A mere casual endorsement is not an appeal to authority. If you don’t like the guy that’s fine, but it’s not a logical fallacy to, for example, describe a late night comedian as “a kinda funny guy.”. (A logical fallacy would require that someone assume Krugman is RIGHT because of his record, not that he’s merely worth reading )

How is dismissing someone because of where they worked NOT an ad hominem attack?

How is splitting hairs over which awards given by the swedish government are and aren’t “nobel prizes” NOT a distinction without a difference?

You didnt attack any of his actual credentials, though. You just said that he should be dismissed because he wrote for a particular newspaper and the award he was given by the Swiss government was not one of the awards given by the Swiss government funded by the gift of a 19th century arms merchant.

If you want to rebut my statement that Krugman “has a pretty good track record”, please do so! But you didn’t, and haven’t, and instead asserted your own biases as fact.

Which is obviously your right to do but, again, is a really weird response to a “who is this guy” post.

An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to “who is this guy”.

Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a “Krugman sucks and you shouldn’t listen to him” link you’d like to share?)

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

And while I certainly don’t want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it’s worth noting that legally speaking they’re both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It’s not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.

Like the other dude said, if your only argument is “OMG, everybody knows that corporations are evil, they must be selling poison”, that doesn’t rise to the level of obvious.

It’s like saying that since the US federal government in the 60s was racist and transphobic, they must have faked the moon landing.

If it were “obvious” that a sugar substitute was dangerous, the sugar companies would have trumpeted that as loudly as they could.

do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?

It wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was a genuine statement of fraternal love, as Jesus taught His followers to strive for.

You don’t have a “claim”, you have an anti-christian (and anti-relgious) bias I suspect I couldn’t talk you out of with a time-travelling phone box and a univerally-translating fish.

I hope whatever hurt you can’t hurt you anymore, and that you find love and joy in your life.

Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the “why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers” post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.

The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God’s law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.

Most Jews and Christians don’t require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn’t violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn’t even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)

(It’s between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you’d like to ask.)

Eww. It’s a LLM travel agent.

So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they’re the problem?

I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

That’s not a religion paper. Those actually cite the numbered verses or church decrees that support their position.

(And, just to be clear, you can’t cite any Bible verses about Jesus being transphobic because He wasn’t. All the gospels report Him saying are “don’t stone adulterers”, “divorce and emotional cheating are bad”, and “love each other as you love yourselves”.)

You’re abusing the word “may” here to a degree that’s unnecessary.

It’s like saying the US civil war “may” have been about slavery, or that Trump “may” be really old.

I didnt dismiss it entirely. I merely noted that the part I read includes a solid example of the biggest complaint against the grey lady over the past several years : that they parrott Republican attacks without challenge or clarification.

The part I paraphrased wasn’t “incoherence” – it’s an analogy specially chosen to outrage and motivate Republican voters, which was printed “above the fold” and may well have gone unchallenged in the whole rest of the article.

And while the bylined author presumably as you say a wholesome journalist who would never cause such distortion, they’re also an employee and not responsible or empowered to edit, format, or headline their work.

I got through about the first four paragraphs, and there were obvious bad-faith Republican attacks. To paraphrase and edit:

“This fraud’s total potential revenue [over an unstated number of years] was greater than the state spent on prisons [for a single year].”

No objections to most of the rest of what you said, but this article is definitely a Republican slant pretending to be impartial.

Does anyone want to go past the paywall to find if this is anything more than the NYT doing their “parrot Republican attacks without nuance” trick?

The article is about decentralization of assignment of IP addresses,.not CDNs or social networks.

It’s like "imagine if you and your friends could just make your own phone system by making up your own numbers without having to rent them from telecommunications companies "

Whatever device you’re using to post to Lemmy can easily handle “thousands of transactions per day”. You’re off by several orders of magnitude before transaction processing is a scaling concern.

CDNs exist to reduce lag and optimize media file delivery. They can be decentralized, and internally essentially are, but having a neutral clearing-house helps solve the “leech” problem that thinks like BitTorrent suffer from.