doktrin

> Last years bank collapse has demonstrated that FDIC coverage is infinite so long as you have the right connections.

The intention behind that intervention was clearly to stave off a sector wide run. What held true then and there is by no means guaranteed or even likely to hold true in the event of an actual panic.

> It’s the type of thing HN is meant to be better at; reading before commenting.

I'm under no obligation to read everything to completion. Your piece gave strong signals of being a poor fit for me, so I disengaged from it. Which is exactly what I said in my comment.

> I can guess both of them feel strongly about dark mode.

Again, this comes across as disproportionately hostile. I've already noted I don't have strong feelings on this topic, but you insist on interpreting everything as partisanship.

Moreso than commenting on the article, I'm sharing my feedback as to why I didn't finish it. Engagement and disengagement is often a metric of interest. I don't feel as though I need to justify myself beyond that.

Can't say I did either. Your aggressive tone concerning a topic that I don't have strong views on (at least, not this strong) on made me nope out pretty early.

If it’s even remotely true that 70% of the super bowl traffic they sent to advertisers came from bots… then maybe for much longer.

Like a cult reciting their vows of allegiance.

> “I live in Europe”

You don’t say.

This really brought me back to those 90s era anti-piracy ads.

It's weird how the unironic use of “QED” in internet debates almost guarantees it's being applied to the most undeserving and undemonstrated of arguments.

This is an infamous and reasonably well documented small group of people. You don’t need to speculate about their socioeconomic status because we know who they were and can count them on two hands.

TL;DR none of what you said remotely applies. They were middle-upper-class with access to resources and lived in Berkeley before moving to a notorious Concord safehouse in August ‘73, about 3 months before anything in this story takes place.

> The only thing the SLA was taking credit for at that time was the Marcus Foster murder.

The only thing? That murder was a huge deal, and what got the FBI involved. We're talking about the assassination of Oakland's first black school superintendent. By self described marxist/lenninist/maoist terrorists and using cyanide laced bullets. The headlines write themselves.

Now is there not only a fugitive in the group, but they're all fresh off making national news for political violence? Violence that wildly alienated the black community? At which point they choose to leave their actual safehouse to go to a "we think its safe" house in said community for a brief meeting? Did they forget their fake IDs? OPD is looking for (literal) leftist terrorists and don't find a single excuse to detain 6 hippies and a black man?

I don't doubt you're sharing this in good faith, but If I'm gonna keep it a buck, none of this passes the smell test for me. That said, I guess it would track in a way. The whole SLA affair has a stranger than fiction vibe to it from start to finish.

> What Popper did was give a name to the behavior bigots were already demonstrating. Bigots don't say "you have to support my beliefs because of the paradox of tolerance", they say "you are not being tolerant if you don't support my intolerance" (for whatever group they're targeting).

No, and no. He didn't "give a name to the behavior of bigots", and he didn't posit that bigots demand tolerance on rational grounds. In fact, he says something close to the opposite :

"...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"

> in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street

... in that time? That description of tolerance is baked into his argument. The entire paradox, short as it is, revolved around the handling of (ultimately, violent) edge cases who don't care about meeting you anywhere.

I'm not going to continue engaging in this thread, but just for general and future reference here is the footnote we've been discussing :

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. " -- The Open Society & Its Enemies

I didn't read the parents comment as trying to make a point of nationalistic pride, but to frame the US in the broader international context. There are a lot of countries in the world. The majority of which rank below the US on measurements of corruption, and many on police violence.

https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/202...

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...

> The “paradox of tolerance” is BS used by bigots to try and allow them to attack the rights of others with impunity

The Jewish philosopher who fled the Nazis was, in fact, a bigot seeking to attack the rights of others?

What makes them a singular category in this regard? Genuine question. Virtually all agricultural sectors enjoy some form of subsidy, for what I think are obvious reasons. Likewise it's not like the idea of government money going to less-than-optimally-productive labor is unheard of.

