![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.magnor.ovh/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffry.gs%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fc6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
The issue is energy density. There’s a reason why boat tanks are ~6 times larger than a cars gas tank. That’s why they’re so expensive (plus batteries are much heavier).
The issue is energy density. There’s a reason why boat tanks are ~6 times larger than a cars gas tank. That’s why they’re so expensive (plus batteries are much heavier).
Yes, exactly my point. That’s only about the search engine not the browser.
You mean the post about the brave search engine?
That article you’re talking about isn’t about brave as a browser. It was a out the brave search engine.
It doesn’t take much to have more energy than little boy or fat man. Those were tiny bombs.
Plus the thing about bombs is their high power for ms duration. Not that they have a high energy output.
NACs is now an open industry standard.
For me it’s because Firefox is (or at least was) noticeably slower. Didn’t support all the extensions I use. And didn’t allow YouTube playback with audio beyond 4x play speed.
All of those items led to me to choose brave over Firefox since I encountered every one of them on a daily basis.
Also I hated the default font (or perhaps it was some other quiirk of the layout) of Firefox. I couldn’t figure out how to fix it.
The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.
Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.
You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.
If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?
It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.
The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.
I wouldn’t say murder falls under intolerance. It certainly can, but not all the time.
if you’re not actively hurting someone besides yourself, you should be tolerated.
Who gets to define what constitutes not actively hurting someone besides yourself? Is it just as defined by you or do other people get a say? What do you do when someone decides that not wearing a hijab or extra-marital sex is actively harming others?
I hope that illustrates why this is not simple at all. It’s incredibly complex.
And as I was saying in my initial comment, it’s literally impossible to objectively define tolerance. But, you have to choose to tolerate some things and not others (because they’re mutually exclusive). So you end up with different forms of intolerance of behaviors that you deem intolerant.
Along with that, we decide that intolerance for other reasons (ie, because of a person’s genetic makeup or mode of expression) is itself harmful.
And we decide that intolerance is acceptable for many other reasons. You don’t tolerate ignorant people. You don’t tolerate people who cannot arrive on time. You don’t tolerate people who are too rude. Intolerance of those aspects
Now we can find tune and dicker about where that line of injury is, and of course there are special cases where the alleged hurt is spread around and it’s hard to decide how to adjudicate that, but that’s what the law and all its apparatus is for, after all.
The special cases are the ones where it’s actually clear. The majority of the cases are where we struggle to know where to draw the line.
Not at all. I’m not talking about just things. I’m also talking about about people.
It is not simple to determine the extent to which to tolerate different groups of people. Unless you’re saying that you want to be equally tolerant of murderers, races, all religions, and people who like pineapple on pizza.
How did they send it out to you, via message or email.
I submitted my gdpr a couple weeks ago, but my accounts all used temp emails that I can’t access anymore so I wouldn’t get it if they sent it there.
It absolutely is because there are things that you where you cannot tolerate both oposing viewpoints. There’s also things that you do not want to tolerate.
Unless you believe it’s not okay to be intolerant of murder.
I hope that helps illustrate how it’s not just a rhetorical paradox. It’s a conceptual one too. Much of the time, it’s not tolerance vs intolerance. It’s picking between two flavors of intolerance.
They closer they walk the line, the longer they can drag this out before they’re replaced. That means more subscribers move on to other active communities.
I disagree with that. It’s human nature downvote something you disagree with when given an option.
It’s best to just acknowledge it and accept it to some degree while still encouraging users to upvote well written disagreements.
But don’t pretend that it shouldn’t also be used as a disagree button frequently. The two way voting system is a large contributor to what made reddit great. It has some drawbacks, but don’t expect that to change. It’s like asking lead to not be dense.
Whether or not it’s tolerance isn’t directly important.
The mistake that people make is assuming that tolerance is inherently good. It is to a certain degree, but there are many things that you do not want to tolerate. That’s where we want to be.
However, many people think of themselves as tolerant and find it difficult to make that conceptual realization.
That’s a paradox. You cannot tolerate everything. That’s why there’s no such thing as not being bigoted. It’s literally impossible to tolerate everything.
You just have to pick what things you’re not going to tolerate. Now if only we could always agree on what that is.
I agree. It’s absolutely absurd that would say something along the lines of “Fuck, I got r*ped, what do I do?”
I’m of the opinion that you shouldn’t censor any words. If you feel the need to censor it, then just don’t say it. If you want to discuss it, then be able to say it. You should be able to say something like “X called Y a nigger”.
It’s a bit too positive to encompass all that is elitism.