there are lots of things that pharma companies do which are abusive, but the existence of treatments is rarely one of them. Herbal medicine is cool but inconsistent, relying on inconsistent medicinal dosing will kill people. Other comments point out the question is more “how to do industry” than anything else. And no 99.9% of medicine disappearing will in fact kill people.

This is not something you want to speculate on, the point is that in an anarchist society, biochemical engineers, doctors, researchers, would be figuring out methods to make and produce useful medicine. Dont go all primitivist on it because it’s a complex problem that capitalism leeches from parasitically.

what kinda glowie nonsense is “dont talk to cops” now fascism? dont talk to cops, get a lawyer.

If everyone gave up on a place when futures there look bleak, there wouldnt be a place left in the world worth living in.

warm summer, and bad food prices. the regime expects protests to be historic too.

no you see they’re right, sufficiently simple is just a fancy way of saying the trivial answer of “doesnt exist”

They are purpose designed to give wealthy powerful people more wealth and power while everyone else lives as serfs in a form of tech neofeudalism. It’s bad.

have you considered for a moment, i know it’s crazy, that two authoritarian states historically gnashing at the bit to go to war might be doing this of their own volition?

why do you care that someone didnt say it was worse enough? “x is a problem, if y is true then z is a problem” -> “why didnt you talk about x”

silly.

Because these are often sold with profile building features, for example, recall. Recall is sold as “local only” with profile building features. So it continues to be centralized pii that is a point of failure. As the quote says, as i said.

I don’t care if your language model is “local-only” and runs on the user’s device. If it can build a profile of the user (regardless of accuracy) through their smartphone usage, that can and will be used against people.

emphasis mine from the text you quoted…

building and centralizing pii is indeed a privacy point of failure. what’s not to understand?

that case specifically did not ultimately have broad implications, but similar cases largely affirmed that vendors can refuse clients based on speech they disagree with. however generally these cases have simply danced around the issue. The general implication seems to be you can’t simply discriminate against people based on their identity, but you can refuse to associate with speech content which you disagree with. this isnt set in stone exactly but it seems like this:

You cant refuse to make cakes for black people, but you can refuse to make cakes which say “BLM”, or in the other direction, refuse to make maga cakes, or cakes with swastikas. Can you refuse to cater for say, the rnc? i would imagine so, but it technically isnt addressed that i saw. Can you refuse to cater for a known nazi? Maybe? Probably not technically just by them being a nazi.

what a strangely passive aggressive and rude response. if you want a comment written in your voice and chosen thoughts, you are free to do so.

This is (deploying malware and backdoors outside of wartime, often widely) criticisized very often and rightfully so. By both cybersecurity people and various political leanings, especially leftists.

Your analogy is good. These things are often intended to kill, and are often countervalue (read: target civilians). It is in fact bad no matter what state does it. It however should also come as no surprise that all states variously want to, though for example the usa has historically gone back and forth on how selective they are for many of the reasons you state. Though other reasons include things like not revealing exact capabilities by releasing malware ahead of time to be spotted and studied.

It is not a privelege, it is something being deprived from people by an ever increasingly fascist state. You do not fix a problem by copying it, the other user argued for disenfranchisement, for genocide.

Somehow on beehaw, arguing that it’s mass disenfranchisement or mass executions of roughly a third of the united states, over 100 million people, is fine for some reason. injustice now is not solved by injustice tomorrow, and any person who argues for mass genocidal disenfranchisement is, in fact, a fascist.

you dont fight for what is, but for what can be.

Removed by mod

absolutely not, nobody should ever be barred from democracy. out of the question find another policy to advocate.

fascism to retaliate against fascism is flatly fucking stupid.

participation in democracy and governance is not a privelege.

are you suggesting barring trump voters from democracy, because no fuck that.

arguably the parkour platforming physics are important to a parkour platformer, though…