The expanding doesn't necessarily mean moving, the distance between gravitationally unbound objects is increasing, but those objects aren't "moving" in the classical sense because at some point they will be "moving" faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. So I think within this discussion, If you were to build a time machine that would disappear at one time and reappear in the same coordinates, You wouldn't end up in a void your galaxy "moved" while you stayed stationary, your Galaxy stayed in the same "place" just the space between the galaxies increased in size. But from your galaxy's frame of reference the other galaxies that are not gravitationally bound are moving. Which movement in the universe depends on your frame of reference so conversely the other galaxies would see you moving away also. But you didn't "move" relative to those galaxies, though you may have moved relative to the surrounding galaxies that you are gravitationally bound to.

Do we know the universe is moving? We don't even know how big it is

>For all that she speaks in a reasonable and measured way, she endorses bad faith tactics. She straight up admits this - Malcolm X was good because he made MLK seem reasonable in comparison. Seeing nothing wrong with this kind of mercenary realpolitik is not conductive to getting anyone to ally with you.

That was the biggest problem I had with her analysis. In his last book before he died Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? MLK specifically said he agrees with the principles of the Black Power movement, he had no problem with their message and privately endorsed it. He understood why it was needed and agreed with it's message.

He was an extremely astute political strategist though and understood political capital and how to gain and utilize it. His problem with the Black Power movement was that it induced white backlash, something he was worried about before the Black Power movement. White middle class support for his causes was absolutely critical to their success, the Black Power movement didn't scare white middle class people to flock to MLK as she posits, it induced them to flee the progressive position altogether. The choices weren't MLK or Malcolm X back then, there was a plethora of conservative and moderate positions that the white middle class could be scared off to. The idea that Black Power bolstered MLKs popularity is just false.

The right picture is taken at ground level and zoomed in on the city in the background to make the trash pile look larger. In the picture on the right the city in the background is the same city.

>According to Bellemare, in the age of TCF, contra Marx, workers can be paid below subsistence levels, wherefore, they must now work a multiplicity of jobs and more hours in order to make ends meet.

That sounds like a problem with the banking system that they can't do that. They don't keep $50,000 in their drawer, while they're going to check out 5 stacks and the bank manager is going to have to authorize that anyways. You won't have to do that A lot of times it would only be under the circumstances where someone is coming in to the bank who has a relatively new account, whose first or second deposit is $100,000 check.

I understand having a wealthy client, but how do they know she's wealthy, All they have was a brand new bank account and a check for $100,000. For that amount of money couldn't you just have a bank manager Make a quick phone call to see if she even has $100,000 in her account? If shes kiting then the other bank will tell them that she has a balance that hasn't cleared yet.

>Maybe you're debating what it means for large companies to have access, but my comment (that you responded to mind you) brought up the reason for why Alexa is failing.

Why is Alexa failing? -> data access concerns -> those concerns are overstated and not that big of a concern -> "what youre saying has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're talking about large companies and I'm talking about Alexa"

What info do you think the FBI is getting from Google that is problematic?

You said these companies "haven't proven" that they can be trusted with your information. I pointed out that likely they haven't done anything useful with your information, and in fact the more information they gather the less useful that information will probably be. That directly speaks to the allegations you made in your comment. If you can't see that I don't know what to say.

Also I don't know why you think Amazon isn't a large company. Alexa isn't some small startup, Alexa is Amazon. It's disingenuous to characterize it as not the product of a large company.

This is a debate about what it means to for large companies to have access to your "personal information". I'm discussing that. If all you can bring to the discussion is a quip that you think the reddit mob will upvote your usefulness to discussions about policy has come to an end. We can only hope that you're actual usefulness amounts to at least some menial labor you provide to the economy.

Unless you're someone whos personal identifying information is important, like someone who works for the State department or a law enforcement agency. I think people really over estimate the capabilities of these companies with your data. I don't really opt out of any data mining, and periodically I will go on my Google add preferences or whatever. It's that section where Google shows you everything they "know" about you. Half of it is extremely wrong, so their profile of me is 50% accurate maybe. Just anecdotally I would think that if I were to opt out of all information gathering, Google would still be able to get information about me. I'm a registered voter so they know my name age and street address, in many states department of motor vehicles will sell that information, but it's not hard to find another places. It's not hard to find out that I'm a male, as part of general data collection from other companies they probably know what bank accounts I have, what magazine subscriptions I have, what college I went to, my cars. They can probably gather a couple of my general interests from other sources.

