zeth___

Yes, it's called voting. Unfortunately it seems that in the US the Democrats are more in the pocket of Big Data than the Republicans so it's a choice of 'do I like minorities or privacy more'.

How else can any one justify working for capitalists?

I enjoy destroying the environment for future generations so they don't have it too easy?

Google et al can't focus on his policies because they benefit from them. Or their owners at any rate.

The rich will not save us from themselves. But they will put a nice rainbow flag up with the wages they stole from us.

Microsoft got smacked down by the DoJ hard.

Here's hoping that Trump in his second term hits the digital monopolies with the anti-trust legislation they have been flaunting for the last 10 years.

Just because they are somewhat closer to me socially doesn't mean I want to sell out my freedoms to them.

Every community I know that's been started for the goal of 'protecting' some group has ended up as the most toxic tarpit imaginable.

Mastodon seems to be headed in the same direction.

Tone down the rhetoric of protecting peoples feelings and have actual human conversations instead. You will only attract the worst people from both sides of that debate if you keep it up.

You just made me orders of magnitude less likely to use it because all I heard there was "prepare for lots of drama".

The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different.

Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?

Right, and now compare it to the original bag.

You have increased variability between generations by reducing the variability in the second generation.

You misunderstand the argument.

It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2.

You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries).

That's the whole point of sexual vs natural selection.

Science has been hijacked from the inside for a long time now. While it's better than trusting straight up corporate releases, there are thumbs on the scales that push studies to get the results those giving the funding want.

Social science is particularly bad at this, to the point I doubt any research done since the 1950s isn't ideologically tainted, at that time due to the cold war and the need to discredit anything "communist".

Where? The only thing even remotely negative I see in the top comments is questioning why they had so many big names on the board that had nothing to do with startups, biotechnology or medicine.

In hindsight it seems like a way to keep the government away by trying to bribe people in it.