DarkKomunalec

> You also haven't answered why you feel this way.

My feelings are irrelevant - they make my points neither more nor less valid.

> science is never final

Why not wait till we're (more) certain? What's the worst that could happen? Catastrophic, runaway climate-change? I say we risk it - at least the science will have been settled...

FUD works both ways.

So the error is... where? If you think I am beyond saving, at least point it out for the sake of any not-yet-lost souls reading.

Ignorance? Well, please point out where I made an error - I'd be happy to correct it.

> stop having babies

Most of the west has already drastically reduced the number of babies. All that happened is we were told we need immigration instead.

Left and right ideas are just stepping stones to profit.

After all, the 'left-leaning' Google sure isn't pushing for unions, only for what will benefit them.

"orthogonal: Of two or more problems or subjects, independent of [..] each other."

..I guess you're right. I understood orthogonal a bit too mathematically, and since the 'dot product' of both concepts with election results is non-zero... and concepts cannot have negative dot-products (???)... well, that's where I realized I was holding the analogy wrong.

They can both be used by one or both parties to secure power - on that axis, they are objectively not orthogonal.

Data-gathering companies can and do co-operate, or someone wanting to learn something can just buy the data from several of them - price per bit of data should be the same. So breaking them up isn't really a solution to this problem.

As for why monopolies aren't getting broken up, I'd say a combination of increased corporate control of government, and global trade necessitating ever larger companies to compete, because tariffs are 'evil'.

What he said was:

Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.

Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.

How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?

> claiming that thanks to cryptography the world of intelligence was “going dark”. Quite the opposite was true [...] Twenty years ago it cost over a thousand pounds a day to follow a suspect around, and weeks of work to map his contacts; Ed Snowden told us how nowadays an officer can get your location history with one click and your address book with another. In fact, searches through the contact patterns of whole populations are now routine.

Funny how the massively increased surveillance never prompted cops and spy agencies to ask for more limited powers, but the smallest hint of encryption has them crying for even more invasive powers.

Just not funny 'ha ha'.