Hanlon's Razor is basically a special case of Occam's Razor.
Making a mistake or doing something stupid is easy. Conspiring to do something malicious is not as easy. The simpler explanation is generally that something is a mistake rather than an elaborate conspiracy. So, Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation (a mistake) is probably the right one.
There have been a number of US citizens who have received these emails, all of them do some kind of work related to immigration. It's pretty clear that whoever sent out these emails just collected every email related to immigration work, and sent out a mass email. That satisfies Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
But! The fact that they're doing this without even a passing effort at accuracy, with no concern about getting it wrong, shows how it's motivated by malice too. It's the ICE version of a reckless homicide, they're doing something they have to know would normally get them fired if not charged. But, they don't care because the current racist administration is going to revel in the pain.
So, it's a weird situation where Hanlon's Razor is both right and wrong.
Yeah, it's a risk. But, there's also a risk of getting your wired earbuds cord caught on something. I've had that happen and it yanked the phone off the table and sent it crashing to the floor. I've also had the buds get yanked out of my ears multiple times.
If I lived somewhere where winters were mild, I might still use wired headphones. When you only have to worry about a t-shirt or something managing the cord isn't too bad. But, when you have to manage a hat, scarf, coat, etc. there are just too many things to get in the way of the cord.
I assume that bunkers protect you from a chain reaction, but that at some point the explosion is big enough that a chain reaction is exactly what you get.
This definitely seems like it would have been big enough to cause a chain reaction (and/or big enough to show that a chain reaction happened). If so, I wonder what fraction of bunkers exploded. I'm glad we live in an age of civilian satellites, so it's probably just a matter of time before we get to see the damage for ourselves.
While it's true that publishers do something of value, the amount they charge is absurd.
What makes it even worse is that so many of the people involved are donating their labour. It reminds me of college sports in the US. The actual people doing the work, the athletes, are forced to do it for free. Meanwhile, a few select groups: coaches, TV networks, etc. are making huge amounts of money.
This is why I hate the recent trend where people are saying "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"
"Piracy", or more accurately "copyright infringement" was never stealing. What you're doing is violating the government-granted monopoly on copying something. That's so different from stealing.
That's also bad. You regularly hate-watch him? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
It should only take you about 15 minutes of watching him to understand his gimmick. He used undefined and undefinable terms like "cultural marxism". He cherry picks out of context sciencey stuff to back up his point of view. He acts super serial all the time to make people think he's a serious person. That's it. You don't need to watch any more.
And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it's the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you're fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone's recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.
Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you're running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn't be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don't personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.
merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works Posts 10Comments 3,006Joined 2 yr. ago
If you're listening to podcasts or music, latency doesn't really matter.