MajinBlayze

It's a huge difference

Does the existence of a field of study called "Human-Computer interactions for social good" imply the existence of "Human-Computer Interactions for Social Evil"?

Google's dodging the question, seems like no.

It's truly hard to imagine a pick less competent than Hegseth, though I've been surprised by the administration before.

Does it rhyme, and do you vocalize the j or pronounce like an English y?

My dream policy would be a wealth tax that includes company ownership that could be paid with company shares. Any shares paid this way would go to an escrow that is controlled by the employees of the company, eventually trending companies towards becoming worker coops.

The moral of this story: pee on your dog

I'm not really trying to argue the technical correctness of these terms, rather their effectiveness as rhetoric.

That was always a dumb argument that no one genuinely found confusing. It was always a red herring.

The Bush administration pushed the "climate change, not global warming" narrative (I'm not saying they invented it, only that they spearheaded the rhetorical framing and made it popular)

It's undeniable that the end result of changing this framing is that fewer people believe now that changes should be made to mitigate long term effects of carbon emissions than 25 years ago.

Yeah, people are broadly dumb, that's exactly why it's important rhetorically to make the tone of your message match the severity.

President musk has explicitly stated that they are intentionally making things worse for the average person.

Reporting this active effort to manufacture a recession as "Trump may put US into a recession" is journalistic malpractice.

It's not more descriptive though, at least not to the layperson, it leaves room for people to believe that a change in climate is benign or tolerable. Everyone can understand that consistent, long-term warming is dangerous.