LesserAbe

Let's skip the "I have no basic survival skills" part (also skipping disease) and assume we find a nearby group of humans. If you approach first contact carefully they'd probably let you live with them in exchange for labor, giving you time to learn the language.

I think I have enough ambient exposure to modern technology that I could contribute at least 3-4 major innovations to my group over a couple decades. The challenge would be conveying and implementing ideas more than remembering them. You're not going to get back to modern standards of living in your remaining time traveled years no matter how much you remember, but what little you can impart to others would earn your keep.

I don't know what all the innovations would be, but germ theory and pasteurization come to mind.

Yes, that's kind of what I was getting at - having this cloud browser thing would be significantly worse for privacy than even a smart phone.

Setting aside the financial management of the church, it's one of the largest organizations in the world which tells people what the purpose of life is. Its members believe the person they're selecting has authority from God to say what actions are right and wrong.

While I don't personally believe that, hard not to see it's a position of significant power and people have an interest in knowing or influencing the outcome.

Can you share what your reasons are for considering a dumb phone?

For me I'm probably not actually going to get one, but have idly thought about it. If I were to get one it would be to free me from the attention sink of web browsing and apps. So I don't find it appealing to consider a dumb phone that still has web browsing but using some sort of work around.

No. Stop being a dick

Yeah, it says they're charging him with something that has a max sentence of five years, seems like it would be a lot heavier if they could show he was planning to take action.

Sure you can. I think it's wrong to murder people for no reason. I say something like "government should avoid baseless murder." Maybe I'm offending people who have deeply held pro murder beliefs, but I'm right and they're wrong.

I'm making a joke here, but to illustrate the principle that just because a country has some tradition or practice doesn't mean it can't be criticized. There is such a thing as objective reality.

And of course we have to recognize that we ourselves can be mistaken about the truth so it's smart to practice a degree of humility and introspection when it comes to people we disagree with. Even so, I'm pretty comfortable saying that laws which imprison people for criticizing a king are counterproductive and harmful to a society.

The reason why free speech is a good idea is because it makes error correction possible. People come at subjects from all different angles, and inevitably someone will misjudge a subject, while a person approaching from another angle has an insight that would be helpful. In other words, people make mistakes, and if it's illegal to point out a mistake it's unlikely to be corrected. I don't follow the Thai monarchy but I'm sure it's made mistakes, and it should be legal to say so.

Sure, we're in agreement as far as that goes. My point was just the commenter above me was indicating it should be common knowledge that Tesla self driving hits motorcycles more than other self driving cars. And whether their comment was about this or some other subject, I think it's counterproductive to be like "everyone knows that."

It's helpful to remember that not everyone has seen the same stories you have. If we want something to change, like regulators not allowing dangerous products, then raising public awareness is important. Expressing surprise that not everyone knows about something can be counterproductive.

Going beyond that, wouldn't the new information here be the statistics?

I don't think there's a lot of those around here. Kind of off-putting because I knew it would be bad, and now have to live it.

Who are you addressing here