ubernostrum

Does this mean it's censoring the things it wasn't designed to do?

(there's no way to claim that changing the algorithm would be censorship without acknowledging that the algorithm already censors things)

There are at the very least billions of possible search term refinements and pieces of content which are not currently actively suggested. Is your position that, because they are not being suggested at this moment, they are being censored?

Whether the language runtime also uses type checks while running depends entirely on the language and the runtime.

IIRC, the JVM (to take an example) more or less throws away a lot of the static type information -- which is often too generic to be useful in guiding optimization -- in favor of runtime profiling, and several of its key optimizations involve inserting runtime type checks.

Well, insulting hyperbole certainly isn't going to help.

From what I can tell (I haven't used Wordpress in a long time, so I didn't know about this), the main complaint is it's more touch-optimized, and as a result desktop editing with trackpad/mouse is more complex.

That's a fair criticism, but not a conclusive argument against. If the most common use case for non-technical users is a touch interface, then making that the default, and giving highly-technical users who prefer the old editor a way to swap back to it... seems like a perfectly reasonable decision to me, and one that should be made on the basis of user research and usage stats, not on the basis of people who sling insults and leave 1-star reviews on a plugin marketplace.

iOS 12 officially supports the following devices, per Apple.

iPhones: XS, XS Max, XR, X, 8, 8 Plus, 7, 7 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, 6, 6 Plus, SE, 5S

iPads: 12.9" Pro 2nd gen, 12.9" Pro 1st gen, 10.5" Pro, 9.7" Pro, 6th gen, 5th gen, Air 2, Air, mini 4, mini 3, mini 2

iPods: touch 6th gen

That's 26 different base models, of I don't care to count how many different physical form factors, each of which was/is offered in multiple configurations and has different onboard hardware and capabilities.

Incidentally:

I don't understand why they can't write their OS updates to work properly on a few generations of older models

They support 8 generations of iPhones, 11 generations of iPads, and one generation of iPod, with the oldest supported devices dating to 2013.

Some of that is compatibility reasons; not every DB Django supports would allow creating all the desired types of constraints in the DB, so Django has no choice but to ship application-layer enforcement.

You can work around that with manually-created migrations (and I've worked some places that did this, in order to get particular constraint types that were needed at the DB level), but I don't know of a good generic solution to that problem.

Django 2.2 is going with a somewhat-manual approach to allow specifying richer types of constraints, so maybe that'll lead to progress.

And yet I find no evidence of concerted effort against those things, or even minimal effort to express disagreement with those things, on fossdev's part. Only their presence here.

It would have been easy to add a condemnation of those things in the original comment, too, in order to make sure nobody could read the lack of it as support or at least acceptance. But they didn't do that.

It's fair to see someone condemn what they believe to be one instance of a violation of a principle, and ask why they picked that one and not other, larger or more impactful, violations of the same principle.

Quote primary sources from "all of the big tech companies" to back this assertion. Real sources, which really say it, too, not "well I interpret this as quotas" or anything of that sort.

This is a perfectly fair and valid thing to do, yet it's always portrayed by opponents as "tokenism", "gotta catch 'em all", etc., and then asserted to be "diversity for diversity's sake". As I originally said, such people either have not been paying attention, or have been misinformed (and are now actively spreading misinformation).

This is why I challenged someone's "collect diversity tokens" assertion by telling them to source the phrase in actual claims made by companies. I know they won't be able to, but I know they also deeply and likely unshakably believe -- because they're been bombarded with the message in HN threads, and on other social media -- that that's the real goal.

But for you, let's just flip the script: the unspoken principle behind your comment:

The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise.

is that companies explicitly choose their recruiting pipelines and should be held responsible for the demographics which come out of those pipelines. I would agree with that principle, but I suspect you would find extreme distaste for it if it were actually to be neutrally applied. Current recruiting pipelines produce dismal demographics precisely because of who they target, and if companies were held responsible for that they'd have to make large-scale changes.

Ironically, the same sorts of people also throw out unsourced assertion after unsourced assertion (see the person who replied to me stating that the BBC has jobs for black people only, and who I suspect honestly and truly believes that, despite the reply to them explaining that that would be very illegal).

If it's fair for them to do that, it should be fair for me to do it, too, and for me to explicitly state that.

You may consider that an accident. I do not.

But if you believe anything which assigns admission/hiring/recruiting scores on any basis other than objectively-measured individual merit is "racist", you cannot plausibly be in favor of current hiring, recruiting or admissions practices, and have far larger fish to fry than the relatively small number of people whose admission/hiring is solely due to affirmative action.

