If one person says hey we should do this thing, and everyone else says no we shouldn’t based on the information we have, and it turns out that the one person was right because of things nobody knew at the time, that’s a boring plot device. When it happened multiple times, and then kinda all the time, I stopped watching.

Kirk and Sisko sometimes disagreed with their crews. Sometimes they were wrong. Burnham was always right. And it got old.

“Our recipes are consistent, like a good espresso maker.”

“Okay cool, how do you know that?”

“So many questions! We’re hackers! We are very smart.”

That’s the thing. They have no way of even knowing if they messed up! I’m not even sure the way they could be messing up is a thing they know they should be worried about.

I’m not disputing the reasoning behind why this is important. But “it is important” does not imply that their solution is the right one.

got lucky

That is not how I’d characterize 2016 at all. Also, I would like to refer you to argument number two.

There are alternatives to pyrolysis that are slowly coming online. They have their drawbacks – it’s certainly easier to chuck a bunch of mixed plastic into a reactor and heat it up until something happens – but they’re real.

I worked on one of them for a few years. It’s pretty cool! They’re currently building a pilot plant to demonstrate the technology at scale.

It sounds like you’re breaking down cops into several categories:

1. Cops that do bad things on purpose
2. Cops that do bad things on accident
3. Cops that work alongside groups 1 and 2

Sure, group 3 cops may use that discretion for good. Maybe they don’t pull someone over for going one over the speed limit, or decide to look the other way when a homeless guy tries to sell cigarettes. I agree with you, this is the kind of discretion that’s supposed to happen.

But when people say ACAB, they’re saying that when cops that don’t do terrible things work alongside cops that do, they are complicit. One cop slowly, agonizingly kills a guy. Three cops watch and do nothing to stop him. That’s an extreme example. But there’s a million small versions of that, in every big city and small town, where a cop uses either their legal authority or “I’m a person with a gun” authority to do something bad, and their coworkers let it happen.

Cops that don’t stop their coworkers from doing bad things are just as bad as those doing the bad things. So, ACAB.

I understand the sentiment, and I’m definitely not a Boeing apologist. But the first version of the Apollo command module killed three astronauts. They had growing pains, too.

You should ask, like, any woman in your life.

NetNewsWire on iOS and the Mac. Pretty great, and it’s FOSS to boot. Still working on a decent front end on other OSes, the web client is okay-fine but could be better.

Typical hexbear user

Either you’re creating anti democratic propaganda or you’re consuming and regurgitating it. Fuck off.

You’re forcing a black-and-white dichotomy where one does not exist, which is a nice oversimplification that’s the exact sort of thing I’m talking about.

Everyone loves freedom! Like the freedom to:

• pay a child to work in a mine
• schedule workers for 80+ hours a week
• drive without speed limits
• use as much water out of the local river as desired
• dump waste into that same river
• sell unregulated, untested medicine

So obviously there are “freedoms” that mainly serve to infringe on the actual freedoms of others. Those just happen to be the ones that libertarians don’t talk about so much but are really what they’re after.