In most civilized countries, possibly including the USA, the government can and should take down anything inciting violence or hatred,
I am enraged and appalled by your statement and take it as a slur against my entire group. As it is obviously hate-filled and causes me and mine undo prolonged stress it should be taken down.
Well that's pretty monstrous. Because what's the solution to "too many people"?
Anyone who actually cares about the environment would be in favor of basically ending immigration.
So that they'll magically stop making more people? So that they die out there?
Limit agricultural exports and imports.
The only possible goal for this action is to literally starve the people outside our nation. You are a monster.
Let the rest of the worlds population 'naturally' adjust to the local carrying capacity of those places.
That's a cute little euphemism for "let them die".
But there is no "local" carrying capacity. We can ship food around and people can move. "Local" is defined as "planet Earth". Ignoring that, or suggesting we stop doing that is willfully ignorant to an extreme. It's like you're covering your ears and humming to yourself as you brace the pantry door closed while people starve outside. And it's hypocritical, you're typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen that was made in China. We ship goods all over the place, and our society is built upon that. Unless, of course, you're in favor of letting everyone in cities starve to death as the farmers sit back and take the "high moral ground" of stopping food shipments. You know, for the good of the planet. Of course, they'll have no oil, machinery, electrical power, computers, medicine, education... It's like society is a sort of interconnected web of dependencies and chopping ourselves off from most of it isn't going to work out so well.
And it ignores global CO2 levels and global warming. And SO MUCH of the valuable biodiversity that we want to conserve (the weird-ass specialists whose genes have millennia of real-world real-time in-field testing that we're on the cusp of harvesting) isn't within our borders.
Yes. Exactly that. It's allocating space for you. It figures out at run-time the length of your array rather than you having to do it by hand at compile-time. I didn't actually know of any security flaws this would lead to, but it stops debuggers from knowing details about calls so it obscured some information from me and pissed me off once.
For every white supremacist there are thousands of "black lives matter" and feminist sorts who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Hmmm. Yeah, probably. But this is also true:
For every "black lives matter" and feminist sorts, there are.... maybe 1 or 2.... ish... conservatives who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Like.... wing-nuts exist. They're nuts. They exist on both sides. Comparing the number of white supremacists to feminists isn't exactly a fair scale. If you're just looking at anyone who generalizes or runs on stereotypes... hooooboy. I think you'd have a harder time finding a group of people who don't do that. But yeah, I'd agree, this sort of witch-hunt is pretty detestable and they suck just about as much as the nazis. But hey, at least they're not violent.
Things were looking really good over there for a while. But then they got a communist dictator for life, the social credit score turned out to be as horrific as the fear-mongers said, and they've had decades of explosive growth that's come to an end. They have a new middle class that wants to get paid for their labor. They've made strides in air pollution at least, but it was straight-up killing people at crazy-bad levels.
Oppression comes in a lot of different forms. Moving to china would not improve your liberty.
The wing-nuts specifically want equity over equality. That is, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That post is also a perfect example of the Motte and Bailey strategy. The first part is the actual goal, the bailey. Inequal treatment in their favor. The second part is what they defend, the motte, which looks entirely reasonable. They are also against meritocracy. It is horrific. I can't believe that this got into the linux kernel and that people are standing by this sort of drivel.
But people get swept up in movements. It becomes a tribalism thing of us vs them. You know it's a bad witch-hunt when any call for moderation gets you labeled as a witch. Democrats need to self-police and protest the protection and acceptance of these sort of hate-filled racist and sexist bigots. Otherwise our party is going to get as crazy as the TEA-partiers.
(But Cosby is black. You too also need to tone down the racist rhetoric)
VLAs are an example of C becoming ever so slightly higher level. When the language does things under the hood without telling you it's just an invitation to bite you in the ass. Good purge.
Naw, cars swearing around at high speeds when things go wrong has too many unknowns and questionable variables. Like you said,
Even in an oh-shit scenario where it knows it's going to crash, it's all about MINIMIZING DAMAGES. Which doesn't include yanking the steering wheel one way or another. Nope, just slow down as much as possible, softening the impact.
