rbecker

Your peers might be wondering why the only killings that become high profile, are those of people of color.

> “warrant-proof” encryption

Like “warrant-proof” rooms and houses that, even with a valid warrant, won't record conversations and send them to the police.

And just like encryption, those “warrant-proof” protections can be circumvented by planting physical or software bugs on target houses or computers.

They're not complaining that law enforcement can't subvert privacy protections - they're complaining that they're not already subverted, ahead of time, for everyone.

> not independent sources, but just different write-ups of the same person's statements

As I explicitly noted. I added them because sudosysgen was complaining about i24news/Fox/Express not being good enough, and not the whistleblower herself.

> Olsen claimed that Miami University had accepted the company’s terms and conditions on behalf of Johnson, and that Johnson allegedly violated those terms when he tweeted about the code.

Universities have authority to bind their students to 3rd party contracts?

> trade benefits consumers much more than producers

In the short term. Long term, if you don't protect them while your trading partner does, it means your key industries will become foreign-owned, or simply bankrupt. After that, the idea of sovereignty, when you own none of your economy, is laughable.

You should watch the accompanying (short) video. The claim is that, knowing ahead of time who will be present, China pressures the speakers into cancelling, which, it is claimed, has worked at least a few times.

> Also, the two sources you've given me are a tabloid, and Fox News. They are not anymore credible.

I provided three additional sources, not two, for a total of four. All reporting on the same whistleblower - a former UN human rights lawyer, so not someone that should be casually dismissed just because you dislike the media broadcasting her claims. But I will humor you, and add yet more sources (though I am sure you will be able to find something objectionable about each):

https://twitter.com/EmmaReillyTweet/status/13214608289698816... - the whistleblower herself, posting court documents.

https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Peter-A-Gallo/Universal-Human-Ri... - OHCHR was vehemently denying any having done anything wrong in handing over the names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government or the possibility that this may have been a factor in the arrest and subzequent death in custody of a prominent human rights lawyer

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-probes-cla...

https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human...

https://whistleblower.org/in-the-news/un-watch-ngo-un-gave-c...

https://unwatch.org/ngo-u-n-gave-china-names-rights-activist...

The whistleblower claims otherwise - that providing that information did endanger the speakers or their families. i24news is also not the only one reporting on this:

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1322928964273348610 (Official twitter account of LBC news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBC_News)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights...

https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-d...

In the video, the whistleblower also claims the UN argued in court that it has a right to lie about these activites to its member states.

"Keep your mouth shut if you don't want to get in trouble."

I can't tell what exactly you think the senate did or didn't do, that broke the constitution.

You believe the senate is constitutionally compelled to give advice on supreme court nominations? Does every senator have to give it, or is it okay if only a few do so? Did none of the Democrat senators give any advice? Did the Republican "Wait until after the election" not count as advice? As far as I know, many words were shared between the interested parties - surely some of them could have been legally interpreted as "advice"?

Edit reply due to rate limit:

> Same situation, different outcomes, and funny how both satisfy the demands of the Constitution.

Well yes. If the constitution requires the senate's consent on candidates, then obviously both giving and withholding consent is allowed - what you call "Same situation, different outcomes".

Of course the Republicans where hypocritical in their justification of their actions, but I fail to see how the constitution was broken.

You mean they did not give their consent for a judicial appointment? Does the constitution require them to? Because "consent" implies they can refuse.

How was it ignored?

In practice, all that accomplishes is everyone tries to cast their opponents as "intolerant" so they may be censored. And "intolerant" is such a broad term, it can be applied to nearly everything, and abuse is guaranteed.

Accusing a whole group of racism and guilt based on skin color? Intolerant.

Want to close the borders? That's intolerant of those who want to enter.

Drawing disrespectful cartoons you know will cause backlash and division? Intolerant.

Boycotting a country or business because they endorse said cartoons? Also intolerant.

Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, after an hour, this divisive, agenda-pushing article has rightly been flagged. As was my submission on the genocide of Greeks by the Ottoman empire [1,2] (but not enough to get the [flagged] marker).

When it comes to articles about atrocities, HN only allows those that are posted in a spirit of reconciliation and healing, such as this recent article about the 1921 Tulsa massacre, where no-one questioned the motives behind posting it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24876120

If you find any inaccuracies in this, or any other, right-wing talking-point submission, I encourage you to point them out. I tried to stick to reliable sources, but we all make mistakes.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24600458

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24601836

You are comparing injury rates, while the report only compares murder rates.

