I understand the intention of what the author is trying to achieve, but I think the problem they will run into is how do you define "evil" in a legal document or license? There is a subset of acts and beliefs that wider society has deemed "evil", but I doubt large corporations are actively supporting sexual assault, torture, murder etc. What the author is referring to is things they find morally reprehensible but do not reach the level of the aforementioned acts enough to be expressly illegal and evil (and whether they are or not, IANAL).
Readit NewsNot sure how geographically diverse it is to have two "highly secure sites" on the same continent.
The problem with investors these days is that too many of them seem so focused on short-term gains and showing their numbers increase quarter-over-quarter that we seem to be incapable of looking at an investment over a longer period of time.
shruubi commented on People got together to stop a school shooting before it happened nytimes.com/2025/09/27/ny... · Posted by u/whack
As someone who was the victim of a lot of bullying myself, this article is a very mixed bag for me.
For one, I like the idea of creating some degree of systems of support to try and prevent things like school shootings from happening by stopping them before they get too far.
On the other hand, unless there are more details missing from this article, it really seems like the only person who got any degree of punishment is the student who was being bullied.
You know what stops bullies that doesn't involve shooting them? Ruthless consequences for their actions. Schools love to talk about their 'zero tolerance' policy for bullying, but if there are no consequences outside of a teacher telling the bully to stop, then that is definitely less of a 'zero tolerance' policy and more of a 'mostly tolerated' policy. Zero tolerance means immediate suspensions, expulsions, supporting police reports for physically violent bullying etc.
I'm of two minds on this, I think all comedians should be able to make fun of anything, but at the same time, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you get to avoid the consequences of what you say. Whether I agree with the outcome or not, if ABC don't like what Jimmy Kimmel said, they are free to pull his show off the air and fire him all they want, Kimmel is not entitled or owed TV time nor is ABC required to broadcast his show. But, by the same token, ABC must then be willing to accept the consequences of doing that and any bad PR that comes from it.
That all being said, what I don't like is that even if ABC execs decided that they found what Kimmel said distasteful or offensive, this still looks an awful lot like acting out of fear of a president who famously is very spiteful to anyone who says anything bad about him.
shruubi commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what
I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
> What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
In my experience, a lot of sports fans love to debate and argue, claim some strategy was "unfair" when used against their team, argue whether some penalty was justified or not. People who are die-hard for their team will usually defend their team no matter what.
> Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time
This is the thing. Politics has basically become a form of entertainment these days. You have talk-shows covering politics and making fun of the political news of the day, you have YouTubers and streamers who make a living off of making political content. Artists make comics that are varying degrees of witty political satire and, in America at least, the democratic and republican conventions are basically a political sideshow circus. To top it off, how many people have taken this situation as a reason to post on social media? Regardless of if you like or dislike Charlie Kirk and his idea's, using his death as a reason to post something on social media, positive or negative, is just using the situation for entertainment purposes.
How many people these days can honestly say they engage in politics to talk about policy, and not as a form of entertainment?
shruubi commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
shruubi commented on Cell-Based Architecture Enhances Modern Distributed Systems infoq.com/articles/cell-b... · Posted by u/gemanor
Poor Alan Kay not even getting a mention for pioneering the basis for this idea in the design of Smalltalk.
shruubi commented on Why I Quit Bridge and Why I Came Back bridgewinners.com/article... · Posted by u/luu
I'm 30, so roughly the same age as the poster of this article. But for a person who (rightfully so) derides the ageism and racism they encounter, their whole section on technical literacy is just a modern-spin take on ageism.
Just because people my age and younger use discord etc, doesn't mean this is either a "good" way for people to communicate, or something we should force people whose technical literacy could vary wildly between extremes to try and figure out.
Personally, I hate discord and messaging in general and much prefer to make phone calls. I guess that makes me an anomaly compared to my generation, but I generally find that whole section rude and trying to solve their own personal problem, not the problems of the community as a whole.
Those numbers should be seen as a giant red flag, not as any kind of positive.