squirrelicus

Hate speech as a legal definition cannot coexist with freedom of speech. I hold freedom of speech as one of my highest principles. We already have just laws against inciting panic and violence. The category of hate speech is irrelevant in the best case, and actively harmful in the worst case.

Most importantly, what should concern all thoughtful people is that it seems to be within the Overton Window to say how much you hate white people because of the color of their skin. Not hate speech, why exactly? Because the entire concept is reactionary nonsense trying to give white people harsher criminal sentences for the same violent crimes as committed by other races. What happens if the table turns again and the standard is unfairly applied in reverse? Hate soeech advocates have already set the precedent that we get to choose which races get favored prosecution treatment for the same crime.

Violence is violence, speech is speech. You can't improve on Martin Luther King, man. Judge individuals based on the content of their character. The list is complete.

Depends on who you ask. Americans increasingly believe otherwise. Here's an anecdote https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-blacks-is-not-a-sexual-pref...

Emulating successful startups is folly. It's the myriad failures that you will never learn about that you should be concerned with.

I'll just leave this here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

I'm a #freemarket guy and all, but freemium is a long standing monetization model that many companies have used to accelerate net profits in the long run. Not really anything anti free market about freemium. The problem with freemium has always been building the premium tier that someone wants to pay for :P

Well we kinda picked all the low hanging fruit over the last 150 years. Each technological advancement seems exponentially more expensive.

I for one look forward to our federal overlords thinking they have any clue what kinds of transmissions deserve security /s.

Seriously though, the legal tradition just hasn't caught up to the idea that somebody can possess information outside their person that can't be forced into the eye of the law.

I've thought about this a lot and my best conclusion so far is "give up the encryption keys in exchange for immunity against legal cases that aren't yet open that the secured data might reveal, or you're guilty by default". Seems like the kind of thing prosecutors might think twice about, and it gives them a trump card in extraordinary circumstances. I don't love it, but all the other ideas i can come up with leave one party so heavily favored that either freedom dies or the government won't stop whining.

Usually the rule with a title that ends in a question mark is that the answer is no. In this case "not close" seems to be the answer. Rest assured, it's way more complicated and there are a lot more problems to tackle than just aligning ECMs.

That being said, I love this sort of thing so much. Maybe one day my grandkids might be saved by this.

Let's see, a challenge!

Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.

But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.

But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.

The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.

"Functional" slavery as your implication describes is so catastrophically different from actual owning of persons that it's incomprehensibly dishonest and devalues the very real reality of slavery in past and present in the developing world. First world perspective, when you think having a job is the same as being owned.

Be careful: this is the exact same line of reasoning the alt-right uses to conclude ethnostates.

Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.

Okay okay okay, check this out. (Yes global mean ocean temperatures are rising, but at least in the USA, climate change appears to be making the country have milder weather)

> New York City has not had a daily high temperature above 100 degrees since 2012, and it has had only five such days since 2002. However, in a previous 18-year span from 1984 through 2001, New York City had nine days at 100 degrees or higher. When the power went out in New York City earlier this month, the temperature didn't even get to 100 degrees - it was 95, which is not extreme. For comparison, there were 12 days at 95 degrees or higher in 1999 alone.

> Kansas City, Missouri, for example, experienced an average of 18.7 days a year at 100 degrees or higher during the 1930s, compared to just 5.5 a year over the last 10 years. And over the last 30 years, Kansas City has averaged only 4.8 days a year at 100 degrees or higher, which is only one-quarter of the frequency of days at 100 degrees or higher in the 1930s.

> Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina).

> So 37 of the 50 states have an all-time high temperature record not exceeded for more than 75 years. Given these numbers and the decreased frequency of days of 100 degrees or higher, it cannot be said that either the frequency or magnitude of heat waves is more common today.

Source: https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/realimpactofweath...

Like seriously, what are we predicting again?

My God really? Slavery was the uniform norm for almost all of human history [0]. If nothing good can come of a society that enslaved others, then the logical corollary is an incredibly short sighted and unnecessarily nihilistic view of the journey of humanity. Can we give history a break?

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Sl...

Edit: before somebody says blah blah race, there isn't a race on Earth that wasn't subjected to slavery in history.

The science question is fun because I'm not sure who you're arguing against. Scientists are doing good work fighting an intractable problem. And their results are contradictory and disappointing so far.

But more interestingly, where did we fail exactly? And how is giving totalitarian control of the economy to a 20-something, easily manipulated bartender with a 400s credit score going to make anything better?

I may have voted for Trump, and I probably will again, and I may bear my share of responsibility for his blunders, but I don't agree with many things he does. He was probably wrong that time. Other presidents do horrible things, like when Obama didn't challenge the family separation rule on the border, gave Libya to ISIS, waited too long in Iraq, or presided over Fast and Furious. And I still voted for him twice.

No, the contention of [1] is that they wanted to influence the real estate market based on an unvalidated fringe model that predicted more extreme sea level rises than the majority of the other models.

[3] is interesting because I'm not sure how much money should be pumped into climate research, and neither is anyone else. There's a point between 0% and 100% where it becomes a net drain on the world. Who knows where that is. But single digit billions of government funds plus all the University endowments feels reasonable. I could probably be convinced it should be double digit billions. But nobody knows the right answer. And research isn't stopping by any stretch.

WRT Looney Tunes, i said the same thing about Republicans in 2009. shrug that's politics. You win by changing opinions, not saying true things.

