being opt-out is still bad, but at least it would be a bit more honest.

VIvaldi is cool, but its not open source. If you worry about the trustworthiness of you browser, picking an open source one would be best IMO. Among the chromium-based, there are chromium itself, brave, …

im sure some other companies that are allowed to use android will soon make devices like this to reach the global market. the device looks too attractive and convenient to remain a small niche.

not everything in a language is helpful.

what do you mean by “explicitly non gendered”?

yes, i wasnt advocating you should know any specific grammar. and that distinction is a good point. I meant that learning a prescriptive grammar decently is an important tool for reasoning. im not saying that descriptive grammars are bad, just defending that prescriptive grammars arent as useless as people seem to judge them.

yes, its very arbitrary, but these are sets of rules that you can use to structure your thoughts. language helps us reason. it doesnt matter that it is arbitrary. definitions in mathematics are very arbitrary, but they are a foundation we can lean on to reason about abstract ideas. Being arbitrary is not a testament of uselessness. Different languages, lead to different foundations for structuring ideas. But dominating at least one of those foundations can be very important cognitively.

i think that being used to properly structure sentences is important for reasoning well.

i agree that the effects of books and writing were probably beneficial to the brain, although they might have atrophied the memory and something else. But im not sure about tv, radio, internet and AI.

but are they wrong though?

you underestimate too much. trump is just a face, there are plenty of people working with him and planning all kinds of shit. any kid plans some trickeries while playing board games. what makes you think a political group is incapable of forethought?

why?

i struggle to see how this problem transfers to fake news regulation

transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.

When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.

The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.

Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.

who knows… but the us has softer means to pressure europe

Pointing that A is like B regarding the aspect X is often treated as a “comparison” between A and B, but it doesnt imply that A is as great, as important, or as bad as B. It doesnt imply that A is like B in any way other than in the aspect X.

Why not focus on the point that is being made instead of freaking out over the angles from which the analogy breaks down. Every analogy breaks down from some angle.

thats different from fake news, still

who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.

people being offended by comparisons is something that puzzles me every time i see it.

One common trait between two things is enough to make an analogy. The differences between the objects being compared doesnt hinder the argument as it is based on the similarities alone.

to not piss off computer scientists and mathematicians with their dear word “algorithm”, you may want to narrow it down with the expression recommendation algorithms.