Software engineer… we also use all 16 digits of pi

Would there be any aspect of defense you would consider? For example another comment mentioned situational awareness, etc. Basically weapons systems which might STOP them from being used on civilians?

I like riding my bike a lot and camping. Just did a ride down the Oregon coast this last summer and it was a total blast

Self hosting and software of course, but that’s probably pretty common on here

Making me want to get back into go

I’m 5 years down the road and… Well let me tell ya, it gets worse

Totally fair, and largely what I use it for, but it’s also helpful in the term at times to just get out a weird regex for a weirder file operation you don’t want to dork

Add in regexr as well

Geez this guy secures. Impressive

3 actually, and it’s not a good group… And I’d like to say that most Americans actually support the idea of switching, but as a stubborn guy who uses metric for everything here I can sadly say that they are not by a long shot.

you shouldn’t have to work to exist, you shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be part of a community

While I largely agree with your points (or at least some of the core of them) I think you’d have to flesh this out. For anything alive to exist, work needs to be done. And for anyone to be in a community people must mutually agree on membership. The “freeloader” problem isn’t a problem of ability where individuals “not useful” (and that gives me chills as much as it probably does you) to society can’t work, though it’s often framed that way to varying extents from both sides. I feel that it’s a problem where a large enough segment of the population would not be productive at what they could be doing simply because they don’t have to.

Our brains are literally wired to seek out more for less energy.

Again, I agree with most of your points, but these two could probably use a bit more explanation (at least to me)

In the cluster munitions argument (which I put in but I don’t believe is core to this argument) I believe we leave behind something like 15% of bomblets to the average 40%. I’m not sure that’s good enough for me, personally… but then again the fact that it’s Ukrainian land does make me think that it’s not quite so black and white as cluster munitions normally are. I’m still not convinced but I think it’s a worthwhile argument either way.

To the rest of the argument. Great points and I hadn’t considered the DOD budget being the primary source of data. As it stands though we’ve still sent something like 30B (a tie with the remaining EU) and yes we’re sending old gear (a wise choice imo) but it’s still not nothing. Even supposing it’s only worth 50% of what it’s billed, we’re still something like 40% above the next largest contributor to the war.

Im still not necessarily passing judgement on it being a good idea (I don’t know what I think) but I just think that it’s a bit unfair to say any opinions against sending more money over is “traitorous” I also think that is a worthwhile debate.

Just here to point out that the USA has sent about $71B to Ukraine. We’ve sent more than the next 7 countries combined. Further the military allotment of that (43B) dwarfs the next country (which I’m now reading is EU Institutions) by 10B.

The conservative party’s job is to reduce spending and make sure we aren’t moving too far into debt. They’re wrong in a HUGE number of cases, and I don’t know what I think about this case. It’s a bit unfair though, to call them traitors when the next country down the list would have to DOUBLE their contribution to this war to even be in the same conversation as us. We’ve paid a lot.

Adding complexity to this conversation, part of what we’re wanting to send is cluster munitions. Am extremely controversial move and one which I believe we should rethink.

This god is here to crucify my terminal skills… they’re not worthy

They probably don’t need to make a whole platform to do this, though. Couldn’t they just slurp the data right out of ActivityPub without making Threads? Either way, I’m dismayed that meta is managing to YET AGAIN convince people that this time they’ll be good

I think that I agree with you in general on your first point. A business isn’t a person, it doesn’t have a religion, it can’t have an opinion on people. But we’re talking about a small business. If someone is running a web design company, they don’t have a huge staff, they’re just one person, so their individual convictions are at play, don’t you think?

The example you give in your second point isn’t quite congruent with this case, taxes are not speech. We’re talking about speech. Now I have a personal conviction that the USA shouldn’t be spending nearly so much on the military, but unfortunately for me, my taxes, and many people around the world, I don’t have a say in the matter. If someone said something like “I don’t want to pay this tax because it’s being spent on something antithetical to my religious belief” even there, it’s not speech.

You’re right, and it doesn’t to me either, and I feel that it’s wrong, and I wouldn’t go and get a cake made with someone I know does this. I also think that you and I would agree on more than not. I’ll also add that I don’t have a dog in the religion debate here. But I still feel very strongly that in a free society it is their right not not be compelled to write something which directly contradicts their belief. I’ll need to think about this more in general, I might end up changing my mind on it, but at least for right now the right to not have to say something you don’t believe feels important to me. Let me ask you this, if an atheist baker were asked to write “Jesus is Lord” on a cake and said no, would you take issue with that? I wouldn’t; I’d argue that is a very clean first amendment right, and an important part of living in a liberal society. I also would go as far as to say that isn’t even intolerance from the atheist, it’s simply them believing something.

To your second point, while I agree that a business owner should not discriminate against a particular demographic, I’m not sure I’d go all out on any time someone says this they’re discriminating. Every religion and value system has prohibitions, and few of them are aligned. It’s possible to respectfully decline to do something as it directly contradicts your beliefs. Now if your beliefs are discriminatory, that’s a different and more complex question entirely. I’m not sure what to think about that case.

Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.

If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.

Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.

The question THIS LAW interacts with is the CONTENT of the message. If you’re providing tables for a wedding this law wouldn’t protect you. If you were asked to write something specific for the wedding and the content of the request is antithetical to your beliefs, this law would protect you, if you could show that. Not a lawyer, but that’s how I read it.

Now. Is it “right” to do so? I would say in absolutely no universe. It’s morally wrong, it undermines our liberal society, and I have no tolerance for it. My point is that this particular law isn’t about whether someone is a Christian, their race, or sexuality. This decision wouldn’t protect me from writing some basic software for a nazi (others might) but it DOES protect me from building a website supporting them, or writing prose related to nazism, or anything else which would be CLEARLY against what I believe. Please DON’T read that I’m saying that being a nazi is the same as being homosexual, it isn’t, I’m not, fuck nazis.

To get back to your question: as I read this decision, a cake maker could potentially be compelled to make a cake for an interracial couple, but they might not be compelled to make a cake with something like “interracial is the only way to go”

Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?

This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.