> That person is currently in prison.

But isn't Anne Sacoolas walking free?

You haven't "basically gone through this", since person that killed your sister was held accountable for their actions.

Anne Sacoolas was not held accountable, that family has no closure unlike yours.

> If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story

She is to be charged with "causing death by _dangerous_ driving", not an accident.

All that being said I'm sorry about your sister and I hope you're doing OK.

What kind of music are you looking for?

If the iPad was a standalone business, and had no access to the Apple ecosystem or brand, do you think it would still generate ~$20B/year?

Obviously we can't know, but the point is success is relative.

Some people might expect better from Apple and so their standard for success is higher than $20B/year on one of their flagship products.

I believe that's the Barnum effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

The UK mentalist Derren Brown has a brilliant example passage of this in his 2007 book "Tricks of the Mind". It was all about what you felt like as a child and your relationship to your parents. Very clever. I remember showing it to a friend at university who became extremely emotional and couldn't believe it wasn't tailored to them.

> Apple makes no distinction between companies on it's platform that compete with it and those that do not, they are all treated the same, so it's hard to see an argument that this is mainly targeted at their competitors holding water.

There was that story last year about them ranking their own apps above competing 3rd party apps when searching.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-dominates-app-store-searc...

Yep that was pretty skeevey, I’m glad they were held to account and stopped that, but it’s actually nothing to do with the point about not treating individual third parties differently.

> And as for the organs, much of the west ( especially in europe ) take people's organs without their explicit consent (it's called opt-out organ "donation".

I feel like equating the forcible harvesting of organs to opt out organ donation is extremely disingenuous.

I have a feeling that "forcible havesting of organs" is just propaganda. I remember hearing about "forcible harvesting of organs" of the falun gong 20 years ago when the west and china were going through a difficult period of china's ascension to the WTO. And once the "difficulties" were overcome, nothing about falun gong and the "organ harvesting".

I also remember the propaganda about iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospitals which turned out to be a manufactured lie.

I'm sure the chinese government does a lot of bad things, like every major government, but the 24/7 ridiculous "news" we are getting now, is just propaganda.

I'm not a psychic, but I predicted the following when the trade war began.

1. "organ harvesting" ( to be fair I mistakenly assumed it would be tied to tibetans or the falun gong )

2. hong kong protest ( just like during the pivot to asia 5 years ago )

3. "chinese spies" or "politicians" magically defecting with outlandish stories

4. "international" awards ( nobel peace, think tank awards, whatever ) being awarded to politically expedient people

And if things really escalate, then I'll make another prediction - yellow peril style propaganda. And of course, the chinese will also escalate their propaganda.

This is the internet. You can't retrospectively claim your predictions have come true without providing a dated link to when you actually made them.

If the PRC wants to be respected, they could publish information and allow journalists in instead of lying.

The worrying part is the American public keeps falling for the same tricks: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, Syria has chemical weapons, Gaddafi's soldiers supposedly issued viagra for raping women, voting Bush for second term, etc.

I have no doubt these countries have done horrible things, but they do not deserve to be invaded and subjected to millions of civilian deaths.

> There are objectively right and wrong answers in politics.

What would be considered objectively right or wrong?

> And oh boy, did they ever.

I cannot wait until the MBP 2025 with the whole keyboard replaced by the touchbar..

Who needs tactile feedback?

`CMD + Shift + F` applies formatting.

Unfortunately it must be done every time, no autoformatting by default it seems.

>It’s easier to make vague funny one liners which reach the top of the page, drowning out that 8 page report on the telecom industry.

>Bashing a political candidate? Channel crusher.

I see this all the time on Reddit in subs like /r/politics and /r/news, sarcastic quips get thousands of upvotes and dominate the discussion with no room for any dissenting opinions. Makes it real hard to find out who's being genuine in their approach and who's towing the party line for upvotes. Reddit isn't great for discussion though.

I suppose my question is, what stops your forum from becoming an echo chamber? Are "vague funny one liners" and "Bashing a political candidate" considered bad speech even if they're not leading to crazier philosophies? Would the hundreds of one liners about Trump in /r/politics be considered bad speech? Where can I find genuine discourse?

No where.

Recognize that political speech is too valuable for political actors to leave to its own ends.

They will create tools and ways to influence it, and the internet allows for maximal influence and personalization.

I suggest an entirely more radical approach in future.

Make a prediction on a topic of your interest. Ask others to do so as well. Put it up in a public location. Set a time limit.

After the time limit see who’s prediction came true.

Talk through action and proof. Any idle political conversation represents a poisoned pool or a soon to be poisoned pool.

Right now maximize for threat awareness and not for open conversations, because the bad actors have the bigger guns.