At the end if I were to opt out of all data collection they probably have a more accurate view of my interests. They would probably have a 90% accuracy. As for your personal information such as Social Security number, passwords, email address, ect. those will likely be gained through places with the least security. So most of your personal data will probably be taken from a parking app that your city might force you to download in order to park in public parking. That app probably doesn't have a super robust infosec team and is likely run by some guy who is friends with some council member. Your social security number is probably going to be from someday to breach from a loan servicer or insurance servicer.

Maybe I'm just an exception but with all the bad data they have on me, the "targeted" ads are either way way off base or just literally shit I have bought. I've never encountered a useful "targeted ad" in my life.

My county is a deep red county, my state is now solidly red also. I could join a Republican committee but I would be outnumbered by the developers and real estate agents who want to lower school taxes and get rid of environmental compliance. I'm really going to compete against the guy that is already on the board of the chamber of commerce with half the people in my local committee? Get real.

You're describing an oligarchy, not a democracy.

I believe the Laika, the first animal to orbit the earth, died of overheating several hours into the flight. Dozens of Soviet dogs and US monkeys died because their parachutes failed to deploy. In once instance a capsule that was supposed to be recovered malfunctioned on reentry and the Soviets opted to self destruct the capsule rather than have it land somewhere the west might recover it.

It would be totally under water if it was a full hold, it clearly traveled empty.

If you think for a second we live in a democracy you're kidding yourself. Our candidates go through several layers of screens before they even get on the primary ballot, and the primary ballot winner is usually the one who can gain the most support from very rich people. And all this is after they had already shook hands with and payed tribute to a very select few of the donor class in order to get on the primary ballot itself. Who we are voting for in the elections are a group of preselected representatives that we are allowed to choose from. They operate firstly with the consent of the very rich and powerful and then they are ordained by the people through elections.

Did Cum town already call themselves a friend simulator years ago?

Farscape was an hour-long program that would run for 26 episodes. An entire season is over 20 hours. They released four seasons. Now with the ascension of Netflix you're looking at about maybe 8 to 12 episodes a year for an hour-long program, and a lot of those episodes have useless filler too.

Either way she'd probably win a fist fight.

There was a guy on Reddit who had a comet history years long that had never used the letter H or or F or something.

Not necessarily true. I've seen cases where HR purposefully fucks up things that can be resolved fairly easily. HRs job is to create small fires and then put them out, justifying their importance in the company and maintaining steady employment.

You don't think people in concentration camps were taken from other countries? If he was arrested by the Nazis for being a homosexual he would remain in a concentration camp until he served out his sentence, despite the fact that he was fighting for the allies. It's not a stretch in this post he's clearly celebrated for being gay, a classification that would see him persecuted by the very governments liberating his country. There is an irony and injustice in that that should be addressed. It's fine to talk about how the Nazis persecuted homosexuals, but it's off limits to talk about how the Allies persecuted homosexuals? We can only get some sense of justice by pointing out what the Nazis was bad but it's off limits to talk about injustices continued by the Allies? Gays in Allied controlled concentration camps don't get memorials?

They are the allies, homosexuality was a criminal offense in Britain and the United States, therefore when the concentration camps were liberated innocent camp prisoners such as Jews and political prisoners were separated from prisoners that had committed some sort of offense. Since homosexuality was an offense under German law under British law and under United States law it only made sense to the allies that homosexuals should remain in custody until they served out their sentence. As another redditor pointed out their time in the concentration camp did not count towards their sentence so they would remain in prison after the war to complete their full sentence.

I am saying, had he been captured and put inside of a concentration camp he would have been kept in one after the war. Let's also not forget that after the war they prosecuted Alan Turning, despite being a war hero. Arondeus maintaining a status of open homosexuality would have been prosecuted by the very allied coalition he was helping.

When they liberated the concentration camps they prevented the homosexuals from leaving.

Edit: Downvoted because truth, another reddit moment.

And the subreddit he is on is r/wallstreetbets