> Aren't Al Quaeda and ISIS websites shutdown all the time
Ironically for your argument, Cloudflare hasn't really shutdown any alleged ISIS sites. This was even noted in their first blog when shutting down the Daily Stormer.
1,785 karma · joined July 24, 2013
Ironically for your argument, Cloudflare hasn't really shutdown any alleged ISIS sites. This was even noted in their first blog when shutting down the Daily Stormer.
My parents managed to obtain a loan for their first apartment thanks to my grandparents offering their house as colllateral. This is how pretty much everyone from my parents' generation got their first apartment.
Credit pretty much didn't exist in my parents' generation - loans were generally reserved for houses and cars, because of the strict conditions. Everyone saved up lump sums and paid cash. It's ineffficient, but far from "not participating in the economy".
It may be possible to negotiate different conditions on receiving credit, but I don't know if you can demand a modern economy without any drawbacks.
Considering the reproducibility crisis, is it your position that people are worse at reproducing research than they are at conducting it? An alternative interpretation would be that people have more incentive to publish hastily-made "failed to reproduce" papers than they have "findings" papers, but I don't think that's the case either, especially considering the reply from Science to this case.
In the case of a loaned car, you are not liable for damages that the person you loaned the car to causes(perhaps you're confusing it with insurance liability?). I don't know about the contractor case.
How is your "practical and effective" solution any different from a fine? You fine the company $300 mil, or you seize $300 mil of shares and sell them.
I don't know how you manage to spin the article the opposite way. If anything is bailing out Tesla, it's the US govt providing the credits, not car manufacturers.
Looking at Swedish law, they have a rough equivalent of Miranda - https://open.karnovgroup.se/processratt/fuk Section 12(google translate):
- Do not have to comment on the suspicion and not otherwise have to contribute to the investigation of their own debt
- leak more documents(Trump tax returns)
- get more publicity(asking Trump Jr to retweet/push their stories and lead viewers to their site)
- fight allegations of partisanship(publish anti-Trump documents)
How else would you approach Donald Trump Jr in this conversation? You need to give him some reason to help you.
-------------------------------------------
Chapter 46 (proceedings in the district courts) Section 15 a If the matter can be satisfactorily investigated, the case may be adjudicated notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has appeared only by counsel or has failed to appear if:
1. there is no grounds to impose a criminal sanction other than fine, imprisonment for a maximum of three months, conditional sentence, or probation, or such sanctions jointly,
2. after service of the summons upon the defendant, he has fled or remains in hiding in such a manner that he cannot be brought to the main hearing, or
3. the defendant suffers from serious mental disturbance and his or her attendance as a result thereon is unnecessary.
Orders under the Penal Code, Chapter 34, Section 1, paragraph 1, clause 1, shall have the same standing as the sanctions stated in the first paragraph, clause 1.
However, this does not apply if, in connection with such an order, a conditional release from imprisonment shall be declared forfeited as to a term of imprisonment exceeding three months.
In the situations stated in first paragraph, clause 2, the case may be adjudicated even if the defendant has not been served the notice of the hearing.
Procedural issues may be decided even if the defendant has failed to appear in court. (SFS 2001:235)
-------------------------------------------
Looks like a perfect fit for Assange's case. Why didn't they try him this way?
I'm not sure what outcome you would have wanted from the situation - the government should have further tried to supress people against BLM? Who's the minority power in your scenario again?
I'm not sure what kind of population density you need to make public transport workable, but it's a blessing when you have it available. There's some sample math at the end of this article(https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/ - technical appendix) which concludes that you don't really need that high a density(it focuses on Melbourne), as long as people actually prefer to use the public transport service over their own cars.
This doesn't follow. The alternative is getting whatever the ratio of <people from wealthy families>/<people from underprivileged/nontraditional backgrounds> is. So following your argument, the people from underprivileged backgrounds that meet the "all things being equal" test must be an insignificant amount.
You expect that from citizens, as ignorance of the law is not a defense against not breaking it, but police officers are given a myriad of protections(QI), sometimes jokingly called "The Reasonably Stupid Cop Rule"[0]. I don't think police officers should be constitutional scholars, but immunity gives them an incentive to either not learn or just ignore the law.
[0] (https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/11/30/the-unreasonable-ex...)
> Novo Nordisk also published data for two of their insulin products, NovoLog and NovoLog FlexPen. Since the early 2000s, the CAGRs for the list prices for NovoLog and NovoLog FlexPen (Fig. 7) have been in the range of 9.8–9.9% (22). This translated into large total increases in the list prices: 353% (2001–2016) for a NovoLog vial and 270% (2003–2016) for a FlexPen. In contrast, net prices received by the manufacturer increased at a more modest rate (3–36%) with CAGRs of 0.2–2.1%. Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi have reported that rebates have grown rapidly in recent years, representing more than 40% of U.S. gross sales in some cases
[0] - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/41/6/1299.f...
Dave Rubin(https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17883330/d...)
Jordan Peterson(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCGewQc9ktA)
And so on. But are these meaningful examples? I would argue both yes and no. No, because it's difficult to argue that the people calling them out are not a minority of activists who are just pushing their own political agenda.
Yes, because even if it's a minority viewpoint, it's effective - people apathetic to the given issue are likely to take the word of the activists as gospel, which leads to deplatforming.
A very visible example of the effectiveness of this tactic is Charles Murray and The Bell Curve. Regardless of the validity of more sophisticated criticism of his work, he has been effectively denounced as a racist and deplatformed.
This also leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where speakers presenting their ideas find themselves shunned by group X, and supported by group anti-X. As X step up silencing/deplatforming efforts, either the speaker fades into obscurity, or receives enough support from anti-X to continue their work, but now they can reliably be demonized via guilt by association(Jordan Peterson and the NBC news piece is an example).
You can clearly see the lines he quotes in it. The words are by Patreon's own Trust and Safety representative:
MATT: Are you telling me that this was Patreon’s decision then, or someone pressured you into this?
JACQUELINE: No - this was entirely Patreon’s decision.
MATT: Well then I don’t understand passing the buck off to somebody else.
JACQUELINE: No, I’m not passing the buck off. The thing is we have guidelines, but I’m trying to explain, #1 it is our mission to fund the creative class and obviously some people may not want to be associated.
MATT: Well if it’s your mission, then payment processors are irrelevant. It’s your mission. That’s what you’re pursuing.
JACQUELINE: We’re not visa and mastercard ourselves - we can’t just make the rules. That’s what I’m saying - there is an extra layer there.
https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-c...
Here is a list of active sanctions by ArbCom - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_s...
These are places where the fighting is so common, admins are allowed to ban on a hair trigger. This doesn't really lead to "high quality" - instead it leads to massive gamesmanship as people try to smear each other and get the "other side" banned so they can freely edit the topics to their content. Just click through some of the cases to see the issues leading to them(beware, this is an endless black hole of drama).
The second link is some good research, demonstrating a correlation between diversity and profitability. I was hoping to find within it an analysis of possible confounding factors - for example, what if profitable companies can afford to initiate "diversity and inclusion" campaigns and institute quotas, which would turn the causality the other way around(higher profits -> more diversity), rather than the researchers' explanation(more diversity -> higher profits). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any such analysis in the paper.
Is this the full text of the third link? https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SHR-10-20...
The link is more of an article on what diversity and inclusion is, and how to measure its benefits, rather than research that shows those benefits.