• 0 Posts
  • 290 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • Very interesting, I wasn’t aware of specifics. Obviously I don’t think it’s impossible, but I would think that the grand majority don’t, while this bootleg technique would have a higher rate of creating worse problems for people already suffering and essentially sealing their fate.

    We need to tackle big pharma for the problem it is: greed and neglect and I don’t think a pirated solution will make that in any way better for people.

    Maybe it does for some but hurts others worse. Which is the same coin as big pharma but worse for some. That’s my perspective, but I hope that an open-source style solution would gain more traction rather than one that’s essentially just ripped music.

    People deserve to be healthy








  • Beautiful article thanks for sharing.

    This highlights the problem that inherently exists in nature: feedback loops.

    Repeated exposure to similar information or signals amplifies/entrenches existing patterns and can lead to distortion, narrowing frequencies, and reduced adaptability.

    Its why these people turn into racists, sexists, abusers, etc. they get what they want all the time simply because they have money and power and know how to game systems. So they learn on those narrow pathways that they get what they want when they want.

    They learn a reality that doesn’t exist for the greater whole because they themselves are not living as the greater whole does. None of this is rocket science.

    I have to conclude that Extreme wealth threatens the stability of our society. Not arguing for communism or anything else. Every path has its hazards and shortcuts. Just pointing out problems and opening the floor to discussion of the problem and potential solutions











  • https://infosec.pub/comment/9572046

    I specifically mention this point and you make zero effort to correct or modify what you’re saying so I’m left to believe that it is at least partially aligned with what you’re saying.

    Feel free to take the easy way out and argue pedantics - our conversation was pretty short so if you actually looked through the convo, I suspect you ignored this point or are purposefully playing on this point to push yourself out of the waters a la pedantic argument.

    Think this conversation is spent now. Thanks.


  • That wasn’t the topic of discussion. You implied that a majority of people don’t research their views without anything other than anecdotal evidence

    You tried to pivot to this other topic, I did not follow it.

    I can agree with “at least some people do not properly vet and research their views” but I cannot subscribe to “most”

    Make sense?