Even if Mozilla reallocated all their resources and dedicated themselves 100% to building a mobile OS, I’d personally be surprised if they were able to secure any meaningful market share. Talk about playing against a stacked deck.

> It was back in the time of the SLA terrorism and Patty Hearst kidnapping. One of the brothers in East Oakland casually mentioned to a cop "What are all these hippies doing in our neighborhood?" (It turns out they were having a strategy meeting.)

The SLA only had one black member, who at the time was an escaped convict. Why would a half-dozen white hippies, and one black fugitive, leave their safehouse to hold a strategy meeting in East Oakland?

> the whole “think of the children” excuse is so overused that it’s useless at this point

Folks seeking to profit from your loss of freedom find it extremely useful.

Yeah but pointless performative self sacrifice is kind of our thing.

If so that would be an unintended side effect. This was an ideologically driven activist ruling that the majority of the population is opposed to, and which is being appealed by the government.

> Snapchat will ban you for having too many accounts on one phone number but sees nothing wrong with "Dab pens for sale" or "1 gram for $15".

I find the idea of Snap checking for duplicate accounts to be wildly less invasive than them analyzing all of my communication.

Moreover dab pens and "$15 grams" are legal in multiple states, including the one in which Snap themselves are based. What exactly is the injury and remedy here?

Some commenters here appear to be using "harm" in the psychological sense, with the implication being that spending time on social media is damaging to a child's mental health. If we accept the premise that spending time on social media is bad, then a modern algorithmic feed is probably more-bad than a boomer board.

To be fair, the article itself opens by citing both the mental health allegations as well as "exploitation and abuse". Given we're dealing with an emotionally charged political hot button issue, it's safe to say these are intentionally muddy waters.

> I was on Slashdot back as a teenager, and I think that was fine

"Everything that happens before the age of thirty-five is normal. After that, everything is a symptom of aging."

I don't see how such a "ban" could be effective. If you boot all minors from current social media platforms, they'll more than likely just migrate to an alternative solution - an alternative which will be less accountable and more opaque than the current ecosystem.

> while it is not uncommon among native German speakers to deeply analyze German words, various native English speakers independently told me that doing such an analysis "is not how the English language works" (or how native English speakers think about their language).

I'm tempted to question this idea that English speakers are just unconcerned with their own language, but then I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you speak of "deep [linguistic] analysis" (or a lack thereof). Can you provide an example?

> I need Starcarft 3 badly

This feels at least tangentially relevant :

https://battlechat.co/15-wow-mount-outearned-starcraft-2/

I haven't personally double checked the math behind this claim, but it does broadly track and makes me slightly apprehensive. I don't mean this as an absolute because there are clear and obvious exceptions, like From, but it increasingly feels like the market is actively disinsentivizing devs from making good, unpolluted, games.

> Are celebrity endorsements actually useful for building trust?

I can't imagine this is highly controversial. Of course celebrity endorsements can be useful for building trust. This is supported observationally and by years of research in marketing psychology. It's not even necessarily limited to megastars : even endorsements from niche influencers and small-fish content creators can be marketing goldmines, nevermind the kind of overnight headwinds your product can get if someone with the reach of Oprah, Rogan, Musk et al starts pushing it.

> But reality is, even if they put all their private data on a website, heresallmyprivatedata.com, nobody cares. It'll have 0 external views.

This is obviously false. Personal data is a multi billion dollar industry operating across all shades of legality.

This in no way addresses the GP's point regarding differences between the Nordics. Seems like you're just desperately looking for any possible excuse to interject your political views no matter how left field the context.

> Singapore ... means more freedom

This is obviously a delusional take that requires ignoring reality. They quite literally don't have freedom of speech or freedom of assembly at the constitutional level, are run by what is effectively a dictatorship of varying degrees of benevolence and consistently rank in the lower end of indices of political freedom and human rights.