CheezeIt

> I can't give a cite for the following

Because this did not actually happen.

The current administration is the one at the wheel right now.

The left does support antifa in every place where they don't get prosecuted.

The 1st amendment.

They’re bypassing the fees, primarily, not the reporting.

In Germany I’ve read recommendations range from meekly positive to very positive, and that encodes the actual recommendation.

Will they give you a magnitude attached to those liabilities? Anybody can falsely sue for defamation, so you need an average cost value beyond the mere possibility of lawsuit to get a true representation of the problem.

That’s a great point, but at least as far as negative references go, you have libel/slander law with robust free speech protections. It’s nothing like Europe.

The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Tapes could easily get chewed up by the VHS player.

It has. People have used it to get their money in or out of the country.

We have to play with fire. The alternative is a cashless future in which every transaction is tracked and every person is subject to total financial surveillance. KYC must die.

The false negatives would have been a better example.

Have you even looked at the number of kids had by people with college degrees and people who dropped out of high school?

To understand the quality of our education system, you have to account for race. https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-2018-pisa-school-test-sco...

As the Wikipedia page states, it was struck down by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in 2002.

I wouldn’t want to pay 33% more for that extra increment of safety. I drive a car, after all.

That’s deflation — the value going up. Most people buy Bitcoin to hold Bitcoin, not to use it. And even some would-be entrepreneurs have, in the past, decided to just buy and hold Bitcoin instead of starting a company. The only person I know using it to positive effect is a freelance developer in XXXXXXX country in the midst of a civil war who uses it to work around bank freezes. And that’s great — escape from central control is its core value proposition and it’s working.

Even if it were suboptimal in that usage (but it looks like the best choice to me), the extent of the harm would be contained to the function body. Nothing outside could “see” that a goto was used.

If you worsened the function, such as by duplicating the cleanup code and using a return statement, that would be worse, and unacceptable, but still, the harm would be contained to the function body.

Ahem… Amazon customer here. I capture the surplus value of their labor.

> Why should they have to make a case for that?

I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason.

Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made.

> If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?

That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design.

> At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of"

I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies.

And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.

With what was quoted downthread, they impugned the reputation of the core team, maybe justly, without providing justification.

They also haven’t made a case for why the core team needs to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline.

Okay, I didn’t remember that line. Thanks for the response.

> and that they think no one should trust the Rust core team

I don’t remember reading anything suggesting this, could you point out where you read this?

It seems to me more like, the prosecution decided not to present their case, and the defendant’s lawyers are trying to figure out the right motion to file.

More women get college degrees than men.

Most high school math teachers don’t know calculus, it’s as simple as that. Even at good public schools, there is often just one in the math department that can teach it, but maybe also some science teachers could, too. In my school, some of these were great, highly engaging teachers for more basic math classes when teaching average and below average students.

Huh. You seem to like pasting the same comment a lot.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

It’s callous to not give people free money, that you took from other people?

Is it callous to throw criminals in jail? Is it callous to expect people to save money?

Maybe principles, morality, and justice are callous.

It isn’t conservative at all, it’s a bunch of liberals.