bicycles deliver the freedom that auto ads promise

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/03/us/dearborn-fbi-raid-terror-attack-skepticism jfc you can tell from the article url that this has been stealth edited. - mig https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1985421631561371707 I did a 2x take on this today because I did read the original article and was confused when I saw the revised one. - mig paul: "As many as malaria? Or malnutrition?". two problems. 1. you're measuring the past instead of the future. roughly predicting the future is hard, of course, but only looking at the past is worthless. 2. you can donate to / support multiple things at once. it doesn't need to be all or nothing. ex, my personal charitable donations have been malaria/malnutrition adjacent and none of them have been (directly) related to climate change. ~a "you would be fine with over half the people in one of our most liberal states being disqualified for being CEO based solely on a political opinion".  what a terrible point paul, you have equated voting with donating.  ~a paul:  "that's in the eye of the beholder, right"  I agree with you.  I do.  but to a point.  restricting peoples gun rights is a big deal I know.  but it's not who you are, it's not the color of your skin, not what you're born with, it's a right that affects the rights of others (gun deaths).  and something something "ends where my nose begins".  there's only one "nose begins" with gay marriage.  ~a paul:  "Do you think the majority of Firefox users even knew about the controversy?" Why does it need to be a majority.  Some, any, customers, and, some, any, employees.  Some, or any, of management.  It just needs to be enough.  ~a a: "so many people are dying from the outcome of climate change" As many as malaria? Or malnutrition? Or other more preventable causes? -Paul a: Reminder that the proposition passed in liberal California at the time. So basically you would be fine with over half the people in one of our most liberal states being disqualified for being CEO based solely on a political opinion? -Paul a: You say you're fine with it if they are "donating to oppress people", but you can obviously see how that's in the eye of the beholder, right? Being against gay marriage is oppression to you the same way gun control is oppressive for somebody else. -paul a: I know the company didn't fire him. Was it the customers, though? Do you think the majority of Firefox users even knew about the controversy? Either way, my point was that I'm not sure how comfortable I am with normalizing punishing CEOs for political donations (especially for propositions which had popular support). -Paul mig:  do you think people who voted for or otherwise support biden are evil?  ~a mig:  no.  ~a a:  quick tangential question:  do you think people who voted or otherwise support Trump are evil? - mig paul:  "then we can probably weigh it with other initiatives in terms of dollars spent per life saved (or improved), right"  yes.  but climate change will continue dominate the discussion.  so many people are dying from the outcome of climate change.  and so many that aren't dying are suffering.  and the cumulative changes will become an exponential problem quickly especially in certain parts of the world.  ~a paul:  you think it's bad if someone leaves (or is fired) for things that they do that are political on their free time.  and i agree only if either:  1.  they're a line worker (so don't represent the company).  or 2.  they aren't donating to oppress people.  if you're doing neither of those things, i think your customers and coworkers might have something to say about it.  ~a paul:  "You think he just voluntarily decided to resign independent of the controversy?"  no i think it wasn't the company that fired him.  (technically or otherwise)  it was the "people" that fired him.  it was the other mozilla workers that fired him.  it was the customers that fired him.  as it should be?  he wasn't just donating to trump's campaign.  he wasn't a line-worker.  his move was bad for those two reasons (importantly both).  ~a a: If climate change won't lead to humanity's demise, then we can probably weigh it with other initiatives in terms of dollars spent per life saved (or improved), right? That's what Bjorn Lomborg was saying and when you do that I think we find that combating climate change is way over funded compared to other things. -Paul a: a: "i'm not sure how serious of a politician he'll end up being" What constitutes a "serious" politician and why does being aligned with other (former) heads of state impact that? For reference, the link is about how his party had a surprisingly good outcome in recent elections. -Paul a: "do you base this on anything?" I base it off of all the information around it? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You think he just voluntarily decided to resign independent of the controversy? -Paul paul:  i agree prioritizing how to decrease human suffering is hard.  but "although climate change will have serious consequences, particularly for people in the poorest countries, it will not lead to humanity’s demise" is a nuanced, but ultimately bad way of looking at it.  so what if it won't lead to huminaitie's demise.  decrease human suffering in the most efficient way possible: that will likely include some of multiple paths. ~a paul:  i can't read your ft link, but milei aligns himself with bolsonaro, so i'm not sure how serious of a politician he'll end up being.  i think we'll see how things look a bit closer to 2027, most of the numbers we were looking at don't move much on such a short time-scale.  ~a paul:  "Is a political donation sufficient for cause"  depends on what the donation.  but regardless, if you're the official spokesperson or the ceo, yes.  ~a paul:  "I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration"  great analogy.  if the president's values don't align with the public, you won't/shouldn't really care much about what the press secretary thinks about gay marriage.  "He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall" do you base this on anything?  i think they offered him his old job in the company? *he* decided that wasn't gonna work for him?  ~a I feel like that is what Bjorn Lomborg has been saying for years? Decades? And largely been mocked for it. -Paul https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/bill-gates-climate-change "Although climate change will have serious consequences [...] it will not lead to humanity’s demise. This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries." -Paul a: https://www.ft.com/content/af4472e0-c0a3-4dca-bb29-bab4f969b624 Sounds like Milei's reforms will continue. How are you feeling about our non-bet so far? -Paul a: Regardless, my whole point wasn't that companies aren't legally allowed to fire people for cancel culture reasons. It was more about if that's how things should work. I'm not super excited about the prospect of a future where we need to be posting voting histories on resumes and having political donations brought up on PIPs. -Paul a: Yes, he technically resigned, but does that distinction matter when it comes to cancel culture? He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall, not because he didn't want to be CEO anymore. Also, that technicality seems contradicted by your next statement: "but even if they did want to fire him they had cause" Is a political donation sufficient for cause? -Paul a: A CEO technically does represent your company too, but I think they typically are hired for other skillsets which make them harder to replace. -Paul a: "your ceo is gonna represent you in the market" That's a fair way to look at it, but I think of it a bit differently. A spokesperson's sole job is to represent the company, and in theory it can be pretty easy to replace one. I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration or maybe Jared from Subway. -Paul paul:  regardless, the whole thing is atypical.  ceos very rarely resign after donating to make gay marriage straight up illegal.  ~a paul:  he wasn't fired.  he resigned.  they even offered him another job in the company.  but even if they did want to fire him they had cause.  As you yourself said, "The appointment triggered widespread criticism": it wasn't the donation of a line-worker.  it was a value-misalignment of a ceo.  it was the appointment that started it all.  ~a paul:  you just implied that the bar for an "official spokesperson" is higher (or maybe that the bar for firing an "official spokesperson" is lower) right?  who's more of an official spokesperson than a ceo?  your ceo is gonna represent you in the market so usually your cut them off if they have a past that doesn't align with your (mozilla's) values as a company.  that happened here, so he resigned.  ~a a: And I know he wasn't a software engineer (my example was kind of a mash-up of James Damore and Brendan Eich). That's why I asked which part seemed.... untypical? -Paul a: "brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier" Really? Why did he lose it, then? From wikipedia: "The appointment triggered widespread criticism due to Eich's past political donations – specifically, a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8" -Paul paul:  no i didn't call it implausible.    i said it was not typical or common, and brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier, and brendan eich wasn't a software engineer.  ~a a: "i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign" Which part seems implausible? Because Brendan Eich lost his job because of a political donation from 6 years earlier. -Paul this seems akin to a much smaller version of refusing to leave the whitehouse on inauguration day.  ~a is it legal to completely refuse to seat someone?  she was duly elected in . . . september?  can you just wait indefinitely?  why not just refuse to seat everybody who is of a different party?  ~a paul:  i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign.  ~a paul:  "embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives"  i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here, and i don't think his killer cares much about who is or isn't a trad-wife.  ~a a: But should a software engineer lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to Trump's campaign or maybe were caught on video singing a rap song that contained a racial slur? Maybe not? -Paul a: It's a messy grey area, though, because obviously it's fine for there to be consequences for especially repugnant speech. Does a company want it's official spokesperson openly being homophobic or racist on social media? No... -Paul a: If you might lose your job for expressing a political opinion, I think that has a chilling effect on free speech. -Paul a: "cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech" I would disagree. They might have nothing to do with the first amendment, but I think they are very related to a culture of free speech. -Paul a: "i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice." 100% The right has never been great on the issue and Trump specifically is uniquely awful. I did not intend any of this to be a defense of the right: "For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it" -Paul a: Is it inconsistent? Maybe. Most people's views on most things are. The limited stuff I've seen indicates a fairly consistent Christian based worldview that embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives. -Paul a: I don't know nearly enough about Kirk to give you an educated answer on his thoughts on traditional family values or whatnot. I'm literally just learning snippets based on videos I'm watching during research into points you've made. -Paul in other news this has been live for almost 24 hours and still hasn't been deleted.  ~a do we?  paul, do you think what carr did was bad?  worse than what we saw from the Biden administration and google/twitter after trump's COVID?  worse than cancel culture?  worse than micro aggressions?  worse than the aclu measuring harm when deciding who to defend?  ~a a:  bringing up kimmel at the time would not have been interesting discussion.  we all agree it was bad! - mig mig/paul:  jawboning isn't illegal.  it sucks.  but it's not illegal.  the many things carr posted to twitter, though were not legal.  you get upset by the legal things the ACLU does and the legal jawboning Biden does but when it comes to the illegal twitter posts carr makes related to kimmel strangely enough, it's crickets.  ~a I took a quick look at the ACLU press releases to see if they had anything to say about the google jawboning but strangely enough its crickets.  Plenty to say about Jimmy Kimmel though. - mig attempts to justify it (lives need to be saved!) - mig And while cancel culture, micro-aggressions, and the like are not about government restrictions on speech I do believe it did start to change the attitudes of the democratic party and progressives at large.  As paul noted, the ACLU suddenly decided some free speech wasn’t worth speaking up for.  And we get a revelation about the Biden admin suppressing speech and the general reaction from democrats is either crickets or … a:  I would argue that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we not be tolerant of the government  jawboning to suppress speech.  The Covid era essentially provided a sort of blasphemy policy - Thou shall mot question our approved “experts”. - mig