The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally: Claims about Heritage Foundation goals The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution. Claims about specific individuals If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means. Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable” This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences. Policy criticism vs. intent It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death. Logical issue The comment moves from: “Some members support policies I consider harmful” to: “The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.” That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence. A rigorous evaluation would ask: What exact document or quote supports the claim? Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion? Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences? Are there alternative explanations? Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.

No idea why we let chatgpt chat here but fine 😂

Can you provide a link

This is what profit is creating. There are tools used and marketed only to go back when someone sells bacteria and worms.

Western Hemisphere? So he is going to attack Europe?

Superheroes does not exist

We can agree that tech gave more power to people they used it to be more authorial. That said when they don’t need worker anymore are we going to be allowed to exist?

Oh no. A country that surveillance is too much forces you to use a app? No no no no you poor thing!

In the past I was expecting something clever when the title is us does x. Now it’s just like oh what incompetent shit are they now trying.

Or stop their service and everyone suffers?

You give power to someone that is the trust they got. Nothing less but also nothing more!

More people means more people! Most of us didn’t like people!

Honestly reddit went shit when everyone knew about it. You got mainstream shit that you could get on Facebook too. Don’t wish for more people! This makes it more fun and you can keep up.

Oh my finances? So I get recommended the stock of the day? Nice.

Don’t worry. I understand that Trump dodged the Vietnam war to make the government smaller and stop helping foreign babies to help US citizens. /S

There is a story for everyone. For you it’s Boomer for others expats and yet for others men. (Or Flanders)

Everyone gets his story so a small portion can fly private!

Bio weapons and chemical weapons exist.

What did they wear? Oh wrong topic? /S

Radical right? Are we going for the same rhetoric? If we divide the world by right and left we are all lost. There is more and stop dividing!

There is an API where you can put in a phone number and you get the location by triangulation. You need proof you need it. Ask your provider

Just so long as BeaconDB can keep its data relatively up-to-date (which requires many users contributing via running another FOSS app in the background on their phones),

Is the us really trying to start a war against Europe? I don’t get why.