They were both drunk. She was more drunk.

His training to be a gynecologist is irrelevant. Please do not propagate the myth that men go into gynecology to take advantage of women. If he’s a rapist, that’s independent.

I don’t see why. The problems with global tariffs notwithstanding, can you explain the downside to setting a tariff on these islands?

My guess is just that they’re trying to idiot-proff the tariffs (i.e. prevent someone from putting up a shack on this island and using that to somehow evade tariffs.)

I think I’m going to hack my switch 1 now, and put some custom mario kart tracks on it

That asshole company everyone* cares about. My hatred of Nintendo runs deep. But I still watched the direct. I’m so excited for the innovative new features, and the new Mario Kart looks sick. I am disgusted that they will use the money to go after fans. I need help

Your mockery of republicans is indistinguishable from actual republicans. You are serving only to swell their ranks.

>:(

Great, so there’s no need to make up garbage takes on Thiel, since there’s plenty of legitimate, evidence-supported takes on him they could have gone with.

Any article which makes stuff up to support the cause is bad for the cause.

See, that’s a much more interesting take, with actual evidence. The article should have been about that. As is, the article is purely baseless fearmongering, and we don’t need that. If you’re going to write about how Trump is a threat to women, use the waterfall of evidence available for that.

I have no particular reason to believe he is being sincere. But, “Right-Wing Plot to Prevent Women From Voting Advances”? Hmm??

Haha, fair enough. I just think it’s bad journalism to play so loose.

Indeed, I have no love for Thiel. I just object to mischaracterization of my enemies; it makes it easier to criticize us.

I have read and reread those quotes three times. Where is he questioning the notion of women’s suffrage?

I am disappointed this article resorts to paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thiel’s essay rather than the original essay directly. Journalism! The paraphrase makes him sound like he’s intentionally being overtly misognyistic. In the original essay, he provocatively blames women’s suffrage for making it hard to get libertarian policies passed, and and afterward clarifies he obviously doesn’t mean women’s suffrage should be revoked.

Yeah, I too think that women’s suffrage resulted in different policies being voted in than would have otherwise. Similarly, if white men couldn’t vote, we’d see a lot of advances I’d like – but I don’t want anyone disenfranchised.

This article just says: “In 2009, Thiel said libertarianism would have more sway if only men voted. Also, Trump is requiring extra documentation in order to vote, disenfranchising many voters.” It does not explain what the plot in the headline is, or how Trump’s XO impacts women in particular.

Thiel may or may not be a misogynist (I have no idea), but can we at least keep our criticisms grounded in reality please?

“apparently a right-wing [person] said this” is low-quality content, gets my downvote. Such an unspecific comment serves only to outgroup people.

Every single one of those girls is clearly an arrowhead-repeller. (Men have it so easy.)

I think CA probably wouldn’t vote to join Canada. But Washington state might.

If Trump wants us to have a referendum on joining the U.S. as the 51st state, we should ask him in return for a binding referendum in any one state of our choice on joining Canada. Which state should we choose?

I don’t know anything about how autonomous vehicles work. As far as humans doing unusual things, well assuming the human driver only steers the wheel and controls the gas and breaks, it should be possible with existing technology to avoid crashing into them at least as well as any human can. So that leaves really unusual things, like the human hopping out of their car in the middle of an intersection, as the high-hanging fruit to model. I would imagine for most of these really strange cases, even if the autonomous vehicle can’t understand what’s happening, they can at least realize that something strange is happening and then pull over.

Obviously there will be truly unusual situations that cause fatal collisions. So long as that is at a lower rate, then what’s the safety concern?

Safety is a red herring IMO, as better code can fix it. There are much worse potential problems that autonomous vehicles will cause than rare collisions. NotJustBikes has a lot of points I’d never considered before in the second half of this video. (The first half, though, I found aggravating; it’s just about solvable safety risks.)

Ah. Sorry. There are some truly braindead takes on autonomous vehicles so I couldn’t tell that apart from what some people have said earnestly. My bad. 👍

she’s massive.

Tiny! but massive.