1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
slartibartfastibast
nextbigfuture.com

Probiotic and small doses of peanuts cure peanut allergy in 70% of children | NextBigFuture.com
slartibartfastibast

“Nearly 70 percent of children – all of whom suffered from peanut allergies –treated with a combination of probioticsand small doses of peanuts could safely consume the legume, even four years after receiving the eight-week-long treatment. Comparatively, only four percent of the children who received no treatment could eat peanuts without a reaction in the same timespan.

Lead researcher Mimi Tang pioneered the dual-therapy approach to treating peanut allergies, and she posits that probiotics – Lactobacillus rhamnosus was used in the study – increase the chances of cells responding to the immunotherapy.”

bambamramfan
bambamramfan

So in the discussion over whether internet companies can deny hosting to Nazis (such as here and here), I admit I see both sides. I understand the concerns that this grants too much discretionary power to large establishments about what speech is allowed on the internet, and I understand that “Nazis marching in the streets with torches and the organizing thereof is different and inimical to civil society.”

My question is, can anyone offer an argument for why private companies should get to choose this?

Like on the anti-Nazi side, everything they say makes a case for why it should just be illegal to host this violent, reactionary rhetoric.

And on the pro-free-speech side, everything they say makes a case for why no gatekeeper is pure enough to decide who does and doesn’t get to speak.

But what’s the logic for “maybe Nazis get to organize online, maybe they don’t, and that decision should be up to the rich people who control internet companies?”

ranma-official

Anonymous asked:

How do you like the idea of global government? I have a bunch of socialist friends who are super into it. But man, as somebody from a collapsing AND post-Soviet country who was taught "immigrate from this shit pit whenever possible" since he was born, the question I'm intuitively gravitating towards is "what's the escape route if shit breaks down". Really, what is it? Flinging myself into space? Or am I being overly paranoid in assuming the global government might get fuckt.

ranma-official answered:

I don’t like global governments because people in different countries have genuinely different cultures and mentalities and the exact same economic policy would not make much sense and will likely reduce efficiency

mitigatedchaos

Oh man, the only thing worse than a capitalist world government is a socialist one. Anon isn’t being paranoid in the least, seeing as if you pick a random government somewhere on Earth, it will often suck much more than even the terrible American political discourse Ranma self-inflicts.

Even for people who do believe in uniting the world, there should be at least two or three different governments in case one trainfks itself. Governments screwing up is not an ultra-rare occurrence, and I’m saying that even though I’m quite the “Statist”.

politics no world federation

Speaking of which, if housing is cheap and public transit is good and cheap, and healthcare vouchers are issued, you don’t need a $15 minimum wage. However, suppose every worker must own a car, and the insufficient number of housing units constructed has resulted in massive bidding wars for the few units close to the city center…

argumate
argumate

This dual-citizenship debacle in the Australian parliament demonstrates how hard it can be to maintain a true rule of law, as formulating a set of rules that is both complete and consistent is impossible.

You might have a rule saying “members of parliament must renounce citizenship of any other countries” or words to that effect, but then you also need to have rules for what happens when they don’t renounce it, or think they’ve renounced it but actually haven’t, or it turns out that they have been dual-citizens and never realised and they’ve been in parliament for decades and passed tons of laws.

If it was a database you might try rolling back to a previously valid state, but a real world organisation faces the problem that there probably is no previous state that was ever truly valid, and that maintaining stable governance and predictable outcomes is considered more important than technical adherence to rules which can generate unpredictable behaviour.

This is why every practical organisational ecosystem needs to have a system like the courts for interpretation, mediation, and finding ad hoc fixes to problems that can’t be resolved any other way, while always doing their best to maintain adherence to precedent and being careful when establishing new precedent.

There are obvious ramifications to this for decentralised systems and those that attempt to make rule of law absolute, by baking it into (hopefully perfect) code.

mitigatedchaos

I was going to make a joke about the issues of a computer law system having someone not fitting the code considered not to exist being an anime, but uh, such an anime already exists.

punished-cel
rainy-days-are-over

the politics of any country would be vastly improved if politicians were forced to commit seppuku in shame when they fuck up

mitigatedchaos

The politics of any country would be greatly improved if the politicians had such a sense of shame when they fucked up that they committed seppuku on their own.

But if they had shame, would they still be politicians?

Source: rainy-days-end-is-nigh politics
diarrheaworldstarhiphop

Anonymous asked:

"Ruined communities": the communities are already ruined. They're shot through with gang violence and crime. Even the girl in that first video admits her neighborhood is a shithole. The gentrifiers may have cringy hipster culture that isn't as cool and authentic as black culture, but once they come, buildings get fixed, and people stop dying in the street.

diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:

once they come, buildings get fixed, and people stop dying in the street

They stop dying in the street in that neighbourhood, while people in another begin dying.

The process of pushing a group of people from one area to the next doesn’t eliminate the problems that created that blight in the first place. It just becomes another, usually less equipped and more unprepared community’s problem. Gentrification isn’t an all-in-one solution, otherwise if it were, we wouldn’t be talking about it as some generally understood negative phenomenon. It is inherently exploitative and harms more than just the area of gentrification itself.

Even the girl in that first video admits her neighborhood is a shithole.

My personal living space is a shithole but it’s still home. similarly, this is why she is distraught at the changes to her home and the cultural force that is pushing her out.

cringy hipster culture that isn’t as cool and authentic as black culture

i try not to see things in terms of what’s “authentic” or “cool,” because at the very least, it commodifies tradition and culture as something to consumed or visited as part of a social trend.

It like, reduces it to a cultural zoo.

mitigatedchaos

It wouldn’t be such an issue if zoning laws were different, so more housing units could be constructed more cheaply where the jobs are.

There is also the matter that the ways that people live have a significant impact, in the aggregate, on how a community functions - something that we weren’t really supposed to talk about under tolerant liberalism, but which social conservatism often goes overboard with.  Many of the wealthier communities can handle a higher level of dysfunction, but in poverty, dysfunction is a lot more costly relative to income and relative to the income of the surrounding community.

No one is really interested in fixing the conditions properly, though.

politics
Top Photos