My criticism is of the writing in the OP, and of Kaczynski’s writing, which while contextually relevant, isn’t actually about Thompson or even specifically health insurance.

To answer your question though, I don’t think he gets a pass, ethically. But I also don’t think justice trumps striving for better outcomes in society, and in fact it’s the other way around. This isn’t exactly being contested; the rhetorical focus is on means and results.

So what does Artisan actually do? Its main product is an AI “sales agent” called Ava that supposedly automates the work of finding and messaging potential customers. The company claims it works with “no human input” and costs 96% less than hiring a human for the same role.

This company is selling telemarketer stalker bots. I think it will probably do fine.

An absence of a clear alternative isn’t a substitute for an argument that slaughtering corporate leaders will help the problem. There are practical differences between the circumstance of a wild animal literally fighting for its survival, and a member of a population being abstractly squeezed to death by systemic problems, in that killing is a clear immediate solution in the former but extremely questionable in the latter. Not bothering to acknowledge this makes it a bad argument. Also, all the other reasons I mentioned why it’s a bad argument. Kind of reads like edgy highschooler cringe bait too, though that’s subjective.

Maybe a better argument could be made, idk. But this one is dumb.

But then why imply that you aren’t allowed to visit the drive through by foot?

I’d assume they want to discriminate against people who are too poor to have cars because they think those people are more likely to be difficult customers, and since most people have cars they don’t lose much business by doing this.

You’re making a lot of assumptions about where I’m coming from here, so let me clarify a bit why I think it’s dumb: the OP essay inherits the flaws of the Unabomber Manifesto it is signal boosting. It’s hand waving rhetoric and rationalization, right wing extremist flavored. Its only argument that violence will be useful is to bake in an assumption that of course it will, criticize other, independent options, frame the debate as a moral one about whether saving the world justifies violence, and make that argument with name calling.

I recognize that many people respect this type of argument, but they are wrong, it’s bad and stupid.

Yeah, still really dumb though.

There reaches a point with vaporware projects where it’s like, actually release something or I don’t care anymore, it doesn’t deserve to keep getting press

honoring the wishes of what is currently my last surviving relative (who I still remain in contact with and love dearly). Not to mention whatever might be a part of any legal stuff pertaining to her will. (which I know hardly anything about and still makes me panicked just typing about)

Regardless of what you decide about the ethics of it, consider that ultimately it is your life, your decision, and there are other ways to invest money. It’s really unlikely that the will is going to effectively prohibit you from doing something with it other than becoming a landlord, not sure that’s even possible. If you really want to prioritize honoring their wishes you can, but in the end you are the one who is going to have to actually live the life you build for yourself, not them, and no one has a right to make that kind of decision except you. Use your own judgment about what future you want and don’t feel guilty for acting on it.

It’s really unfortunate how things are set up legally so that most of the time mobile homes don’t come with property rights to the land under them. Would be a great option for affordable housing otherwise.

Crazy how the response is to completely gaslight you about what the real issue is

I upvoted because I’m generally excited by the idea of software that lets you interact with different social media via one interface. Idk if the project itself is good but it seems like a neat idea.

seems plausible it could be a legal concern about being sued for defamation

I remember seeing a teenage girl in a small food store I go to address the guy behind the counter as ‘human’. “Thanks, human.” Stuff like that. I think she was just doing a bit or something but I thought it was strange.

My ex would say this type of shit to people she didn’t know, I’d say it was half “doing a bit”, and half she is just a strange person.

I got a bit of harassment from hexbear users when I started using Lemmy, haven’t in a while now though, I have blocked around 30 of them and instance block

idk if NH is exactly the same, but Vermont has pretty strict signage laws, the point is to prohibit billboards and similar sorts of things, and the effect is pretty nice. Just because you’re in public and have eyes doesn’t mean advertisers should have a right to your attention.

Policy is similar too, they want civil unrest and violent overthrow of current governments

There is an instance block feature you can use in the settings as a user, that seems to work pretty well for not seeing hexbear stuff

I remember being bored in school and picking out the ‘string’ that had formed out of grease and dirt around the x/y axis rollers, I don’t think there was anyone whose actual job it was to clean those things

No, because “caring about commoners” and “shitting on the rich” are not actually the same objective. People are happy about it because it feels good to get revenge or for people who treat others unfairly to be punished, but sating popular bloodthirst isn’t necessarily aligned with actually making society a better place. “Kill the bad people and the problems will be fixed” is historically very much a famous last words kind of sentiment.