hayst4ck

6 ms·

1.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
This type of thing already exists. Here is an article on Clearview AI that already does this for any photos that make it to the scrap-able internet and it's already used by police and border patrol: https://www.motherjones.c
2.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Here is Timothy Snyder, once Yale professor specializing in the holocaust, explaining how an atrocity like the holocaust could have happened. If you ever asked yourself "how could something so evil have happened" you should defini
3.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.
4.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Can you explain that more deeply?
5.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Neutrality is implicit support for whoever can muster the most power, neutrality is in many ways the opposite of law and betrays an ideology where there is no objective truth. When there is no objective truth, there is nothing to be curious
6.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
When faced with horrifying information which demands response most people will choose a strategy of denial and hoping other people will act. When people are under threat by people who don't seem accountable to the law or who are even a
7.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
The economic concept of economies of scale dictates that the more researchers there are in one location, the more efficiently they are likely able to research.
8.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Assuming something is true doesn't make it true. Colluding airport employees as well as rural airports seem like clear vulnerabilities. When thinking about security problems you don't just assume your security measure always succe
9.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Yes, the math is the easy part, doing is the hard part. The difference between understanding and doing is large and denial, shock, rumination, and rationalization all fuel inaction and there is often a moment in which it becomes too late.
10.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
OK, I don't disagree, but there is nothing that guarantees the judiciary will act constitutionally or protect people's rights, so "who will hold the judiciary accountable if they violate your rights, try to punish you for lac
11.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
History is filled with people who dug their own graves while a person with a gun pointed at them told them to do it. It takes an exceptional person to act before their fate is sealed and the majority of passengers, if not all of them, will
12.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
> how much a multi-generation born-in-America person is actually obligated to cooperate with or answer to ICE? This is the wrong question. The right question is "who will hold them accountable if they violate your rights or try to p
13.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Citizenship comes from law. Enforcers and the judiciary choose which law to enact and how to enact them. If enforcers of the "law" are more loyal to the administration than the constitution, then the law and all it's implicat
14.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
What we see is exactly what Uber and Lyft effectively did. China subsidized manufacturing at the cost of their citizens, but in doing so destroyed much of the competition, giving them a monopoly like position in industrial manufacturing cem
15.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
No I don't. I've never had Sieg Heil lessons. I am sure it must also be at exactly a 30 degree angle with even a degree off invalidating it as an official nazi salute. There is definitely no history of deportations, loyalty purges
16.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
It wasn't for you, it was for everyone else who feels the same way I do about what is quite clear. There's at least 3 other prominent republicans who also Sieg Heiled, including Bannon, once Trump's chief strategist, in front
17.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
[flagged]
18.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
[flagged]
19.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Watching Blinken say "rules based international order" on camera about Ukraine was one of the few times I felt good about American foreign policy, then watching Blinken talk about Israel made it clear that it's rules for our
20.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Did this centralize power or distribute power? Is the constitution more protected or less protected? Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time? Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that onl
21.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
If the law is universal then it makes sense that courts can rule universally. If the law is arbitrary and every judge is basically a ruler of their own domain, which directly conflicts with the idea of Rule of Law, then it would be invalid
22.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Yes I am aware. Your use of the word hysterical was precisely chosen based on your prejudices. Hearing that the executive is less constrained and more able to violate the law should make you emotional, especially when one of the nine high
23.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
An excerpt from They Thought They Were Free : "What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide
24.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
By accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rather than Trump vs Law . If you accept that framing, you accept many of that
25.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction to the ruling "The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule
26.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Law and order is frequently said, but few people separate the ideas. Law is justice while order is the absence of open conflict. They are not the same thing. This is a ruling which chooses order over law. Order without justice is tyranny.
27.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
That is a truth but not the truth. By framing guns as a murder technology, you ignore that they are also a self defense technology, equalizing technology, or any other set of valid frames. My point was that guns can be used for murder,
28.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
To call AI a dehumanization technology is like calling guns a murder technology. There is obviously truth to that, but guns are also used for self defense and protecting your dignity. Guns are a technology, and technology can be used for go
29.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
One of the most upsetting things about our current state of governance is gamed metrics and lack of a national metrics "dashboard." Metrics are gamed as marketing tools rather than assessment tools. There's a clear conflict o
30.
by hayst4ck 1y ago
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Govern

More ›