So... You can't outwalk climate change? Tell me more about how the sea levels are rising that fast.

[0] did you.. did you even the bipartisan followup? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/nasa-climate-science...

[1] is exactly my contention

[2] not really relevant. That order was highly specific and targeted to policy statements that could be confused with administration policy. I may not agree with it, but it's really really edge case.

[3] cut is a really fun word. 31% reduction to 6 billion. Not the disaster you're looking for. Also WaPo, not exactly non partisan. And the left has everything to gain from lying or dishonestly framing to get back in power.

Yup. People from another country who aren't citizens get different treatment. Welcome to all countries on Earth.

Let me annotate this as somebody accused of climate denial.

We who are not trolling do not deny the data. The data are clear, there is a general warming trend so far. And it's most likely primarily caused by human action. But there's a problem.

You see, when we noticed Uranus had perturbations in its orbit, we looked at the theoretical model, did the math the theory demanded, predicted that a planet should be in a location, looked there, and saw Neptune. In that order. That's how rigorous scientific theory works.

Climate theory is very far from that rigor. Each University has a different model. Most of them have many models. They're software, written by programmers that embed their assumptions into their code. They all disagree. And we never know which model is correct except in hindsight. Even more problematic, the model that best predicted climate change in 2015 is not the model that best predicted climate change in 2019. Of the thousand models, we see every year in the news "this one was right!". But we didnt know it was right before we looked in hindsight, and we don't know in the least which one will be right tomorrow. Climate theory is still in flux.

Moreover, the supposed solutions do not address the fact that the biggest problem is not the West, which has been declining in emissions simce the 70s [0]. It's the exponentially growing developing world. None of the solutions I've heard except "global nuclear fission or war, now" have a chance at stopping climate change as generally predicted by the entertainment media like CNN et al. Solar and wind is a mere fairy tale unless we're talking about comoletely carpetting AZ, NV, and half of TX in solar paneling. And then braindead things like the Green New Deal pop up, that even my Democrat friends make fun of. I'm left with a sense that the evangelists of climate change either don't take what they believe seriously, or they're ignorant of the gravity of their predictions.

So yeah. I'm withholding judgement because for the foreseeable future, the absolute worst case is my grandparents can outwallk climate change coastal changes and we get more net arable land in Canada and Siberia.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...

I don't have any Republican friends that believe this, and almost all my friends are Republicans. I hate this toxic myth.

They're an everything group. The single most influential vote in the world.

Hang on. I think you're missing the point. It's not about how "if you've read one, you've read them all". The fact that MacBeth is another way to tell the Futile Struggle Against Fate story doesn't in any way diminish the creativity or power or uniqueness of the work. The point is that if it's not an archetypical story it won't resonate with the human mind, and the writer will fail.

We tell the same stories again and again because there's a finite set of stories that engage our mind, whether we like it or not.

I can't speak to the intent. Upton Sinclair's Jungle was a socialist manifesto that accidentally missed America's heart and hit her gut instead.

What I can say is approximately 100% of material that gets popular is simply the retelling of something like 7 archetypal stories that our human minds resonate with. Watch Moana and Wreck it Ralph, they're the same story: the Resurrection of the Spirit of the Father. Watch Harry Potter and LOTR and the 5th Element, they're the same story as David and Goliath: the Overcoming the Impossible. Death Note and Faust are the same story: the Pact with the Devil.

I could go on.

It's interesting how, when communicating with hypothetical future people in written form, we have to choose language we have the best hope of them understanding. A center of emanating energy that is dangerous to the body and kills.

Really makes you empathize with religious writers trying to communicate often second hand divine truths that people thousands of years later will have to figure out without the understanding the original prophet had.

Because inclusion is trivial. Everyone is welcome.

The process of exclusion is what causes you to define the borders of acceptability, and allows participants to have a clear understanding of when they're at risk of being excluded. Then they'll weigh their wants vs the rules and make a decision about whether they value their ideas over the group membership. Then what you are left with is people who want to be in the group more than they want to follow their whims against the group's rules.

See that's the trick. To make the high tax economies function, you have to tax even the lowest income earners at the high rate. Instead, in the US, we have greedy low earners who don't want to pay their share and just want the feds to steal more money from the rich Other and give it to the Good people like me.

It's almost like exclusion, not inclusion, is the process by which you create quality communities.

Of course, redemption should always be on the table. It's worth the risk.

> Remember, the goal is fear, not specificity.

I think that's where your proposal breaks down. Light is powerhungry and arrogant, but he's also very moralistic. A character that proritizes fear over accuracy would be a different character than Light. He wants to build a better, even perfect, world. And for that, he must have accuracy. Otherwise he's a mere tyrant, something he believes he is not.

Of course, it's worth saying, the great archetypal tragedy of the story, and what makes it excellent literature, is that his goal is unacheivable. Humans are deeply imperfect and powerless to end evil completely. And the process of trying turns us into the worst of all monsters that can possibly exist.

I would love to hear the argument that serverless impacts cost of security concerns at all. I'm not warm to the idea that it also impacts development time, but I'd love to hear that argument too.

> human right of mental comfort

Hahahahahah hahhaha ahhah hah. Lol.

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself. This cultural tendency toward naming everything you prefer as a right is just... It's hilarious to the extent it's not just sad. I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt that it was just hyperbole. In which case, bravo.

Even better than "observable state from a to b" is "a transform of value from a to b", no inspection and whitebox needed :D