In all seriousness: look up the ratio of "legacy" admits to, say, black students admitted at top colleges, and then remind yourself that "black" is not synonymous with "affirmative action admit", and then ponder which of "legacy" and "affirmative action" would cause the greatest overall change toward fairness if eliminated. Then focus your efforts accordingly.

And if you believe discrimination should be banished, when will you be showing up to protest schools which give preferential admission to "legacies" (descendants or other kin of alumni), to protest companies which preferentially recruit from only very specific schools, or other forms of admission/recruiting/hiring which give weight to factors other than pure individual merit?

My experience is this lasts about five minutes before someone starts using quibbles about the precise definition of "be awesome to each other" to suggest they should be allowed to be non-awesome to people and suffer no consequences for it. Sooner or later you have to actually set down some more specific guidelines and a mechanism for enforcing them.

Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D.

This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are:

1. You were not paying attention, or

2. You were getting all your information from people who were doing their best to misinform you.

But espousing a principle, and abiding by that principle, are two very different things. Overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that getting the people who do the former to also do the latter is quite difficult, yes.

They also reserve the right to investigate crimes and compel cooperation with investigation.

From the primary source linked by that Wikipedia article:

A UWO requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in particular property, and to explain how the property was obtained, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property.

So if you're a known associate of, say, a mobster, and your income tax documents say you made £100k last year, but you suddenly had £2m cash to spend on a choice piece of real estate with no record of you taking out a mortgage or other loans, yeah, they're going to want you to explain where that money came from, and the law gives them the option to compel you to do so. This is how the rule of law is actually supposed to work!

The almost daily litany of posts of "my employer is doing (list of highly illegal things involving wages), what should I do" will be a pretty big wakeup call for you. And if you think "well they can just sue" is an easy answer, remember employees who are identifiable as the source of wage complaints are at risk of being fired. That's illegal, too, but do you really think an employer who's already breaking labor laws will be scrupulous about not retaliating?

Also, these folks will really open your eyes (click through to the full report linked at the bottom):

https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...

Their data (2012) showed that the amount recovered from wage claims against US employers was three times the dollar value of all robberies in the US combined. Just the amount recovered; the amount actually owed but not paid is likely to be larger.

I lived for quite a while in Kansas, where the state constitution makes adequate funding of schools mandatory. The result is a never-ending series of lawsuits in which the legislature claims to have provided adequate funding, and a court finds that they haven't and orders them to increase or redistribute the funding (sometimes it's found that they under-funded the schools overall, sometimes it's found that they distributed the funding in ways which result in some districts not having adequate support).

This and a few other back-and-forth fights led to the former governor and his party-aligned state legislature attempting to change the selection process for judges, and attaching a rider to that law which would completely defund the state court system if the courts ruled they didn't have the authority to change the selection process, and hinted that if they still ruled against him he'd attempt to recall the entire state supreme court and replace them with partisans who'd support him.

CLEAR does not provide Pre. You can read their own documentation on that; they only get you past the podium.

CLEAR is "skip waiting in line for a person to look at your ID and boarding pass". That's it. CLEAR by itself still sends you into the unpack-your-bag, take-off-half-your-clothes, body-scanner experience.

If you want to leave things in your carry-on, stay fully dressed and use the metal detector, you still need Pre (or another program which grants membership in Pre). CLEAR does not give you Pre.

Expanding the suburban sprawl means going to places where that infrastructure isn't already there, which means adding all of it and adding the burden of maintaining it. And when you then waive the taxes that are meant to pay for the infrastructure, where does the money come from? Out of somebody else's pocket.

This is a beautiful short talking-point answer that glosses over a lot of awful.

The track record of American political movements dedicated to the principle you've articulated above is... appalling. Not even as a matter of subjective taste; as a matter of demonstrable historical record. The shocking state of rural Appalachia, which launched the "War on Poverty", was the result of generation after generation of people who voted to "live small lives" and "just "live their private country lives", and forgot that they weren't just making that choice for themselves as individuals -- they were also forcing that choice on their neighbors and their children, who got trapped in the resulting cycle of poverty.

I am perfectly comfortable telling you that you should not be allowed to vote your neighbors and children into that situation, and that they should have the right to interfere with your attempt to do so.

This is a game as old as the US income tax itself; the 16th Amendment wasn't passed to legalize income taxes (they were already legal), but to make sure Congress could tax income "from whatever source derived", since wealthy people were restructuring their income streams to try to avoid taxation.

They still do that today.

In some cases, you may be right.

It is much more the norm that new development gets sweetheart deals waiving all sorts of taxes and fees (which would ordinarily fund the infrastructure costs the local government is about to be on the hook for because of the new development), on a mentality that it's the only way to attract development.

Which then means somebody else has to pay more to cover those infrastructure costs, because the people using the infrastructure aren't paying for it.

This same pattern repeats with both business and residential development, all over the country.