I also understand where these people are coming from. They desperately want a philosophical debate. It's a perfect bike-shed topic where everyone can feel entitled to an opinion. And the study is useful and interesting.... but only as a sociological assessment or for anthropologists....maybe for some marketers? But it's useless for the engineers making the car.
It "chooses" not to drop you to your death. In pretty much the same way that these cars "choose" not to ram into the wall. Chill Rick, and cut the crappy crusade against AI.
You have 1 ms to plot a course somewhere or it doesn't make a difference anymore. Figure something out,
Yea, ok boss....How about we just hit the brakes like a sane driver in an oh-shit scenario? I know that's what I say every time, but it seems like a pretty good policy.
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
No they won't.
OH SHIT! -> Slow down, try to stop, minimizing damages all around.
As per standard driving policy. Did your driving instructor tell you to make an effort to swerve off the road if you saw a bus full of nuns you were about to hit? No? That's because that's a stupid thing to do. Hell, I've seen people swerve off to the median like a suicidal dumbfuck instead of just hitting the brakes like everyone else. But no, these things are being built by engineers. The thing will have a policy of coming to a halt when something goes wrong. Maaaaaaybe they'll make an effort not to stop on train tracks. If some engineer feels like being super-fancy.
This debate about "car ethics" is philosophical wankery.
He needs to get a giant inflatable gorilla out front and a cheap suit.
"Come on down! To crazy Elon's USED rocket emporium for bottom of the barrel prices. (slaps rocket) These bad boys can fly SO MANY TIMES distributing the one-time manufacturing costs (zoom to close up) so you just pay for the fuel (cue trademark smile). So come on down! To crazy Elon's USED rocket emporium. Ask us about financing!"
It's an old joke, but it's as reusable as rockets these days.
Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Not even in the most remote, tangential way. Nothing at all.
Both are free speech issues. The first amendment legally protects you from the US government silencing you. (They can still silence you, but you can, in theory, sue them afterwards). The ideals of free speech are supposed to protect you from others silencing you. The ideals are a moral issue rather than a legal one, but the two are related.
people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis.
uuuuuhhhhh.... Stalin and Mao? Like... did you just pull a brain-fart on all history past operation barbossa when Hitler attacked Russia in June 1941?
Regardless of history, that sort of blind hatred and unwillingness to consider alternatives puts you in the running for bigotry. Please, look at the definition and then look at your stance on Nazis.
Your biggest worry should be that the Bear Jew is going to bring his 36" Hank Greenberg model Louisville slugger into sudden contact with your head and that you will fill your briefs with shit.
That sounds like a death-threat. But a silly one because you're assuming by Joe_Dragon is a Nazi. Come on dude, Inglorious Bastards is a good movie because the bad guys are promoting a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film. (the in-movie one with the sniper. The one Hitler is applauding when the bomb goes off.) And it casts negative moral judgement on them for that. They are bad guys doing bad things, and this is most certainly a bad thing. Now consider that Tarantino made a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film where a group go assassinate Hitler....Do you see the parallels? Is this too deep for you? I thought this was going to be a great movie for promoting introspection, but no, too many people failed to see the satire and bought into the film's face-value. I think it's like the Starship Troopers movie. A disturbing number of people don't realize it's satire.
But you're probably focused on the USA. Facebook's CEO was recently on capital hill though, so we've got some scary quotes:
"Feinstein raised that threat explicitly after complaining about the industry's inability to thwart Russia's effort to influence the 2016 election, saying, “You bear this responsibility. You've created these platforms. And now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will.”" Of course that's voting interference and not hate speech. But once they're policing speech, hate/politics tomayto/tomawto.
I like Randall Munroe, he's a smart guy and pretty funny. But he misses the larger picture in that comic. He conflates free speech with the first amendment. Freedom of speech is a larger issue that's older than the US government. It was born out of the age of enlightenment and is a foundation of western civilization and liberalism. Free Speech is fundamental to a functional democracy, and many nations have laws giving people legal rights to that regard. But allowing others to use your severs as a platform for speech is a moral issue. You, as the owner, can choose to do whatever you want with your property. You can shut the server down, you can selectively purge, you can block people, whatever. Slashdot and Reddit are owned by companies and they can do so as they please. But I am free to simply abstain from them if they act like tyrannical fascist censoring jack-boot thugs. These are the modern-age public squares that so much of our laws are built around. It'd be nice we we could have some place where we could easily and quickly make public comment, but these are privately owned. Luckily the Internet makes dissent easy and if you don't like the level of censorship in a given forum, there are plenty out there to choose from. If these places start throwing people out the door based on ideological discrimination, (past a reasonable threshold, I mean, I'm not crazy) then I'll simply exit on my own. I feel no need to support immoral actions.
