Well that is true. The democrats are genocidal fucks as well.

See that would be great. But it actually causes division between people who agree that the genocidal fucks should be dragged out int the street and … but don’t agree to jumping to conclusions or over generalizations.
The actual supporters of genecidal fucks aren’t here to be divisive against.

Sure, except no one got offended. Though I guess I didn’t read the most recent responses. So maybe someone did, but I kinda doubt it.

But then you are trusting that 3rd party vendor. Who approved them… MS probably.

Actually, the votes prove my point.

I’m not saying it’s divisive to say fuck nazis. But calling someone you know almost nothing about a nazi seems a bit extreme. Mostly because the level of willing misinterpretation on here is stupid high. I could say fuck trump, and somehow there will be people who will call me a trump supporter. It boggles the mind.

On the one hand, google is obviously evil, and it’s intentions here are undoubtedly evil as well. On the other, I do think some kind of verification of developers should exist. Just not in google hands. But who. There really isn’t anyway to create an organization that could be trusted to do this. And of course, the user should be able to chose to install apps from an unverified developer.

I read that quote in mom’s voice in my head. Kinda like “don’t swear honey, it makes you look uncivilized.” Then I wondered, is there a civilized way to call someone a nazi?

The real question is… is the poster trying to drive engagement, or division.

In fairness. When you sign up to work for a startup you have an idea what that means. AI startups are well known to be even worse. AI startups cost a lot more, so they have to move even faster before they run out of money. They also usually pay very well. And if the one you are at happens to make it really big, you might retire in your 20s.

And… if you have worked at an AI startup for any length of time, every big company is looking to hire you. So you can easily leave anytime.

So what I am saying is that these people made a choice. And they continue to make that choice everyday.

Source: I have worked at startups (recently got aquired so stuck at a big company until my payoff vests). I intentionally ruled out the AI start ups, and thier equivalent before them, because I don’t care to make it big. I want to work with top people who can do thier own jobs and with less overhead. But I have kids and hobbies that I don’t want to give up. So I made my choice. These people can too.

I think the focus on the shareholder perceptions is the core issue. It’s compounded by the short term interests of said shareholders.

I go with “I don’t have the energy for that”. People can’t argue with it, and it says that I already have a full list of more important energy expenditures that I don’t want to prioritize this thing above.

I would say you must be a bot. But a bot has better logic processing then you are displaying. Google p -> q != q -> p, or ven diagrams. Because goals include one thing, does not mean it can’t include another that is the opposite morally.

I think “functioning” is able to achieve it’s goals. The word functioning has no moral implications. Money doesn’t magically make an army that wins. That army has a massive logistical need. So it takes a well functioning government to ensure the supplies exist for the army, and that those supplies can get to the army. Just think of countries like hatti. That was not a functioning government. Now there is no government. Lots of countries are constantly having coups and such because they don’t have a functioning government.

You would, but making such a product is extremely expensive. And consumers will in general buy the cheaper not better product. Major investors know this, so spending on making a better product would actualy cause the stock price to go down. Maybe it would have paid off in the long run. But they want the stock price to go up now, not a year from now.

I tie it all into how a public company’s board has a fiduciary responsability to the shareholders legally. Which means they can (and often do) get sued for doing whats best for the customer over the shareholders. It sometimes clicks with people.
And many who don’t see it aren’t dumb per se. They are more or less refusing to see it because they would have to realize that they are the slaves or pawns, or cogs in the machine. And they are not in control of thier destiny. Thats a hard thing for a lot of people to swalllow. Especially since there isn’t much they can do about it.

Great statement. But why?
Do the math on dollars per hour of entertainment. Games are comparably cheap at first glance. They problem is that people are cheap too. So they won’t pay more for a better profuct. That has led the industry to invent more ways to get your money. Microtransactions, dlc… I would pay $100 for a game like portal these days. It would be less than a dollar per hour enjoyed. And no extra costs. But instead we have thousands of “free” games that are now geared to be most enjoyed by the people who pay the most.

That said, today’s games aren’t just a cd in a package. Most require servers running to be played for the most fun. What I would like is more of a subscription to a server provider that pays for servers for all the games. It’s more efficient if you play lots of different games. And a lot less hassle.

Yes, but. If they add enough “special” things you need, that will reduce the number of average people and independent mechanics that will go through the trouble of getting all the “special” tools. Thier goal isn’t to stop you. It’s to inconvenience enough people so that they won’t bother. Which drives more business to thier shops, which in turn makes them more money. And since they are publicly traded, it doesn’t even have to actually make them money. Just make the market think it might.

Yes, and they were obviously functional too. So sounds like you at least agree on that point now. Probably the least relevant thing I said of course.

You seem to be assuming a lot about my intentions.
That said. Let’s take the indocturnation of the populace as an example. Just about all functioning governments do it. Some do it with the aim of making thier citizens happy, healthy, and productive. So do it to further exploit the people. The nazis did it to build a war machine. But the tool is the manipulation of the education system.

So if you say to me… the government is manipulating the education system, and so did the nazis. It’s not that much of an insult. If you say the government is manipulating the education system to build up a population they can call on to follow orders no matter how evil those orders are… now you are saying something very significant.

This administration is not only using the same tools the nazis did, but their intentions are very similar. The second half is a much more meaningful statement. And I am saying we should focus on their evil intentions instead of just dogwhistling. A lot of people don’t see the intended goals of this administrations actions, and they need help to see it, and hopefully join the fight. Many who are already in the fight, will fight harder when they understand more of the goals.

The general strike in Minneapolis was a possible turning point. It could have spread and snowballed. But it didn’t. Too many people just don’t see the goals of this administration. Too many people have become desensitized to the word Nazi. We need to counter the administrations propoganda with things more than just name calling.