FriendOfDeSoto

Like the river finds the sea, people will find a way around it. Satellite connections, just as an idea.

Anything a chip does can be backwards engineered to fool it. People will break your proposed surveillance chip eventually.

Most of these companies are maybe US-owned to varying degrees but they don't produce everything in the US. Also, they would put a very high price on these government mandated chips for two reasons: 1) government has deep pockets and 2) it would keep them away from very profitable so-called AI biz opportunities.

The pandy has shown us that with a few disruptions in the supply chain, any system that requires a cryptographic chip check to function can be sent to hell in a handbasket. I forgot if it was HP or Canon or some printer company had to teach its customers to bypass, i.e. hack their own cryptogtaphic chip checks because they couldn't get more chips and otherwise the printers wouldn't print. A few disruptions could also affect the censorship chip supply chain.

The great firewall of China has also shown how creative people get to get their message across. If it's not just human censors but also so-called AI censors it will just take creativity to a new level. Necessity is the mother of invention.

So there are some reasons why you might be worrying too much. I think another one is much broader. The majority of Americans did not vote for the current president. If he started censoring the internet now there would be Civil War II - Now It's Digital. The reason why Russia or North Korea can censor their people much easier is because they have never had or only on paper a brief period of liberty and rule of law. It will be much harder to control the US population. There isn't just the one media outlet, the one ISP, the one judiciary to dominate. It's splintered. And populated by feisty people, some of them armed. You couldn't pull off what you suggested without much more support for 47. And he seems to be losing it more than gaining these days.

Of course, I didn't think far enough. Thanks for setting that straight.

I think there is data on it. Back in school I remember looking at the population pyramid. It's a visualization of the number of men and women (x-axis, going both left and right) per birthyear (y-axis). In ye olden days, that formed a triangle. Many babies at the bottom, fewer olds at the top. You could tell a lot from the shape this took. You'd get dents on the male side that will correspond with armed conflicts, like the world wars. And then in the 1960s the pyramid with war chips in it massively narrows. At least in countries where the pill became readily available. It turned the pyramid into a tree with a big head at the top and a wide but thinner stem growing under it. I suspect now 80 years later we're at a much narrower elongated triangle shape again. So you can probably count the shift in numbers there and put a number on "prevented accidents." But you would have to account for other factors as well, improvements in medicine, vaccinations, etc.

Were all births accidental? That's a question you could only ask in hindsight. Humans have always looked for ways you prevent conception because we like to party but without reliable success. It's only in the second half of the last century that we have come up with measures that the Catholic church really doesn't approve of. Before that, children weren't really planned in today's sense. They just happened. They were expected to happen. And with most women being relegated to raising them and running the household, there wasn't much else they could do. The concept that a wife could be raped by her husband is sadly fairly new. The patriarchy was strong. Abortion was a gamble and many women died from bad jobs of them. Most of the time, if she got pregnant, the decision was made, end of story. If you weren't married yet, shotgun wedding. That's how it went until we developed contraception that actually works. I wouldn't call any kids before that accidental.

Sure, you could remain abstinent. But we like to party.

Depends on your definition of common. When the movable type printing press came to the British Isles, the available characters didn't include the thorn so printers used the y as a stand-in. It was the beginning of the end and all "ye olde shoppe" signs are just a snapshot of a particular time in history.

You read the story. They said he died of exhaustion. It's the Daily Mail. It doesn't have to be true what they say.

I think if your mind is sufficiently obsessive you can override all the natural countermeasures your body uses to get you to r&r. You pass a point of no return and you fall asleep but that's the end. Not allowing people to sleep is a form of torture that can kill. Much like starving someone.

This guy allegedly also smoked and drank like an idiot. That couldn't have been helpful under the circumstances.

Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.

Let's say it's all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?

I think the sound you're hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I'm a saint.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I'm sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don't want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don't feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won't work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the "break glass in case of last resort" section of the tool box. But I've worked with bosses who didn't put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That's a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I'm thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn't recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

I was shooting for "neutral you".

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don't you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that's what you think I'm surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you're moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what "you" you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral "you," which can be replaced with "one?" The reason I'm wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn't make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be "dominance-humping" and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn't judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn't clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre "Which is worse, the plague or cholera?" doesn't necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it's better not to shout at anyone in general. But I'm also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren't monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn't encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined "idiotic" to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It's a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot's behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It's these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.