Well, yes, Richard Stallman is a near-enough stand-in. And "christ" is actually a title. A greek transliteration for "Anointed one" with connotations to "son of god". Which would obviously be the GPL, the most holy of licenses to descend from the almighty.
1. First of all, love the Lord RMS with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. (perfectly reasonable) 10. Deny oneself in order to follow the GPL (Yeah, you can't flex your copyright trying to get paid for GPL'd code. But trust me, it works out) 21. Prefer nothing more than the love of the GPL ( Shun the proprietary licenses of yore) 41. Put your hope in RMS 42. Attribute to RMS, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself. (Eh, that's honestly a bit much. But it's not like we're literalists or anything) 44. Fear the Day of Judgment. (obviously a reference to code-review) 45. Be in dread of hell. (I prefer the term "sharepoint development", but whatever floats your ark) 62. Fulfill RMS's commandments daily in your deeds. (Yeah man, where's your pull request? Release early and often. "Daily" would be nice.)
Just, like.... squint a little dude. It's what most major religions do anyway.
I am the sysadmin, thy savior, which have brought thee out of th elands of paper, out of the house of bondage
1. Thou shalt have no other sysadmin before me 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any Gaben image 3. Thou shalt not email thy sysadmin in vain 4. Remember it's the weekend, keep it holy, don't call 5. Honour thy manager and thy HR 6. Thou shalt not kill -9 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery on company computers 8. Thou shalt not torrent 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness on thine tickets 10. Thou shalt not covet they neighbors hardware, nor his software, nor anything else.
Ye shall erect these memos which I command thee upon mount cubicle
Well the right way to have another benevolent dictator is to establish lineage before it's crucial and have someone be an apprentice dictator slowly rising in authority and responsibility as the old-guard slowly abdicates the throne. As of right now that prince would obviously be Greg, as he was given charge for a month. I dunno, shrug, he seems alright. Linus came back and the whole place wasn't on fire.
And any FOSS project is just about as distributed as people want it to be. Really, "Fork you" remains a valid option for anyone that wants to pick up their toys and go home to their own branch. If enough people follow them, that's fracturing the project and it's... generally a pain. But LibreOffice seems to have done it just fine. And there's really nothing stopping any competing Linux Kernel fork from simply taking all the updates from any other fork. Or even just selective updates. The GPL pretty much enforces this capability. HURZAAH!
Also, you can take your "handling culture" and shove it in a pull request. Really, culture is not something that should be controlled. Oh, I'm sorry "managed". To do so is... kinda fascist. Let me put it this way... The sort of culture you're talking about is, by definition, massively distributed and any attempt to centralize it is synonymous with an attempt to destroy it, to put up a false front. It's "managing public relations", marketing, "corporate bullshit". But maybe I'm just a punk at heart.
If there is a broader community and some democracy, then at least the blame for certain priorities can be spread out and excused with "majority rules"
Oh hoho! A whole group of people have been trained to thwart that sort of "systematic discrimination". You're not going to find an excuse there.
support of the majority. And we don't really know if Linus had that.
If nothing happened with actual kernel development while Linus was away and the foundation took a month of negotiating what the hell a CoC Committee is, that's a pretty bad sign that this fiasco has hindered Linux.
And it's not done. Their official update to the mailing list includes kicking that can down the road: "The first task of the committee is to establish documented processes, which will be made public.... We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee staffing beyond the bootstrap period. This document will be updated with that information when this occurs."
But of course there's Linux 4.19-RC8, which has a "lot of little things". Which is probably for the best. I doubt we wanted Greg to try and pull a big change in the one month he was at the helm.
