Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.

This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.

Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.

This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.

A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.

Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.

A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.

A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.

There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.

I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.

I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.

I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.

Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.

People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.

No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.

Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.

I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.

No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.

Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.

An armed society is a polite society.

Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.

My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.

It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.

Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.

Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.

From wikipedia:

In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17] Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.

So your claim that

Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla

conflicts with wikipedia’s history of the company.

SpaceX broke the decades-long practice of costs-plus contracts for lump sum contracts from DOD. DOD wanted to offer them the same costs-plus contract style they give to other defense contractors and SpaceX turned that down and demanded lump sum on delivery.

Oh yes. Surely the federal government could manage it better than Musk. Think of the progress we could have if NASA were running SpaceX instead.

According to the article, the reason X has taken action is because the dossier contains Vance’s home addresses.

So the way it’s ruining those markets is by making more goods available at lower prices?

The push to require paying to read content that is shared openly on the web is designed to drive a feasibility wedge between large and small operations.

It means that a small handful of organizations will actually have the funds to be able to buy enough training data, and that all other smaller AI ventures will be illegal.

This is designed to concentrate AI power into a few hands.

Think critically about the narratives being fed to you. AIs must be allowed to read the web, because if they are not then we will have a unipolar AI ecosystem and the future of humanity will be extremely dark.

We need a multipolar AI ecosystem and the only way to do that is to have lots of small players making their own AI.

If we have a multipolar AI ecosystem, then AI will be forced to play nice because of the effects of parity, and therefore AI will develop along a prosocial, negotiating, respectful path.

Unipolar AI will be tyrannical, cruel, and evil. Unipolar AI will be the result of making it illegal to train AI on web content.

Please see past the propagandistic narrative. Today it is OpenAI that is fighting for this right. Tomorrow it will be smaller players. That is a good thing. That is what we want.

Did the child protection schemes involve compromising the security of communications on the app?

How is Facebook able to know what site is requesting it? Is it in the referer header, or is it parameters in the javascript/image url?

Is that because the like button is an iframe?