Yeah its so evolved. But then why limit it to children? Why shouldn't your boss be allowed to beat the shit out of you so it sends a signal you need to change your behavior?

There is a massive leap between "let them bully other kids" and "we have to cane them" and pretending like only pain is the solution, especially in case of children where bullying is often a second order effect, is sick.

I do agree we shouldn't limit it to children! But I don't think the boss/employee relationship should involve violence though because firing someone is simple and effective. But if someone is doing something bad for their community that has no obvious other consequences? Then yeah, it absolutely should be an option.

These rules should be implemented locally at a town or city level. No need to enforce the same set of rules across all society.

And it's interesting you bring up that bullying is a second order affect. If one of the parents is abusive, that should be something that has physical consequences. Solve the problem at the source, stop wringing our hands and getting lawyers / police involved for everything. That's not scalable and as a result there are a bunch of unsolvable problems in our society today.

I don't understand your view here. You want people to take care of problems/injusitice by violence but you also want this violence to be limited to "someone doing something bad for their community"? How can that be enforced at all. Like if you are doing something good for your community, the other community feels slighted and gets a free pass to... beat you?

Like I dont understand what you're saying at all because it seems like you want the social contract but also give anyone the agency to conduct violence and both cannot exists at the same time. We live in communities and created the police and law precisely because personal grudges and fights cannot scale and work to be a functional society. God i hope you are trolling

There ought to be an understanding that the school has leeway to use a ruler on misbehaving children without the police being involved. That's what I meant when I said stop getting police involved in everything. I'm not talking about vigilante justice.

An example that requires police to be involved: Small Town A has a law stating that anyone dealing drugs must be caned for the first offense. Someone deals drugs in Small Town, so police catch them and cane them.

It does but most of what we do to animals is terrifying. I could see why getting funding for this idea might not have been that easy though "I want to mind control three animals to play Doom" is certainly a pitch

That is the fallacy of relative privation. The fact that most of what we do to animals is terrifying should be the motivating factor to NOT do more of it, such as the atrocity described above.

they can but why would they, its literally not their business

In economics, comparing a corporate investment round to a country's GDP is considered flawed. As you noted with your "16 months", the company is sitting on a $950M bank account that it will slowly burn through over the years. Comparing a multi-year pile of cash to a single year of national production distorts the scale.

You are basically comparing a nation's actual hard work and output to a speculative pile of cash. Even comparing corporate revenue to GDP is frowned upon by economists. A company's revenue includes the cost of all the inputs it bought from other companies (such as servers, electricity, and software licenses). GDP, by definition, strips out intermediate costs to avoid double-counting and measures only final value added.

You're also picking nations that do not produce much or have a very low population (Tonga only has 100k people), which pulls down the GDP due to how it's calculated.

I think the red pill is a direct reference to the matrix. Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they cant stop talking about.

For sure, the red pill is a direct reference to the Matrix. I think previous poster was asking if the Matrix took that idea from somewhere.

    Its kind of weird they have such degratory views on sex and 
    gender, given the directors of their favorite movie they 
    cant stop talking about.

Yeah. I think the connection they see is that the reality Neo chose to confront (a humankind enslaved by machines) was unpleasant, and the redpill gang knows their version of reality is very ugly as well.

Did they review the original text of the 1930s book that captures the intent of the writer or the scrubbed latest version which washes away the sexist, racist and problematic text written by the original author?

He was as nice as they can be for a white man living in 1930. Good for fellow white men, not good for anybody female or a different skin tone.

But the book has been changed over time to make it seem like he was always an "pretty alright guy"

Did anyone read the article? Seems like someone who doesn't really understand how operating systems work wrote this. Literally talks about liking macOS because Apple makes good hardware? I thought they would actually talk about what makes these choices different rather than just giving subjective opinions without anything substantive backing it.

I also notice this with people who are getting into tech but don't want to code or actually interact with the system/know more about it. Every other week, they'll put on a new distro, brick their device, rebrick it and then consider it as a hobby/"doing tech stuff." One of my friends is like that and he's insufferable. He keeps asking me what I think of xyz distro and if he should use it just because he knows I code for a living (which means I must be constantly looking for the perfect linux distro obviously because I "do tech stuff").

I have never used any distro outside debian and ubuntu which according to him is for "noobs". smh

Yeah I don't think i can stomach cute kittens in my rockets that go boom on launch at least 80% of times. At least Kerbals were strange enough i didnt care

I’m not a go fanboy, but I do know from other contexts that so-called “fanboy“ behaviour is frequently associated with level-headed supporters getting defensive in the face of imprecise criticism.

There’s an oft-repeated pattern where valid specific criticisms morph into broad criticism, which morphs into judgement, which breeds defensiveness, which feeds the criticism. Once you recognise this pattern, you see it everywhere.

Sure, and there's the near-identical pattern where valid specific criticisms are taken as broad criticism even though they aren't, etc., etc..

Thats the defensive step outlined above.