I'm annoyed at the lack of detail in TFA. It only mentions this as the end:
> Beiermeister started a peer-mentorship program for women at OpenAI in early 2025. The program connected women from different parts of the company and helped them gather in small groups to discuss career strategies, according to people familiar with the matter.
I wonder if it's implying that the discrimination complaint was from a man being excluded from these.
HR ignores (or pays attention) to these issues based on the needs of senior management. She probably was fighting something more senior execs wanted, made some bad waves, or generally outlived her usefulness, etc. so they started to pay attention to these instead of not.
Notably, it’s technically just as illegal to have women only spaces as men only spaces, it was just trendy for awhile to ignore that.
their monopolies were formed in a different time, when it might have been thought prudent to drop bad merchants even if they themselves did not bear the risk in order to not get governmental regulation imposed that would be more detrimental than just dropping the merchants.
Not saying that's the case, just given circumstances not sure if risk is needed to explain the result in this case.
Russian infra doesn’t suck that much, I guess it was overbuilt in soviet times. Armenian, on the oner hand… But they’re “societally prepared” in the sense that repairs are quick usually, and there are even some upgrades recently.
your company's mod in that thread said there was supposed to be no SMTP at all for any plan but it was enabled by a bug. then once you saw people were using it you decided to milk your bug via the most expensive payment plan.
but that's your internal dealings. from your paying customers perspective, company had a change in the environment where something was working and now it's not. which could be even okay if it was a legit bug that was fixed, but what makes it worse is instead you said "just pay us 4x more and you get it back". for some users it probably just broke
production, is there a more perfect time for blackmail right?
don't try to paint it as altruistic attempt to reduce spam in the internet, this is sleazy af
In Russia none of that slippery slope stuff happened. Just they murdered journalists and opposition, installed TPUs at every ISP and passed a law making any VPN related advice illegal. And people are fine with that apparently
In Thailand porn was straight up illegal for ages and everything else was sane and open... until new government decided to kill freedom of speech.
So slippery slope is illusion. If government is bad it don't need to try to be so complicated and gradual. It can't even think so far ahead, they will no longer be elected when that times comes.
As for social media banning for teens that's just common sense. Social media is fuming pile of garbage designed to make people feel miserable so that corporate overlords make $$$ https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58570353.amp
There’s a trivial way of fixing social media without mass surveillance or free speech restrictions: Just put a punitive tax on advertising revenue. People can say whatever they want, but the incentives behind social media disappear. This won’t be implemented because this was never about making society a better place.
And your examples only show that where there’s no safeguards, governments don’t need to be subtle, but in semi-functional democracies, they still need to at least pretend to be electable.
No, it started with "protecting the children" around 2010, and followed the bit-by-bit step-by-step boiling the frog approach for years, until the grip on the internet (as well as offline publications) became strong enough to do you know what to you know whom.
pls explain how 2010 is related to current censorship
it's not slippery slope when it's things that happened at different times. there are examples where x did not lead to y as well as where y happened without x happening before it.
I don't use it, but it doesn't start or stop at Discord. Age checking is already implemented as live face video & ID uploads and already deployed by every large tech company all over the world. They just have to flip a switch in our market.
To use my phone, Google wants me to verify my identity and age[1][2].
They're boiling the frog, give it a few years, and if you want to use any internet connected device at all, you'll need to sacrifice your face and ID as tribute. If you want to talk to someone else, you'll need to identify yourself with the platform or network on which you communicate. If you want to run an app that serves you any user generated content in any capacity, you'll need to identify yourself first.
The text below the youtube video is not a transcript of the video, it's more like a short summary. The video is much longer than that.
I didn't appreciate how he slid into a sponsored block without saying that he slid into a sponsored block. Not only that, he never says it's a sponsor, not within this 2 minute sponsor block, not before or after. The only way to know it is by looking at chapter titles or by guessing by the changed style of the video with graphics and "link below" stuff (so if you're just listening you'd never know). Even if it's relevant to what you're saying (you can pick your sponsors so that's a given) it should be explicitly marked. Even if you think they do a good thing (presumably you would think so, you picked them as a sponsor) it should be marked. Even if it was a non profit (it's not a non-profit).
if it helps people facing terminal illness it doesn't mean it should be OTC. "facing terminal illness" probably needs strong stuff. something required for that can harm the normal guy. it's not like Vit D supplement.
No, what I mean is it takes pulling teeth to get someone who would die anyway, the ability to try experimental drugs even with a doctor’s prescription.
It’s a separate dysfunction than their obsession with making things Rx-only, such as for example, an albuterol inhaler. In Mexico you can just grab one at a drugstore.
> No, what I mean is it takes pulling teeth to get someone who would die anyway, the ability to try experimental drugs even with a doctor’s prescription.
This topic came up in another online community (which I'm intentionally not mentioning) a lot a few years ago. I left a comment about why giving experimental drugs to terminally ill patients is not a simple or obvious idea like many would assume. I got some very long, very intense replies from someone who was dying of a type of cancer who believed he had a good shot at recovery if he could get his hands on an experimental drug. He had all of the links and papers to prove it.
I remember trying to take it all in and reconsider my position.
A few years later, there was a post from his wife that he had died. It was a very sad situation. I clicked some of her links and found that he had a blog where he had written a lot. He actually did go through with the process of requesting the experimental drug and his request was granted. However, the drug not only didn't work, it had caused some irreversible damage to his body that made his final months a lot more painful and difficult than they had to be.
Apparently the "compassionate use" exemptions are not as hard to get as the anti-FDA writers have led us to believe. The harder part is often getting the companies to provide the drugs, because they know the risk profiles and uncertainties better than anyone and aren't always interested in letting terminally ill patients experiment on themselves outside of the process.
experimantal, not fully proven drugs available to help terminally ill patients (which should be true) needs first to make sure the patient is terminally ill. it is not about making them available OTC to anyone who asks. because what happens then is free for all, scams and corporate experimentation on live population.
What specifically do you think is problematic about this, and how do you propose that we mitigate companies from preying on desperate patients while making it easier for patients in need?
What about drugs that were initially prescribed, but have to be taken for a long time?
A long time ago I had a Lexapro prescription. This is a very, very common drug and is on the list of the WHO's essentials for bootstrapping a healthcare system.
Then I quit my job and spent a few months unemployed. I was no longer seeing the psych who prescribed them and I was not covered by health insurance.
The last few refills my prescription had? Walgreens bumped the price to $200 a bottle, and unless I paid another doctor there was no way to keep taking the medication I'd been on for two years.
Mind you, this drug is old and generics are CHEAP. I've also got all the knowledge I need to take it safely because I have been.
Instead of doing that, I made the decision to quit rather than deal with the doctor mafia. We let people buy industrial chemicals on the Internet and trust they're not gonna kill themselves with it, but somehow my situation was an unacceptable risk?
reply