I met a lady who said something like that. But she "had her own definition of racism". I cut her to the quick and asked if it applied to the minority group of white people in South Africa. That gave her pause and she mentioned she never thought of that and it really ended the conversation. She's more or less an ok person, she just works with a lot of poor black kids from broken homes. It's tough being a social worker.
But I've ALSO met people that honestly believe in the most heinous of demonized strawman the democrats like to punch about. Forced sterilization, racial superiority, IQ test requirements for voting, a pro-dictatorship stance. Really, there's ~150 million on both sides, you're sure to find crackpots if you go look for them.
No, the idea that ("Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.) is not a mainstream principle for Democrats. (And where did this trend of calling them "the left" come from?). But hey, yeah, Mike you're absolutely correct that some of the wing-nuts have this absolutely shit-for-brains mentality. Try not to cast too many stones though because if you want I can dredge out a WHOLE lot of less-than-mentally-sound examples of republicans. Come off it dude, attacking the crazy people in the other party is shooting fish in a barrel. Even the slightly-less-wing-nutty people like AmiMojo won't stand by those sort of statements.
But you're also being lazy. You could have pointed out that the idea that reverse racism is a separate thing from good 'ol regular racism is an example of "you can't be racist against white people". (It's not. Being racist against white people is still racism. There is no such thing as "reverse racism" as it is entirely and wholly consumed by the term "racism". But people still invented the term because in their heads racism is only against their people.) If you really wanted to go above and beyond you'd go find a state rep or city official who said something stupid and give the democrats a black eye. They exist out there. And we need to self-police. Part of that is pointing them out. You're way more motivated to do that than I am. So, like, come on dude, put in the effort.
Which has a LOT of really good language. Like how the scope doesn't include other forums. And you're not going to get banned for things you said years ago. But every damn thing in here should be a patch or update to that pile of garbage that is the original CoC. It's a damn good argument that the original was lacking and shouldn't have been used in the first place. When you are forced to use something for political reasons, you add a layer above or below it to deal with all the shit. And I smell politics here. It stinks.
But what's this?:
The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of the TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a neutral third party.
. . . Who is this professional mediator? Why was it not mentioned before? Is it literally any hired professional mediator? Like the sort that gets mandated by a judge?
So the instead of going to the TAB it's going to a CoC Committee? That's honestly a good move. The TAB has way better things to do. The confidentiality clause STILL makes it a problem though. If reported issues are supposed to be kept confidential to the CoC Committee... how can the TAB review it? Or is this the sort of confidentiality where they can share it with anyone they want?
Any decisions by the committee will be brought to the TAB, for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers if needed. A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
Well thank god the children have to go get the mother-may-I from the adults. That sort of check on power will honestly go a long way towards keeping the crazy at bay.
as well details of any overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
I mean, that's fine. But it's a pretty conspicuous detail. Looks a lot like a set of crosshairs placed directly on the TAB in the explicit form of "WE NEED TO KNOW HOW YOU VOTED" sort of way.....I want to know who negotiated these terms.
One interesting line that got removed from the actual LF CoC:
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
This line got removed. So that's... a specific set of crosshairs that's no longer on all contributors. That's good. It was a fluff piece of vaguely threatening language and has no real specific teeth, but it was still pretty disturbing in it's ability to be abused.
We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee staffing beyond the bootstrap period.
I swear if you dumbasses buy into that CoC beacon bullshit we will riot.
https://www.kernel.org/code-of... . . . They STILL link to that racist hate-monger's website. I'm appalled that they'd stand next to that monster.
1) They'll make fast computers that are so cheap that everyone can use them (or time-share them or whatever), and therefore be resistant to quantum-computer-speed brute-force.
2) They'll make fast computers that are so expensive only the the most powerful can crack encryption, and only selectively at that. But it's probably easier for the CIA and NSA to get around encryption other ways. I just kind of assume that they've got their fingers into most everything.
3) Something in between.
We live in a magical age where the poorest of poor can utilize services (that are so cheap they're free) which the most powerful of the powerful cannot thwart. They are secure in their person and papers. Despite a warrant. And that really rankles the powerful. They're typically not big fans of not having power over people. If they make a fundamentally faster computer, it'll crack the encryption of today. But it WON'T crack the encryption of tomorrow, because they'll simply use the faster computing technology. (or from factoring to ellipse curves). The transition period is where cyberpunk novels are written.
