To be fair, I’d imagine most of these are deployed in places with much higher minimum wage.

It’s only 4-8 hours in California for example, using the same math.

Not saying it’s good. Just saying that they probably don’t have a wide deployment in, say, Mississippi.

Oscar Shindler: pure cope.

Tbf, I doubt he made a video, as he died in 1883, lol.

/c/im14andthisisdeep

I feel like “X should be for the X-people” is maybe not the best phrasing, considering how that tends to play out throughout history.

I very much don’t think this is from an actual children’s book. It’s pretty clearly satire.

Grinding the meat leads to a substantively different product. One people often don’t want for a particular application.

There’s no human based QC system on earth that will have zero failures out of 5.5 billion attempts. It is quite literally impossible.

We’re splitting hairs on the definitional point. What I intended to say was that you don’t have to support that boneless chicken nuggets are required to be bone free to find that a reasonable person would not expect to find a bone in boneless wings as a matter of course. While a reasonable person shouldn’t be surprised to find a bone in a boneless wing, anymore than they should be surprised to find a seed in a seedless watermelon, should that bone cause damage the company should be at fault because the bone was not intended to be there, and was included due to a mishap in their manufacturing process. An unavoidable mishap, but a mishap nonetheless.

It’s like how someone will die in a dangerous line of work, even if you take every possible precaution. Eventually, even if it takes 100yrs, something bad will happen because people are people. Even though the company did everything right, they should still have to pay out workman’s compensation for the death/injury.

Tyson produces over 5.5 billion (with a B) chicken wings per year. Let’s assume it’s a similar number of boneless chicken wings.

Can you propose a process that is so flawless that it won’t fail a single time out of 5.5 Billion?

If you had ten people checking every single nugget by hand, you still might miss one out of every 5.5 BILLION.

No process is flawless, and it’s impossible to expect it to be.

Now, when a problem happens, I’d agree that Tyson should be on the hook to cover medical costs, etc. This shouldn’t hinge on the definition of “boneless.” Regardless of whether the customer should have known there was the chance of bone or not, their product caused harm in an unexpected way, and they should be liable for that.

But to expect them to have a literal perfect record of 0/5,500,000,000 is asinine.

Satellites would like to have a word, lol. GPS, weather tracking and modeling, telecommunication to remote areas, and detailed topographical mapping, just to name a few, all seem like pretty worthwhile sectors which are all directly tied to the space industry.

I think we would have to define “no victim,” as a lot of things have second or third order victims that need to be considered.

Smoking is, in and of itself, only self-victimizing, but a lot of people (especially children) have been harmed by second hand smoke.

PCP is only self-victimizing, but it does increase your propensity to freak out and kill somebody. Should you be allowed to take PCP with the knowledge you are potentially putting the people around you at an elevated risk of you murdering them in a drug induced delusional rage?

I agreed in broad strokes, but I think we have to consider what it means for something to have “no victims,” as most actions victimize someone to some greater or lesser extent.

Yeah, that’s what I told my doctor when he said I didn’t have unicorn pox. He was like, “that’s not a real thing, and if it was I’d have heard of it,” and I told him he was just an arrogant jerk. He doesn’t know all the diseases, just cause he’s a doctor.

I think at the end of the day what we are disagreeing over is the word plausible.

If we both picked a random address somewhere in North America, is it plausible that we would happen to pick the same one? It’s possible, certainly, but vanishingly unlikely. Unlikely to the point that, if we did, I would presume something other than random chance was to blame. That is what I’m contesting here.

I agree that TERFs are orders of magnitude more likely to assault someone than the average person. I agree that assault is proceeded by harassment. I agree that women have been assaulted in recent memory over this very issue.

I agree with everything you’ve said. But none of that makes it “plausible” in the sense that it happening is something I would reasonably expect to happen. The statistical odds of it happening are relevant, in that they are so remote as to make the alternative explanation that it’s satire a vastly more plausible explanation. So much so that, when I read the headline, I immediately knew it was satire, and find it concerning that people didn’t.

