lovelearning

It may be to bypass censorship, rather than self-censorship. Some platforms block or shadowban comments with curse words. Not sure about this platform.

Good that I saw this.

The VSCode Antigravity extension I was using turns out to be a 3rd-party one. I found out only today that there's an official extension too, which I think wasn't there earlier.

I'm amazed that in ~450 comments, the word "capitalism" is mentioned in just one - yours - and you've been downvoted for criticizing it!

It seems even a group that purports to be rational critical thinkers don't want to be rational critical thinkers to the extent of looking into the root causes.

I agree with you.

"True" has a connotation of absoluteness and finality. But I doubt humanity can ever know what is "true" about the universe. We can only model its phenomena with better theories, where "better" is always a temporary badge conferred for its prediction power and degree of agreement with known observations. Until an even "better" theory is figured out.

"Now they just need to figure out which ones are _better_"

> If a party today advocated just rolling back to those policies verbatim, they would be called Nazis immediately.

This seems to imply a social ideology rather than a geostrategic one. The term "Nazi" is used for a specific brand of social ideology, not a general term for imperialist policy.

Which policy rollbacks were you talking about?

IMO, neither the UK not the US went to war over moral objections to Nazi or other imperialist ideologies. They themselves were imperialists.

They went to war to fight Germany's, Japan's, and Russia's attempts at geostrategic hegemony. If Germany, USSR, and Japan had stayed in their geostrategic lanes, they wouldn't have invited a war on them.

Your expectations are unrealistic.

Every type of content will have some restrictions. Structural, ideological, financial.

Just about every type of written content on a platform has word limits imposed by its editors. Word limits restrict how much context can be provided in any single article.

Style guides, personal beliefs, management directives, and legal risks impose ideological and political restrictions. Even if an author is candid in the draft copy, reviewers and editors make them tone it down or tone it down themselves without asking the author.

Also doubtful whether a reputed university for elites like Yale will directly point fingers at the rightwing in power or at an elites' blueprint like Project 2025.

Personally, I think all these criticisms of this article are actually a form of centrist deflection and pretense. Centrists support rightwing policies but also don't want to come across as morally bad in such fora. So, to justify their centrism, they criticize the messengers through bikeshedding.

> I know nothing about Atlantic currents or this particular monitoring project

That's the problem.

> This article failed on any level to help me make an informed decision.

You shouldn't rely on just one article to make an "informed decision." Indeed, anyone who genuinely wants to make "informed decisions" must cultivate the habit of actively seeking out to be better informed rather than passively relying on a single article.

There's an entire chain of events that the links in this article lead to...

...The NSF is descoping.

...It's descoping because of federal funding cuts to science projects

...Federal funding cuts are due to the pro-fossil-fuel biases and climate change skepticism of the rightwing Trump admin and its backers. Their ideological strategy to redesign American society, Project 2025, specifically mentions disbanding this very monitoring project.

I was able to find that all out in about 15 minutes though I'm neither American nor reside there or anywhere close to it.

A performative pretense of informed decision making is not the same as genuinely making informed decisions.

> Wait, is everyone who posts on who wants to be hired a sad down-and-out unemployed waif at the end of their rope?

That should be the assumption in an ethical society. Especially given the current economic context. Veil of ignorance principle.

> It makes it out to be unhireable charity cases.

Any "hireable" expert can run into bad luck. A person down on their luck doesn't imply "unhireable." Those recruiters who assume something so illogical - well, perhaps job seekers in this forum are overall better off without such illogical recruiters in the pool. If they make such a wrong assumption at the start, who knows what other illogical assumptions they'll make once the job starts.

> I have been lucky to find employment...

Irrelevant

What are those other tools?

It's not "apologetic" and it wasn't meant to convince you but to refute your pointless pedantic nitpicking for other readers.

Very funny.

However, your analogy is not equivalent to, nor an example for, what I said. There's a difference between a phone's own USB/audiojack interfaces and a wall outlet.

I don't see it as clickbait since the realities of the Android ecosystem is a shared context.

Most people know that just about every Android phone has a restricted hardware design, not an expandable one.

So, "turn your phone into X" is bound to automatically evoke images of another device that plugs into the phone via common connectors like USB or the audio jack and an app on the phone to control that device. That's what the phrase means to most people in the context of Android.

"Turn your phone into a ham radio transceiver controller" is neither needed nor entirely accurate, because then people will assume it can control _any_ ham radio transceiver.