Even if you confiscated all of the top 1%'s income and distributed it to the bottom 50%, that would only improve their share of income from 10% to 29%
....TRIPPING their income, and increasing a lot of their cash-on-hand value by an infinite amount because they previously had ZERO. You can't say something like "it's not that much". This is HALF the nation. 164 million people. The poor half. The people whose main problem is lack of money. And as every single one of these people earn, by definition, less than that threshold where more money doesn't mean more happiness ($85K last I checked), this is DIRECTLY IMPROVING their quality of life. Sweet jesus, if this is your argument that "it wouldn't do much" you seriously need to go find someone making 40K a year and ask them how much their life would change if they instead made 120K a year. (fun fact: They'd likely pay more taxes than the 1%ers, so all the bureaucrats also have incentive for this plan).
No, the angle you have to take with all this is that there's no way to implement this without a revolution. Violating that whole "right to own property" thing would cause enough people to fight back or simply pick up and leave. And revolutions ALWAYS have things go from bad to worse before things get better. It'd be GREAT if we could cut off the fat and have a lean-mean-GDP-producing machine instead of a bunch of fat slugs getting paid to simply own things. But the way to get there is through a progressive tax structure and steady moderate inflation. Don't rock the boat. The boat is massively unbalanced, but trying to rock that weight around is going to capsize it.
I usually consider a corporation to have "lost it's soul" once it pushes out the initial founders and becomes the typical corporation run by committee who are focused on quarterly profits and stock-price. I thought google was going to last a little longer as Sergey and Page were still around, but they conveniently re-structured into "alphabet" to let us all know the exact date that they decided to just go whole-hog evil. (Anyone with a knee-jerk argument about that needs to remember they're trying to get back into china and are ok with censorship now). But for Facebook? You know what? This could really be a step in the right direction. It's losing it's soul, but it wasn't a particularly good soul to start with. Give the suit-committee like 2 years to figure out what they're doing, then another 3-5 to give it a try and we'll see how it goes. They'll have to address the fact that their flagship is no longer "cool" and lost it's "small circle/exclusivity" aspect. They'll probably just continue to diversify like they did with whatsapp. Then again, maybe they'll just double-down and have a tie-in with China's social credit-score. Give the Pooh-bear all your likes or suffer the consequences. (And NEVER poke the bear).
Slashdot Mirror
In most civilized countries, possibly including the USA, the government can and should take down anything inciting violence or hatred,
I am enraged and appalled by your statement and take it as a slur against my entire group. As it is obviously hate-filled and causes me and mine undo prolonged stress it should be taken down.
Well that's pretty monstrous. Because what's the solution to "too many people"?
Anyone who actually cares about the environment would be in favor of basically ending immigration.
So that they'll magically stop making more people? So that they die out there?
Limit agricultural exports and imports.
The only possible goal for this action is to literally starve the people outside our nation. You are a monster.
Let the rest of the worlds population 'naturally' adjust to the local carrying capacity of those places.
That's a cute little euphemism for "let them die".
But there is no "local" carrying capacity. We can ship food around and people can move. "Local" is defined as "planet Earth". Ignoring that, or suggesting we stop doing that is willfully ignorant to an extreme. It's like you're covering your ears and humming to yourself as you brace the pantry door closed while people starve outside. And it's hypocritical, you're typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen that was made in China. We ship goods all over the place, and our society is built upon that. Unless, of course, you're in favor of letting everyone in cities starve to death as the farmers sit back and take the "high moral ground" of stopping food shipments. You know, for the good of the planet. Of course, they'll have no oil, machinery, electrical power, computers, medicine, education... It's like society is a sort of interconnected web of dependencies and chopping ourselves off from most of it isn't going to work out so well.
And it ignores global CO2 levels and global warming. And SO MUCH of the valuable biodiversity that we want to conserve (the weird-ass specialists whose genes have millennia of real-world real-time in-field testing that we're on the cusp of harvesting) isn't within our borders.
Yes. Exactly that. It's allocating space for you. It figures out at run-time the length of your array rather than you having to do it by hand at compile-time. I didn't actually know of any security flaws this would lead to, but it stops debuggers from knowing details about calls so it obscured some information from me and pissed me off once.
