Not if you're familiar with the term stochastic parrot.

Mass surveillance a problem for the rich and powerful? What? You buy enough Trump coin and the president will pardon you. No biggie.

Meanwhile in a country that's branding being against fascism as a crime or even terrorism you could have very serious consequences for just holding up the wrong poster at a demonstration.

Your arguments feel like you haven't been watching the news for the last 15 years. In the past people would warn about mass surveillance and it always had a theoretical feel to it and was easy to dismiss. Then Snowden came along and then Trump II and shit has gotten very real.

You pair that tech with the stuff that's been going on with ICE in the US and it's absolutely terrifying.

That's what I had heard before and also that it takes a while to start working so I was quite surprised when I finally hopped on it myself. It's only been a few days so big caveat here but: I already felt the first pill of 20mg. So much so that I asked my GP to go down to 10mg and I feel that too. And the feeling is reminiscent of an MDMA roll "afterglow" (as it's sometimes called). Just a happy feeling in my stomach for hours and hours, coloring the thoughts that come to my head and making everything seem easier and lighter.

I wonder if it will stay like this or whether this is just a particularly pleasant adjustment period.

Meme 's aside, SSRIs can be a blessing. I'm experiencing it right now.

Also remember: Netanyahu might be the elected leader but he didn't campaign on doing what he's doing now. Netanyahu and Smodrych are not Israel, just like Trump isn't the US.

I forgot to mention that this was on a freshly installed osx. I had just pulled Firefox and was looking for the homebrew website. Google was the default search. I normally have it set to the duck or qwant but I just hadn't come around do it yet.

I also never click on the sponsored links as a matter of principle but I was in a hurry and I was getting sloppy. But was always because I didn't want them to have even more money, not because I thought those links could be harmful.

They only have to be successful once...

Two weeks ago, Google served me a sponsored link that led right to a malicious site trying to install malware. Not only did they not prevent this from being the top hit, they even profited off of it.

The link looked a little dodgy in hindsight. To me. I feel like a company like Google should pick up on it. But they just don't give af anymore.

I just can't comprehend how those SC judges were able to justify this to themselves. The reasoning seems absurd.

Performative moralism is a neat term to describe that part of the equation.

It should be. But instead you would get "thank you for getting back to me" oftentimes.

I wouldn't trust Vance on faith matters, good or otherwise. This is a man who thinks he's Catholic but disagrees with the Pope on some pretty basic stuff.