I use Firefox with uBlock Origin on the Mac and it works great, but for Safari the best option I've found is AdGuard (https://adguard.com). However, it is nowhere near as effective as uBlock Origin since Safari did the Manifest V3 thing.
I don't think he is super great at dialog, either, but I like how his cursing is world-specific rather than just reusing what we think of as cursing in our world. He has quite a bit of it in Stormlight Archives (see: https://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/7204-swearing-in-rosha...) but it doesn't "offend" us here in our world because it is specific to their world.
I was an early adopter of Kagi but I cancelled the moment they started messing with the plans. I know I'd have the early adopter flag but I just felt betrayed by the messaging and I also don't want to use a search engine where I'm trying to think about how many searches I'm making and if I'm going over a certain number. The updates in the article look pretty good but I can't get past those two issues.
I know people that do this very thing but none of them admit to themselves that they "know that doing X will harm the company in the long term". Instead they create a narrative that says "This time it will be different" so they don't have to be bothered by any kind of pesky conscience. I don't even know if they do this consciously, it just seems to happen.
New research suggests that one nonviolent movement, Bahrain in 2011-2014, appears to have decisively failed despite achieving over 6% popular participation at its peak. This suggests that there has been at least one exception to the 3.5% rule, and that the rule is a tendency, rather than a law.
I work for a really large organization that has received praise for what it is doing with zero trust but to us lowly users the implementation has really meant the total death of single sign on. We sign on constantly to everything now all the time.
[My colleague] would appear to see time spent in planning and writing documents as essentially wasted time, since he asserts that without process we are faster. We are not faster in reality. We are merely faster to say we're finished. That is not the same thing as actually being finished: we can all think of examples of that. And the uncertainty induced by the unknown magnitude of correction required is, IMHO, the biggest contribution to our inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
I've spent my entire career working for a medium sized organization and in the past few years it has tried to become "agile". Most of this push is predicated on the idea that we will be able to go faster this way. As a result we have deconstructed ourselves. What's weird is that now we aren't actually even "faster to say we are finished." No, now we are only faster to say that we are going to be faster to be finished. We still end up taking a long time but as long as the slide deck says we are going to be done in a short amount of time, then all is believed to be running smoothly. It's very strange/depressing/unsettling.
I wondered the same thing and opened settings on my iPhone and up at the top was an “Apple Arcade Free for 3 Months” right underneath my name, which made me sad.
>“Corporate wokeism I believe is the product of self-interest intermingled with the appearance of pursuing social justice,” says Vivek Ramaswamy, a former biotechnology executive and author of “Woke, Inc.”. He argues that Big Tech pursues corporate wokeism because appearing to embrace social justice suits such firms’ commercial interests—both in terms of recruitment and appeal to their customers. It performs allegiance to identity politics while simultaneously rejecting the left’s critique of capitalism. “A lot of Big Tech has agreed to bend to the progressive left,” he says, but “they effectively expect that the new left look the other way when it comes to leaving their monopoly power.”
I happen to agree with you. But I still wonder, can we figure out what these moral facts are and what the criteria are for them or are they worse than the n-body problem referred to in another front page article and impossibly complex with no closed solution?
I don't like the answer of "Because this X is obviously true" since the "obviously true" part changes so much. Do we think that morals that are "obviously true" are proceeding forward, like science, and are based on an increasing body of knowledge? There certainly doesn't seem to be the same kind of rigor applied to moral knowledge as there is to scientific knowledge.
For #2 if we say "Then it would be incorrect to think that X is morally wrong" is there an "X" that is always true in all places and for all times? I ask because "boiling a human child alive for pleasure" seems to be safely chosen to be something that everyone in all places ought to be able to agree is wrong but there have been other chosen Xs at other times in our own culture that have changed and are now no longer considered "morally wrong". This would seem to indicate that the X is subjective. How subjective is it? What is it a function of?
I've always wondered that, too. I thought "The Strength of a Weak State: The Rights Revolution and the Rise of Human Resources Management Divisions" had some interesting inputs on this question (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3322830/Dobbin_S...).
My wife is a T1 who was diagnosed in her 40s. I sent her this whole comment chain and she wanted me to mention that "...half of all new T1 diagnoses come in ppl over 30."
From the article it doesn't sound like the people who want to erase the mural believe that the forefathers are people to be admired:
One of the commissioners, Faauuga Moliga, said before the vote on Tuesday that his chief concern was that “kids are mentally and emotionally feeling safe at their schools.” Thus he wanted “the murals to be painted down.” Mark Sanchez, the school board’s vice president, later told me that simply concealing the murals wasn’t an option because it would “allow for the possibility of them being uncovered in the future.” Destroying them was worth it regardless of the cost, he argued at the hearing, saying, “This is reparations.”
These and other explanations from the board’s members reflected the logic of the Reflection and Action Working Group, a committee of activists, students, artists and others put together last year by the district. Arnautoff’s work, the group concluded in February, “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” The art does not reflect “social justice,” the group said, and it “is not student-centered if it’s focused on the legacy of artists, rather than the experience of the students.”