In markets the typical response to a sudden shortage is an ________ in ______, leading to a reduction in demand, as the demand shifts to alternatives (other destinations, non-consumption) until a new equilibrium is found.

That’s right - an increase in pricing reduces demand by pushing people to alternatives, reducing demand.

Thank you - that’s interesting - particularly the quote about making him uncomfortable.

I’m surprised that the shifting Overton window, which has left the Democrats far closer to Reagan than MAGA, (who are busy speed-running fascism) hasn’t swept up more Reaganites, but that boils down to naivete on my part, I think.

Whatever the case, I certainly agree that the Dems need to move from institutional neolib/neocon positions to populist left positions, but that’s the last place the party wants to go - even when failure to do so represents an existential threat to the party.

I know nothing of his work, but my immediate assumption is that he’s just a contrarian asshole that has no actual principles.

In media (as in politics), this kind of thing is almost always a product of cynical expediency rather than sincere introspection.

Thanks for playing, Rudolph Jitler, but no prizes for a performance like that.

That’s not a reason to continue to actively fuel a genocide.

Why did Netanyahu sacrifice Israelis to refuse multiple ceasefires and hostage exchanges?

…but more relevantly, for the 4th time, you genocide defending piece of shit, why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

There’s a reason you’re refusing to answer the question - it’s perfectly clear that Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice Israeli lives if it means that he can kill more Palestinians. You keep stating the obvious in an incredulous tone because you don’t have an alternative explanation - there isn’t one. You tell us you see the truth, then get all shy about it.

Go cheer for more dead Israelis, ya antisemitic piece of shit.

Let me introduce you to…

The Metaverse!

For the third time - why did Israel fund Hamas’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable results?

Kill the Palestinians, take their land - you know - exactly what they’ve been doing for decades, and were able to dramatically accelerate after October 7th.

What’s your explanation for Israel funding the terrorists’ displacement of the secular moderates with predictable, deadly results?

What - you think Netanyahu cares about Israelis given his refusal of ceasefire after ceasefire and hostage exchange after hostage exchange? How quaint.

Seems straightforwardly clear that it was to manufacture the pretext for the current genocide.

you don’t have a crystal ball.

Now we’re getting somewhere! Why do you shoot the school shooter - you don’t have a crystal ball - they could drop the gun and surrender at any moment. How about Hitler?

You using (Stalin) as an example of Western fascism.

Cool - distinction without a difference - I’m glad we wasted our time on that when your dictionary agrees with me.

That’s a moral decision, not a legal one.

Great - let’s stop talking about legal stuff then.

You think civilians murdering other civilians is not just a right but a moral obligation, I don’t.

So you don’t agree with killing the school shooter? What if they have their gun pointed at you? Exception after exception.

it’s not murder, it’s combat

What’s the moral difference other than scale? State approval?

The difference between you and I is that I understand moral ambiguity and how to navigate it - you pretend things are absolute, set rigid rules then fall apart the moment you encounter anything that doesn’t neatly fit with your framework.

I would not support telling random people to (…) open fire on civilians

…aaaaand we’re back off what I’ve been saying - but this gets a lot more straightforward once we address the crystal ball piece.

Man, I’m done. You’re strawmanning hard now. At what point did I say fascism is good?

The point is that you’re getting bogged down in semantic nonsense for no reason whatsoever - your nitpicking changes nothing, and if it does, it necessarily means you’re supporting fascism.

You support killing if YOU’RE sure it will prevent suffering. So if you have the opinion that killing Fuentes will prevent suffering, then you’ll go ahead and kill him because as established, you only care about morality not law.

Fuck it - I’ll do this differently, park the nuance for the minute and say sure - what’s your disagreement? If we know someone’s willful efforts and continued existence will lead to mass death and suffering, and their death is the only way to stop that, why would their death be bad?

Fascism

What part of your definition excludes Stalin’s regime?

You’re looking at the fact that both are dictatorships and ignoring that fascism is hard right authoritarianism and communism is hard left authoritarianism.

I’m looking at the definition you provided. It’s irrelevant - let’s assume Stalin’s regime wasn’t fascist. What changes?

Because I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered that means I support the Holocaust. It’s a huge overreach and a ridiculous take.

No Nazi court would sentence Hitler, no Nazi court would sentence the SS, no Nazi court would sentence German civilians shooting Jews in the face in broad daylight. You either support this position - i.e. fascism and the Holocaust were legal and fine or your pushback is based in something other than legality. The argument you’re putting forward would excuse all the above. The school shooter, Hitler, the Nazi recruiter, and the German murderer don’t get a trial because the courts are unwilling or incapable of stopping the problem - that doesn’t make the problem disappear or remove your responsibility to do something about that problem.

Dude, I stopped talking about legality (…) Since then it’s been all about morality

I think civilians deserve, at minimum, a trial before they are murdered

Pick one.

You’re back?

Way to dodge the question about if you think killing social media people (not even Trump, just podcasters) is going to prevent WW3.

I can’t make this any simpler - I support it if it does.

Stalinism

Get a dictionary. Look up fascism and communism. Look up Umberto Eco’s 14 signs. You’re lost - do you think fascism is good because Stalin wasn’t fascist?

Nothing I’ve said is an excuse for the Holocaust and I’ve not once apologized for Nazis.

I’ve pointed out why your arguments do precisely this - tell me what I’ve mischaracterised.

killing people (…) is justified if you’re sure it will prevent suffering (at the scale we’re talking about)

Yep - and you’re saying it’s bad because it’s illegal - a standard that excuses Hitler’s actions after the beer hall putsch.