Downloading copyrighted videos, just like home taping, is legal. There was a supreme court case deciding that the latter is legal. I have yet to hear any reasoning why "home taping, but on the internet" would not fall under that same precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

We're lucky it wasn't forced off an app store on a locked platform. Then we'd be begging some corporation to be allowed to run it..

What you're saying is that, technical details aside, Windows 10 Enterprise certification effectively requires the ability to install alternative OSes.

Is that also true for non-Enterprise certification? Because the (dated) article implies otherwise. And it remains a fact that the Surface RT line was locked down so no-one could install an alternate OS on it without MS's permission. I don't know how much clearer MS could make their ambitions for control.

> I don't know why you think it would not.

The percentage of unlocked computers for consumers has been falling. Consoles, tablets, smartphones (all iPhones and many Androids don't allow rooting), smart TVs... even some laptops. Surface RT laptops had locked secure boot, and Chromebooks made it very difficult to install alternative OSes, as far as I know.

As for the incentives of the "open market", there's profit in locking down devices, and selling you back fragments of that locked functionality. For example, nvidia pushed an EULA that forbade using their consumer GPUs in datacenters, making them buy the far more expensive enterprise versions.

With how markets tend towards oligopolies and monopolies, there's no guarantee the handful of manufacturers left won't conspire to put restrictions on all computers. Especially if 95% of consumers don't care about being able to run gcc.

No self-respecting author would write "We'll always have access to typewriters without built-in censorship. Sure, we might not be able to pay consumer prices for them, but they are not going anywhere."

What makes you so sure the restrictions will stop somewhere you're comfortable with? What happens when unlocked machines are only available to "enterprise" (not unlike a certain Windows version), and you have to agree to audits when buying them? What chance do free operating systems stand, when 99% of users don't even have access to computers that could run them?

We need not worry as long as somewhere, in some dark basement, a sysadmin is able to assemble an unlocked personal computer from his company's old hardware?

A requirement they later dropped: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/03/20/2039251/oems-allowe...

First they require a lock, but also that the user gets the key. Next they require a lock, but the key may be withheld from the user. I wonder what they will require next. Their Surface RT line of laptops came without unlockable secure boot, so no alternative OS could be installed.

> I don't see any investigation of whether IQ can be altered through nurture (which I think it can).

Nurture accounts for 20-43% of the differences in adult IQ scores:

"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

> To actually prove to me that IQ is a thing, you would have to show me that what you call IQ is innate.

"Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

That point has been reached: https://outofthecave.io/articles/merriam-webster-modifies-wo...

It is amazing to watch the article omit the beheading of the teacher when it talks about Macron's "attack" on the Muslim community, or the shooting spree at Charlie Hebdo, when it talks about the "widespread anger and outrage across the Muslim world" that the magazine drew.

One would be truly puzzled at the French reaction, if this was their only news source.

One would expect the rate of police killings to be proportional to the homicide rate, since that is what is supposed to drive dangerous police encounters. Looking at police kills per 10M, divided by the homicide rate per 100k:

  Australia:    9.55
  Egypt:        8.45
  USA:          6.75
  Canada:       5.57
  Sweden:       5.56
  Norway:       4.04
  Netherlands:  3.90
  New Zealand:  2.86
  Germany:      1.37
  Japan:        0.77
  England:      0.42

So 41% less than the rate of Australia, 21% more than Canada and Sweden, 67% more than Norway, and 73% more than the Netherlands. Not great, but not terrible.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki... for countries not on prisonpolicy.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

> white supremacist groups were responsible for 41 of 61 “terrorist plots and attacks” in the first eight months of this year, or 67 percent.

So about the same as the share of the white population. Or do we only normalize by population numbers when it comes to police killings?

> disproportionate

Disproportionate to the share of the population, or of the homicide rate?

Could you elaborate?

An even stronger, still accurate phrasing, would be to say the volunteers are telling the researchers what ads they see on Facebook. The browser extension is just a tool, doing the bidding of the volunteers, to make that sharing easier.

Facebook is essentially saying we're not allowed to talk to each-other ("in bulk") about what ads Facebook is showing us. Not the first time corporations try to prevent consumers/users/workers from organizing.