Can't you use youraddress.servicename@gmail.com? I thought gmail strips whatever comes after the dot. (I don't have a google account, so I could be wrong or maybe it was a different character, but I remember reading about it a couple times on here.)
“This seems like a path toward having no people with Down syndrome, having no people with certain disabilities, even though there are people that have those disabilities that live fulfilling lives,” he said. “You’re talking about culling a tree of human evolution, right?”
I've heard this argument before and I find it insulting, as though it's somehow a moral wrongdoing to prefer children without birth defects. If I could spare my future children from MS, schizophrenia, Downs, Huntington's, Alzheimer's, etc., I'd do it in a heartbeat. Framed differently, who would deliberately inflict a healthy newborn with any of those congenital disorders? That they might live a fulfilling life in spite of their disorder wouldn't make it any less cruel.
You should keep in mind that Down syndrome is "not really" a congenital disease. Yes, it's a DNA problem, but it's a problem that happens during conception in the logic of recombining DNA, not in the DNA itself. Down is "Trisomie 21". Which makes it very weird: it a congenital disease, but not hereditary (perfectly healthy parents can have a Down syndrome kid, especially if the mother is older, Down syndrome parents have normal offspring)
So there are congenital diseases ... and there is Down syndrome. They follow an entirely different logic.
Btw: down syndrome parents have HUGE issues, but in fact these issues arise because the kids are healthy. Expectation is such kids will exceed their parents' intelligence at age 6-8 and be 2 standard deviations above their parents intelligence by age 10-12. You can imagine how that goes.
> If I could spare my future children from MS, schizophrenia, Downs, Huntington's, Alzheimer's, etc., I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I'm sure any reasonable person would agree; the more poignant question is whether you are sparing your future children or destroying some future children in favor of others. The former is something I hope any reasonable person would agree with; the latter is tantamount to eugenics.
The sun on Pluto is only slightly dimmer than the sun on a very strongly overcast midday on Earth (about half as bright), but still much brighter (almost 200x) than a full moon.
Someone who's jailed for driving on a suspended license because it's the only way they can get to their job probably isn't going to discontinue that behavior upon their release. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on a punishment that's just going to exacerbate the problem, especially when the crime isn't particularly odious in the first place (whatever they did to get their license suspended probably was, but once you have a suspended license it's almost impossible to just stop driving).
> when the crime isn't particularly odious in the first place
“A significant association was found between all reasons for DWVL and the risk of causing a road crash. This association was particularly high for drivers with a suspended license and drivers who had never obtained a license. In these subgroups of drivers, the proportion of the relationship explained by high-risk driving behaviors is high” [1].
If the license was suspended for financial reasons, sure. If it was suspended for driving infractions, incapacitating them by putting them in jail while deterring others from driving seems socially efficient.
>“A significant association was found between all reasons for DWVL and the risk of causing a road crash. This association was particularly high for drivers with a suspended license and drivers who had never obtained a license. In these subgroups of drivers, the proportion of the relationship explained by high-risk driving behaviors is high” [1].
"Among church attendees, those attending church services in a prison were more likely to be convicted of a crime in the future than the average"
I too can mislead with sampling bias.
Nobody with a double digit number of brain cells is going to be impressed that a group that includes a lot of people who lost their licenses is going to be more crashy than the average. The average has a lot more people in it to water down the statistical effect of those people. But that doesn't mean that a lot of people in your "bad" group are actually bad on an individual level rather than a statistical one.
Pretty much every license suspension is for financial reasons at the end of the day because people who can afford lawyers and fines and whatnot are much more able to avoid the suspensions.
This is wishful thinking, the people I know who drive on suspended licenses also don't have jobs and refuse to work. The vast majority of people with suspended licenses are not otherwise productive members of society. The kind of antisocial behavior that gets your license suspended doesn't magically stop when you stop driving. These are, by in large, just bad people.
Many states also have special use permits for the case of needing to drive to work.
Also, everyone I personally know who drives with suspended licenses has the ability to get 99% of places they need to go by bus. Like we all did before we were old enough to drive. They just don't want to have to wait for a bus or walk a block or two, so they don't.
PS- I wish I didn't know these waste of space people, I don't get to choose my family. I would choose different people.
Lose your license? You get a ride, ride a bike, take the bus, get compassionate permission to only drive to work, etc. there are many ways to move yourself around. Then don’t mess up again once the suspension is over.
What about a child molester that works in a school? It makes sense to prevent them from being in contact with children. I think preventing people from driving saves the public from similar potentially dangerous harm.
"within your natural lifespan" isn't really a qualification of "never, ever". The two are very different time frames. I think it's good that you're willing to adjust your opinions given new information, but it would be nice if you admitted that you changed your mind based on what MatrixMan said instead of acting like "within your natural lifespan" was your original intent.
Or alternatively, they was using hyperbole as a rhetorical device.
If you read the comment sympathetically, it is definitely possible to infer that was their original intent. In fact, i think its the most reasonable interpretation.
Every prediction about the future--this one, every other one ever made, and every other one that will ever be made--is implictly made under the assumption that if the prediction lies beyond the predictor's lifespan, then the predictor will not be in a position to care one whit about the veracity of the prediction when that time comes. My clarification isn't at all motivated based on what the parent commenter said (I find the construction of a skyhook approximately as likely as the construction of a space elevator, which is to say, it will "never, ever" happen), but rather as an explicit clarification of the aforementioned implicit assumption.
What would you say to someone who claims that "never" obviously means "not before the end of this quarter, cause who could possibly care about anything beyond that"?
I detest Meta as much as the next guy but I can't bring myself to feel bad for Threads Software Limited here. This is what you get when you pick your company name out of a dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist.
Yes-like Meta, or Threads, or Apple, Glean, Element, X, Zoom, etc.
If you choose a generic word for your brand name, don't be surprised when a bigger company chooses the same generic word and ruins your SEO. This has happened before. Maybe it's not fair, but it's extremely foreseeable. It seems much easier to me to choose a creative name in the first place than to risk a legal battle wherein you have to prove that really you should be able to use that dictionary word because you thought of it first. As other commenters have pointed out, since Threads (Meta) and Threads (software) operate in different spaces, Threads's (software) claim for exclusivity is tenuous anyway.
Precisely. If you chose your product/company name to be a common word in the english language you should expect it to be more difficult to exclude others from using it too. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, it's just the consequence of a non-distinctive trademark.
This should apply for both threads software and meta.
I'm a bit surprised how many people here have sympathy for companies trying to enforce exclusivity over common names. Let anybody use "threads" if they want.
Shouldn't you feel "bad" for Meta then? They apparently both "picked the name out of the dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist" _and_ knew about Threads Software Limited before they put the name into use anyway.
Piracy vs. not buying it vs. not downloading it are morally equivalent. The actual ethical stance here is whether or not you're paying for DRM; once you've committed to not doing that, whether or not you choose to pirate it at that point is morally neutral because the effect on the author (and publisher et al.) is the same.
> The Gujo City Fire Department in Gifu Prefecture, which has many ski resorts within its jurisdiction, received 351 emergency calls between Jan. 1 and Jan. 23. Nearly 40% — 135 calls — were made erroneously.
I wonder how many of the 351 emergency calls and how many of the 135 erroneous calls were made by a phone's automatic crash detection system. It's obviously not great that the automatic system is placing so many erroneous calls, but it may be worth the burden on Japan's (or any other country's) emergency services if such calls aren't an overwhelming majority.
But if 99% of the automatic calls are false, the feature won't work. Because the 1% that is a proper automatic call, will be ignored and assumed false as well.
