This reads like some sort of puritanical anti porn campaign. A lot of porn that seems illegal because of the specific kinks or themes, is actually consensual. How would CNN be able to tell them apart? Personally, I don’t think fantasies are problematic even if they’re disturbing to others, as long as those participating are willing.
Fascinating. How much of this is actually real and how much is people filling in a story that’s not necessarily reality but fits what we humans want to see? It feels very complex and I wonder how anyone can really know what’s happening with the social issues within these gorilla groups.
Also I wonder how much of Imfura’s aggression is due to his earlier trauma. From elsewhere on the same site, written in 2022:
> Imfura has a solid relationship with his father, dominant silverback Gicurasi, who himself had a close partnership with Imfura’s mother before her death. The bond between father and son has been strong since 2011, when then-2-year-old Imfura found himself trapped in a poacher’s snare. He was terrified, screaming in fear as the gorillas around him tried to free him. Our tracker Jean Bosco Ntrenganya was able to cut the rope loose, allowing Imfura to escape, but it took two days for Gicurasi to calm down enough a veterinary intervention to be done to remove the rope that was still attached to the young gorilla’s foot. Imfura survived the trauma and became closer to his father.
His father, who was the dominant male before the current dominant male, died last year. Perhaps it explains some of this?
It's hard to believe any of it as the true reality after reading how much this article differed from the new Netflix documentary A Gorilla Story: Told by David Attenborough that I watched a couple of weeks ago. The story they told involving these specific gorillas was quite bit different than the one described here.
The aggression could be from trauma, but aggressionn is also just part of being a male gorilla. They need to drive off rival males and, if they dont have a troop, depose or at least survive an encounter with a full silverback. Aggression is a useful tool in such situations.
Most DEI programs at big companies ended up setting goals based on things like race and sex. Zealots in HR departments then started implementing programs to change hiring and promotion and compensation to implement progressive identity politics at work, under the DEI label. These things happened in secret, because the companies didn’t like to highlight how being the wrong race or sex means your career is worse off.
That’s totally illegal and discriminatory but companies were not facing consequences for it under the Biden administration. The constant injection of DEI politics all over society - at work, in movies, in ads, etc - led to a backlash and personally I think it is one of the things that led to someone like Trump being re-elected. And this administration is very against DEI ideology. That’s one reason corporations quickly abandoned it - they didn’t want to face legal scrutiny now.
Another is that DEI culture produced no positive results, as expected. Companies already had incentives to hire the best employees they can. If you change that with other incentives thrown in, it’ll make things worse. And ten years after DEI began to appear everywhere, it was obvious it produced no benefit at best, and led to worse teams at worst.
Another reason is simply that a lot of the activists pushing this type of ideology grew out of the activist age group. And I think many of them likely don’t hold those beliefs as strongly anymore. But either way, younger people are different. Especially young males who are more conservative.
All of that and other things has led to DEI being removed or at least de emphasized.
Yep. These nonprofits have a tendency of being abused for the personal causes of their staff. Clearly this isn’t part of their mission unless you go through some mental gymnastics.
We need to remove immunity for everyone. Cops, judges, politicians. Otherwise the most justice you get is taking money from taxpayers with a lawsuit, rather than from the corrupt people doing the crime.
And you'll end up with no reasonable person wanting to do those jobs becausr any day any bs complaint or lawsuit could cost you your livelihood, no thanks.
Hence insurance on the individual. Kick in the wrong door and insurance covers it. Do it twice and suddenly the actuary sees an expensive and risky pattern.
It is nuanced. Insurers can be problematic. Tort law has strange incentive structures in the way it's implemented in various places. But, broadly speaking, the price of insurance is an informative signal.
Doctors regularly have people's lives in their hands and if they make a significant mistake, they are liable. Not that the current state of medical malpractice law is exactly the gold standard, but that's an example of another approach to a similar situation. I do hear that some folks avoid the profession because of that, but I don't think that it's the case that "no reasonable person" wants to work in healthcare.
I don't think most reasonable people want police to be personally liable for every single thing they do, but neither do they want them to have broad and complete immunity from the law. The answer is somewhere in the middle, where police are protected in certain situations, but do still need to think about the consequences of their actions.
> Medical services are a good deal cheaper in texas because they have doctor friendly malpractice laws
I didn't do more than 30 seconds of research here so I won't claim to be an expert, but according to the report in [1], Texas is the state with the fifth highest medical bills, "highest percentage of adults who have chosen not to see a doctor at some point in the past 12 months due to cost", and "the highest percentage of children—14.9%—whose families struggled to pay for their child’s medical bills in the past 12 months".
Some of that is no doubt Texas refusing to expand Medicaid under the ACA, but also "the study found that Texas exhibits the fourth-highest annual premium for both plus-one health insurance coverage ($4,626) and family health insurance coverage ($7,051.33) through an employer," so "a good deal cheaper" doesn't really seem an apt descriptor.
It's symbolic since these cases broadly speaking need to be adjudicated in federal court for the most part and the federal law doesn't mention any immunities, it's a court-created doctrine. But neither the court nor congress thinks it's urgent enough of an issue, the last time a bill had support it ended up with around 70 cosponsors and it adds nothing but affirms that the law is applied as written and didn't get a vote, during the short period of tri-partisanship in 2020, because nbd it only accounts for 3-4 billion dollars of money that is taken from those who aren't able to be charged with any crime and redistributed to cops around the country in a sort of slush fund fashion, chump change if you consider how much debt we're running for... god knows what at this point. When you speak in trillions and can simply handwave that sort of deficit away, a few billion eventually sounds trivial, I'm guessing.
Plainly, we don’t have to pretend like there could be unforeseen consequences. This is a thing that exists in many jurisdictions and many societies around the world and we can see that many reasonable people become police officers in those societies.
That's how it is for literally every other fucking job. The goddamn cashier at McDonalds could theoretically get fired if some bozo complains loudly enough, even if it's not true.
We're legitimately at the point where mcdondalds cashiers have higher standards for accountability and behavior than the police. Just sit back and really, really think about that. And, to top it off, there's droves of people like yourself who are so accustomed to such a broken system that they legitimately believe it couldn't be done any other way - even though there are minimum wage workers working under stricter rules!
People should take this seriously. Not that we can’t have data centers that use renewable energy and recycle most of the water. But because cost cutting and mistakes and greed can make things go wrong.
See Anthropic buying compute from Musk’s potentially illegal gas powered datacenter or the Georgia datacenter that seems to have used up 30 million gallons of water without authorization, which caused residents to have low water pressure.
Banning Starlink is inadequate and won't change anything. China is building its own larger version with 25,000+ satellites. Russia is building its own network. The EU is building its own network.
You don’t think there might be a better solution than having a dozen or more companies all launching thousands of satellites which all perform the same function?
Right, because not wanting the night skies polluted for someone else’s profits, with no fair compensation to me, is somehow the same as banning the Industrial Revolution? What exactly are we not able to do with terrestrial internet?
What’s an algorithm? As I understand it, some of the origins of programming languages go back to India. Could those be considered “algorithms” even though they don’t resemble modern computing?
We also need liability. Every time someone’s data is lost, the company losing it must be held accountable. They owe us huge amounts of money, and executives + board members should be jailed. No free pass.
Let’s see then if they really want to collect all our information all the time. Right now, they take it and handle it irresponsibly because they’re free from consequences.
The dependency tree for anything in the software world is so large, that liability like you describe is not feasible. Tomorrow Anthropic's latest model will find a RCE in SYNs being sent to a server? Who is "liable" when you lose your Google account, your bank account, access to your car and all ways to prove to the government you are who you are all at the same time?
reply