Sure, if I orchestrated two TERFs who might be mistaken as trans to go into the same bathroom at the same time, this might be a plausible outcome. But that orchestration is the required step. The scenario where they do go into the bathroom at the same time is the absurd part, and what makes this clearly satire.

And, as an aside, I disagree with you about the mech suits. We do have mechanical exoskeleton prototypes. They’re not very practical for 99% of use cases, so they aren’t really used. But it’s not unfathomable that I could get one and ride it to work sometime in the next decade. It’s certainly not plausible, but it’s something I could make happen if I tried really hard to force it probably. Much like the thing we’re talking about.

You keep talking about harassment, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. All my statistics were about assault. And you avoided stating a number of assaults you think go unreported. Pick a number? Is it 90% of assaults go unreported? 99%? Because even at those numbers, the odds are still shockingly low that this could happen.

And we’re talking about an altercation where two women beat each other to the point that both are hospitalized. This would be newsworthy on its own, and is certainly not a daily occurrence. To add to that that the motive was “both thought the other was trans,” and that doesn’t set off your “probably ragebait” buzzer? And we’re not talking about a hypothetical here. It was ragebait.

And let’s be doubly clear, this has never happened in real life. And I’d bet you any sum of money that it won’t in the next 100yrs. Plausible doesn’t just mean that you can imagine it happening. I can imagine a world where I’m piloting a mechsuit to work every day in the next decade. Just cause I can imagine it doesn’t make it plausible.

The most liberal estimate that I could find on how often violent crimes go unreported is 60%. So, to be extra generous let’s say there are 10,000 violent crimes per day. There’s still millions of bathrooms and hundreds of millions of people.

And, while we’re making a point of it. 80% of violent crimes are committed by men. So bring that 10k back down to 2k for the actual potential sample here.

You think one out of every 2000 violent crimes committed by women are violent TERFs beating up non-trans people that they thought were trans in public bathrooms? Because that’s what it would have to be to be once a day on average.

Or, maybe you think my liberal overestimate of unreported violent crime is wrong? What percent do you think goes unreported?

The odds of this are on par with a set of identical twins being struck by lighting at the same time while on different continents. Impossible? No. Implausible? Very much yes.

Exactly.

Of those 8 billion, how many would self describe as “gender critical feminists”? I’m betting that there aren’t a lot in, say, Saudi Arabia. It’s a pretty Anglocentric term.

And I again refer back to the 3000 total violent crimes a day in the US. We can probably safely assume that the per-capita number is lower on most other countries with “gender critical feminists” as a prominent social group.

So, if we say there are 3000 violent crimes per 350million people a day, how many of those do you think are a cis woman getting physically beaten up for being mistaken as a trans person?

Yeah, but there are a lot fewer people I would describe as “gender critical feminists.” But sure, happy to extend my numbers to cover Europe too if you want. They hold up there too. Unless you think brawls in women’s bathrooms are way more common in France than the good old USofA?

“Completely plausible” you say, about an event that’s astronomically unlikely.

The percentage of people being physically assaulted in bathrooms for being mistakenly identified as trans, while certainly a thing that heppens, isn’t exactly common. Certainly occurring less than once a day. There are millions of restrooms available to the public in some capacity in the US.

(In case you want to dispute the “once a day” thing, there are about 3000 violent crimes total per day in the US. If you think that non trans people being assaulted for being presumed trans while in a bathroom is one of those 3000 every single day, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.)

The odds that two people who are both the kind of person to physically assault a presumed trans person in a bathroom both going to the same bathroom, and both mistaking the other as a trans person is comically unlikely.

Combine that with the fact that it’s the kind of comical situation that appeals to the particular brand of schadenfreude that works so well in online spaces like this, and it doesn’t even begin to tickle your, “hey this might be satire” sensors? I think that says more about your critical thinking skills than it does about the state of the nation.

The number of posts today that are clearly satire but everyone is taking this seriously is super high.

I mean, this is the second, so not that high. But it’s weird that it’s happened twice.

Hey, it’s Service Man!