And now I’ve ditched Proton. Andy Yen’s comments made me skeptical, but I was still confident that their mission was intact. This move, to a social media platform with a demonstrated willingness to censor non-corporatist views, confirms my fears that they are giving up their principles.

I think this is right on the money.

Jfc. Just call it the SA at this point.

Now scribe some inch markings either side of it and add a built in ruler to your bench. #featurenotflaw

Not going to disagree with that, but you’re responding to somebody who obviously has no background in physics, and it strikes me as a reasonable balance between conceptual (“hand wavy”) and detailed enough.

This is an excellently written response.

Grow a damn backbone!

Self-righteously resigning only works if the other side wants the organization to continue functioning. Musk and his cronies want things to fail. This is literally what they want.

No, that’s an incorrect summation of one part of my argument.

The response to your comment is in my second sentence.

I think you missed my point entirely.

We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out

This point is hugely important, but not for the reason that you intended.

You are mistaken on an essential aspect of your argument: calling out bigoted or discriminatory views out is the definition of not tolerating them. At the same time, the bigotry you’re describing - not permitting people to exist in open society - is exactly the reason we cannot tolerate those kind of views.

The essence of bigotry is that entire categories of individuals don’t deserve the same rights as others. People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue because they believe that their opponents don’t deserve the right to be part of the discussion.

One side is saying that we cannot tolerate these views. The other side is saying that they will not tolerate our humanity.

This isn’t a perspective that is subject to change by reason.

If you’re going to try and call somebody out like that, you should do your homework.

The only times since 1998 (the first year of data for Ukraine) that Russia was deemed less corrupt than Ukraine were the stretches from 2000-2004 and 2011-2015.

Ukraine performed better than Russia 1998-1999, 2005-2008, 2010, and 2017-2023. They were a cumulative 20 points better on corruption than Russia over that time.

No, I’m talking about the 2004 elections. In case you’d forgotten, Russia was so upset about failing that they attempted to assassinate the rightful winner. When Yanukovych eventually gained power, he was so transparent about wanting to turn Ukraine into an authoritarian vassal state of Russia that parliament removed him and undid his efforts to convert the presidency into a dictatorship. And then he fled to Russia.

You did not. You hinted at a point without stating it directly.

Are you saying that this corruption charge is disingenuous and intended to redirect attention from other issues? Because if so you need to make that explicit and then support it with evidence. Otherwise it sounds like you’re parroting known disinformation.

Ukraine is actively trying to battle their corruption, with this being a step towards that end, however small.

Meanwhile Russia is famously more corrupt than Ukraine, has been since long before Maidan, attempted to pervert Ukraine’s elections to install a corrupt leader under their control, and then invaded in an attempt to expropriate Ukrainian land and resources when that attempt failed.

What point are you trying to make here?

Good point. This journal was just delisted from Clarivate because of integrity violations as well.

It’s almost too absurd to believe.

There’s a conversation to be had about microplastic contamination, but this study feels and sounds like bad faith argument.

This study is unscientific garbage and should be retracted.

Their “simulation” of making tea involved 300 teabags boiled in 600ml of water at 95 C while being stirred at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time. They then took counts using undiluted samples of that liquid.

It isn’t clear why they chose such an absurd methodology, but it is absolutely spurious to draw conclusions from this about teabags used under normal conditions.

This study is such bullshit. They took 300 teabags and boiled them in 600ml of water while stirring at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time, and claim their method to be an accurate simulation of making a cup of tea.