Look at their actions, not their words specifically.

It's a culture where being unkind is particularly unacceptable, not specifically where you're not allowed to be honest or forthright.

You're allowed to not like someone, but telling someone you dislike them is needlessly unkind, so you just politely decline to interact with them.
You'd "hate to intrude", or "be a bother". If it's pushed, you'll "consider it and let them know".

Negative things just have to be conveyed in the kindest way possible, not that they can't be conveyed.

Brian Acton is the only billionaire I can think of that hasn't been a net negative.

Co-founded WhatsApp, which became popular with few employees. Sold the service at a reasonable rate.
Sold the business for a stupid large sum of money, and generously compensated employees as part of the buyout.
Left the buying company, Facebook, rather than do actions he considered unethical, at great personal expense ($800M).

Proceeded to cofound signal, which is an open, and privacy focused messaging system which he has basically bankrolled while it finds financial stability.

He also has been steadily giving away most of his money to charitable causes.

Billionaires are bad because they get that way by exploiting some combination of workers, customers or society.
In the extremely unlikely circumstance where a handful of people make something fairly priced that nearly everybody wants, and then uses the wealth for good, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being that person.
Selling messaging to a few billion people for $1 a lifetime is a way to do that.

I believe their point was that even encrypted messages convey data. So if you have a record of all the encrypted messages, you can still tell who was talking, when they were talking, and approximately how much they said, even if you can't read the messages.

If you wait until someone is gone and then loudly raid their house, you don't need to read their messages to guess the content of what they send to people as soon as they find out. Now you know who else you want to target, despite not being able to read a single message.

This type of metadata analysis is able to reveal a lot about what's being communicated. It's why private communication should be ephemeral, so that only what's directly intercepted can be scrutinized.

Statistically you're unlikely to have lasting issues as a result of getting them removed. It's a very common outpatient procedure.

When you go in, they'll likely give you nitrous oxide, which will make you relax a little, and they'll let you sit and breathe it for a few minutes. I'd recommend bringing headphones since some nice music will help.
Then they'll give you an IV that will make you not worry and likely barely remember what comes next. Basically a big dose of super valium.
Then they'll give you some pain killers and local anesthetic and remove the teeth.

Your memory and orientation will start to come back in about an hour, by which time hopefully the person who transported you has gotten you home. You will not be able to care for yourself during the intervening time. You will be uncoordinated and of poor judgement.

When you get home it's best to try to sleep until the meds that the dentist gave you wear off, or just watch TV. Take ibuprofen or Tylenol mostly, but an occasional opioid will help since there is some pain that the antiinflammatories don't help with as much, although they take care of most of it.
Soft foods for a few days, and no straws.

All in all, you should be back to normal within two weeks, and you'll get to feel nice and excited to eat something crunchy or chewy.

If you've had pain associated with your wisdom teeth, I'd recommend going forward as scheduled. The pain may have gone away temporarily, but it'll come back.
I let mine go too long, and one of the wisdom teeth cracked open because of pressure on it from another tooth, which also damaged that tooth which was fortunately able to be repaired.
The pain from waiting for outstripped the discomfort of the procedure.

Depends on your level of security consciousness. If you're relying on security identifiers or apis that need an "intact" system, it certainly can be a security issue if you can't rely of those.

That being said, it's not exactly a plausible risk for most people or apps.

Big difference is that a human can be yelled at and told what to do, and we currently don't have a good way for someone to do that with an autonomous vehicle.

It's not nearly as nefarious as people seem to think. Effectively all applications that access web resources send along what they are and basic platform information.
This is part of how the application asks for content in a way that it can handle
It does a little to let you be tracked, but there are other techniques that are far more reliable for that purpose.

I mean, if they want to make it more enticing, go for it. Just leave me the option to not be enticed.

My workplace lets everyone work from home or an office as they see fit. Some people need different things to work best. Some people miss the face-to-face that they used to get in the office, so management put together monthly "we're catering lunch, and teams are encouraged to plan whatever activities they think might work better in office for this day, but make sure it's optional".

So once a month I go and get some free food, and we do some face to face planning which benefits a bit from being together, and last month the team hung out and chatted for a bit after work, which was nice.

If management wants people in office, I'd much rather they try to make that happen by making being in office worth it, as opposed to telling people they have to or else. Carrot > stick.

Imagine being able to recall the important parts of a movie, it's overall feel, and significant themes and attributes after only watching it one time.

That's significantly closer to what current AI models do. It's not copyright infringement that there are significant chunks of some movies that I can play back in my head precisely. First because memory being owned by someone else is a horrifying thought, and second because it's not a distributable copy.

I hardly think the scene in the movie with people openly weeping and retching seeing footage from the bombings is part of the movie "glossing over" the human effects of the bombs. It's just not what the movie was about.

As for the general public, you can't just expect people to never have a sense of humor about something ever for all time, particularly when it's something that can occupy a significant and impactful sense of brain space.
It's how people relieve some of the emotional tension of a heavy topic. It's why we had COVID jokes and memes, and it's why in the past you saw a lot more nuke humor. There was an omnipresent specter of "there's a weapon that can kill everyone, it can kill us at any moment, we keep building more, and I'm utterly powerless in the face of this fact".

Laughing at the juxtaposition of Oppenheimer and the aesthetic that barbie presents requires an understanding of the horror of what the man ultimately produced.

Copies that were freely shared for the purpose of letting anyone look at them.

Do you think it's copyright infringement to go to a website?

Typically, ephemeral copies that aren't kept for a substantial period of time aren't considered copyright violations, otherwise viewing a website would be a copyright violation for every image appearing on that site.

Downloading a freely published image to run an algorithm on it and then deleting it without distribution is basically the canonical example of ephemeral.

Keep in mind that a lot of the "bad" of today is just people noticing the bad that's been there all along.

People still make fun colorful content, and we make more of that now than we did in the 90s.
It's just that the hateful angry people didn't have Internet access then, and they do now.

It wasn't considered okay to talk about a lot of problems at the time, and it is now.

The Internet of the 90s is incompatible with billions of people using it.
Once you make Internet access less something that only a small group of relatively privileged people have access to, and less are interested in, and something that a more representative sample of the world can use and want to use, you find out that people more often prioritize sex, cats, banal updates on their friends and family, gossip, and to get it in a easy to absorb package.