Ah, so you’re a landlord? That explains things.

Ah, so you’re a landlord? That explains things.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

That’s why SponsorBlock is a godsend. I can’t stand all the in-video ads.

They didn’t say Republicans, they said right wing. The Democrats are also a right wing party, just center-right.

I mean, that’s what makes the most sense logically, but if the statistics actually show that it reduces inequality by implementing the system like this, I guess it’s good? My initial reaction is negative, but their argument kind of makes sense: certain ethnicities receive poorer treatment earlier on, leading to worse outcomes requiring more surgery, so they should be operated on first.

Obviously the best solution would be to remove the inequality in the other parts of the system, but that’s hard to do. The article says that they tested this system on a small scale first and saw that it successfully reduced inequality, hence why they’re rolling it out on a larger scale. If that’s true, then I would support it, so long as they were also trying to reduce the inequality already built into the system. But, I would also want to see what their criteria for determining inequality is, and what statistics they actually collected first.

I certainly never viewed it as a social media site. I joined it as a link aggregator and a way to find information on topics I thought were interesting, not make friends. It always seems odd to me when people refer to it as a social media site.