And for the record, we are not talking about large commercial products, more niche medical products that are much lower volume and much more expensive.

Yes, and created a stigma

Jeez, why the aggression? I dislike meta too, but there are other products that have glasses mounted cameras that do offer zoom and text to speech for macular degeneration that he now won’t consider because people react like you just did to the meta product .

Well all I can say is the macular society suggested them to him. We approached them about another product designed for vision impairment to find out if they had any experience and they said to try the meta glasses. We didn’t, but I still think if there is a camera based solution that helps him, he now won’t wear it because of the stigma.

And for the record I’m not in need of any convincing to avoid meta.

I’m not just talking about meta glasses. There are others more targeting vision impairment, but they have similar camera-in-glasses issues that attract the pervert label.

The meta ones were recommended by the macular society, don’t ask me why.

Glasses for perverts huh? My dad was considering glasses like this (not necessarily meta) to help with his macular degeneration. They can read out text in front of them, zoom and useful stuff like that for people with vision problems. But now he won’t even consider it because he’s worried he will be labelled a pervert if he is seen wearing them because apparently no one can conceive of a reason why smart glasses might be about more than spying. So he has chosen going slowly blind over having people shout at him in the street. I don’t really blame him but I am sad for him that a viable aid is now so stigmatised he is afraid to use it.

That said I do not trust Meta and fully expect them to use the devices for spying and harvesting data even if the wearer does not.

As others have said, the response is to ask where in the bible it states you should not have sex with roadkill.

When they point to a passage about something they think is related (but obviously cannot be explicitly about roadkill) ask them if they think that having sex with roadkill is morally equivalent to the passage they cited. I would be surprised if they say yes…

If they do say yes, ask if the only reason they do not do these things is because the Bible told them so. If they say no, ask them what the extra moral information they are drawing from is.

Also ask them why atheists are not caught doing this (at a rate higher than religious groups).

Reflecting…

That’s the length of a test match…

I like to think this isn’t the product of someone being weird, but someone being funny, knowing that centuries later we’d be looking at it going wtf. Master trolling…

Seriously, it took you 2 weeks to come up with that burn? I mean it really made me reflect on my life, just like your first punishing reply so you can feel good that you’ve changed the world for the better…but I’ll be going on with my life and forgetting you exist now.

Means a lot coming from you.

Maybe not, but that is democracy. We all choose one person to trust to make decisions for us.

Also unfairness and theft are not the same thing.

To be clear. I don’t support the existence of billionaires, but I might be more forgiving if the contributed to society in big ways. Instead their only interest seems to be getting richer.

What I mean is that if I ever amassed 1 billion, I would spend everything over the billion on social projects, dog shelters, medical research that is considered by for profits to be unprofitable. I would never have more than 1 billion as I would use the interest to fund things that would help as many people and animals as possible. If billionaires voluntarily did such things I would mind them less. Instead I support 100% tax on anything over 1 billion. As for the burning question do any of these billionaires contribute as much as they are rewarded? Hell no

But you can be damn sure Company income increased…

Thing is, you wouldn’t mind if he used his vast wealth for the betterment of humanity. You know, like how he used to market himself before the pedoguy event.

Instead he uses it to promote right wing politics, marginalised vulnerable groups and trying to get richer for the betterment of Elon.

I like to think that if I was ever lucky enough to have a billion, anything over it would be used to support causes I believe in… Oh wait that’s what he’s doing, it’s just his beliefs are messed up.

I don’t think they think there will be a next administration, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t want to spy on their own disloyal staffers…

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2c61fde2-8355-4eae-8fec-0ed5f12a0ea2

Urging doesn’t work.

If one company decides to be moral, the others will likely seize upon the opportunity to outcompete and profit from the (temporary) advantage they get. The current rules of natural selection do not favour the environment on the whole. Generally protecting the environment costs more than not. In some areas that is changing but the change is slow and waiting for the change to happen in all areas on its own will be too long.

I do not blame the businesses for that, if you want them to flourish while protecting the natural environment you need to create the conditions that allow it which means legislation. Otherwise a business will always take the easiest road to survival and profit because the alternative is to be out competed and cease to exist when others are playing by different rules that allow them to have lower operating costs I.e. where they are not duty bound to protect the environment.

Edit: I should also add that the current rules of natural selection also put short term gains at a higher premium than long term ones. Most companies face pressures to demonstrate continual growth and will spend their money for the short term gains over the long term ones. E.g. Spend tens of thousands installing solar so your future energy bills drop frantically but you won’t see the return for 10 years, or spend the same money on marketing to shift more product.