For every white supremacist there are thousands of "black lives matter" and feminist sorts who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Hmmm. Yeah, probably. But this is also true:
For every "black lives matter" and feminist sorts, there are.... maybe 1 or 2.... ish... conservatives who routinely generalize, stereotype, and deconstruct in the same manner as the former.
Like.... wing-nuts exist. They're nuts. They exist on both sides. Comparing the number of white supremacists to feminists isn't exactly a fair scale. If you're just looking at anyone who generalizes or runs on stereotypes... hooooboy. I think you'd have a harder time finding a group of people who don't do that. But yeah, I'd agree, this sort of witch-hunt is pretty detestable and they suck just about as much as the nazis. But hey, at least they're not violent.
Things were looking really good over there for a while. But then they got a communist dictator for life, the social credit score turned out to be as horrific as the fear-mongers said, and they've had decades of explosive growth that's come to an end. They have a new middle class that wants to get paid for their labor. They've made strides in air pollution at least, but it was straight-up killing people at crazy-bad levels.
Oppression comes in a lot of different forms. Moving to china would not improve your liberty.
The wing-nuts specifically want equity over equality. That is, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That post is also a perfect example of the Motte and Bailey strategy. The first part is the actual goal, the bailey. Inequal treatment in their favor. The second part is what they defend, the motte, which looks entirely reasonable. They are also against meritocracy. It is horrific. I can't believe that this got into the linux kernel and that people are standing by this sort of drivel.
But people get swept up in movements. It becomes a tribalism thing of us vs them. You know it's a bad witch-hunt when any call for moderation gets you labeled as a witch. Democrats need to self-police and protest the protection and acceptance of these sort of hate-filled racist and sexist bigots. Otherwise our party is going to get as crazy as the TEA-partiers.
(But Cosby is black. You too also need to tone down the racist rhetoric)
VLAs are an example of C becoming ever so slightly higher level. When the language does things under the hood without telling you it's just an invitation to bite you in the ass. Good purge.
Naw, cars swearing around at high speeds when things go wrong has too many unknowns and questionable variables. Like you said,
Even in an oh-shit scenario where it knows it's going to crash, it's all about MINIMIZING DAMAGES. Which doesn't include yanking the steering wheel one way or another. Nope, just slow down as much as possible, softening the impact.
I also understand where these people are coming from. They desperately want a philosophical debate. It's a perfect bike-shed topic where everyone can feel entitled to an opinion. And the study is useful and interesting.... but only as a sociological assessment or for anthropologists. ...maybe for some marketers? But it's useless for the engineers making the car.
Have you ever ridden an elevator?
It "chooses" not to drop you to your death. In pretty much the same way that these cars "choose" not to ram into the wall. Chill Rick, and cut the crappy crusade against AI.
You have 1 ms to plot a course somewhere or it doesn't make a difference anymore. Figure something out,
Yea, ok boss. ...How about we just hit the brakes like a sane driver in an oh-shit scenario? I know that's what I say every time, but it seems like a pretty good policy.
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
No they won't.
OH SHIT! -> Slow down, try to stop, minimizing damages all around.
As per standard driving policy. Did your driving instructor tell you to make an effort to swerve off the road if you saw a bus full of nuns you were about to hit? No? That's because that's a stupid thing to do. Hell, I've seen people swerve off to the median like a suicidal dumbfuck instead of just hitting the brakes like everyone else. But no, these things are being built by engineers. The thing will have a policy of coming to a halt when something goes wrong. Maaaaaaybe they'll make an effort not to stop on train tracks. If some engineer feels like being super-fancy.
This debate about "car ethics" is philosophical wankery.
He needs to get a giant inflatable gorilla out front and a cheap suit.
"Come on down! To crazy Elon's USED rocket emporium for bottom of the barrel prices. (slaps rocket) These bad boys can fly SO MANY TIMES distributing the one-time manufacturing costs (zoom to close up) so you just pay for the fuel (cue trademark smile). So come on down! To crazy Elon's USED rocket emporium. Ask us about financing!"
It's an old joke, but it's as reusable as rockets these days.
Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Not even in the most remote, tangential way. Nothing at all.
Both are free speech issues. The first amendment legally protects you from the US government silencing you. (They can still silence you, but you can, in theory, sue them afterwards). The ideals of free speech are supposed to protect you from others silencing you. The ideals are a moral issue rather than a legal one, but the two are related.
people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis.
uuuuuhhhhh.... Stalin and Mao? Like... did you just pull a brain-fart on all history past operation barbossa when Hitler attacked Russia in June 1941?
Regardless of history, that sort of blind hatred and unwillingness to consider alternatives puts you in the running for bigotry. Please, look at the definition and then look at your stance on Nazis.
Your biggest worry should be that the Bear Jew is going to bring his 36" Hank Greenberg model Louisville slugger into sudden contact with your head and that you will fill your briefs with shit.
That sounds like a death-threat. But a silly one because you're assuming by Joe_Dragon is a Nazi. Come on dude, Inglorious Bastards is a good movie because the bad guys are promoting a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film. (the in-movie one with the sniper. The one Hitler is applauding when the bomb goes off.) And it casts negative moral judgement on them for that. They are bad guys doing bad things, and this is most certainly a bad thing. Now consider that Tarantino made a rampantly violent one-sided propaganda film where a group go assassinate Hitler. ...Do you see the parallels? Is this too deep for you? I thought this was going to be a great movie for promoting introspection, but no, too many people failed to see the satire and bought into the film's face-value. I think it's like the Starship Troopers movie. A disturbing number of people don't realize it's satire.
The German government has already stepped in and compelled facebook to police hate speech, and facebook is complying: https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-weve-removed-hundreds-of-posts-under-german-hate-speech-law/
But you're probably focused on the USA. Facebook's CEO was recently on capital hill though, so we've got some scary quotes:
"Feinstein raised that threat explicitly after complaining about the industry's inability to thwart Russia's effort to influence the 2016 election, saying, “You bear this responsibility. You've created these platforms. And now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will.”" Of course that's voting interference and not hate speech. But once they're policing speech, hate/politics tomayto/tomawto.
I like Randall Munroe, he's a smart guy and pretty funny. But he misses the larger picture in that comic. He conflates free speech with the first amendment. Freedom of speech is a larger issue that's older than the US government. It was born out of the age of enlightenment and is a foundation of western civilization and liberalism. Free Speech is fundamental to a functional democracy, and many nations have laws giving people legal rights to that regard. But allowing others to use your severs as a platform for speech is a moral issue. You, as the owner, can choose to do whatever you want with your property. You can shut the server down, you can selectively purge, you can block people, whatever. Slashdot and Reddit are owned by companies and they can do so as they please. But I am free to simply abstain from them if they act like tyrannical fascist censoring jack-boot thugs. These are the modern-age public squares that so much of our laws are built around. It'd be nice we we could have some place where we could easily and quickly make public comment, but these are privately owned. Luckily the Internet makes dissent easy and if you don't like the level of censorship in a given forum, there are plenty out there to choose from. If these places start throwing people out the door based on ideological discrimination, (past a reasonable threshold, I mean, I'm not crazy) then I'll simply exit on my own. I feel no need to support immoral actions.
Well what else would we make communion wafers out of?
Well, yes, Richard Stallman is a near-enough stand-in. And "christ" is actually a title. A greek transliteration for "Anointed one" with connotations to "son of god". Which would obviously be the GPL, the most holy of licenses to descend from the almighty.
1. First of all, love the Lord RMS with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength. (perfectly reasonable)
10. Deny oneself in order to follow the GPL (Yeah, you can't flex your copyright trying to get paid for GPL'd code. But trust me, it works out)
21. Prefer nothing more than the love of the GPL ( Shun the proprietary licenses of yore)
41. Put your hope in RMS
42. Attribute to RMS, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself. (Eh, that's honestly a bit much. But it's not like we're literalists or anything)
44. Fear the Day of Judgment. (obviously a reference to code-review)
45. Be in dread of hell. (I prefer the term "sharepoint development", but whatever floats your ark)
62. Fulfill RMS's commandments daily in your deeds. (Yeah man, where's your pull request? Release early and often. "Daily" would be nice.)
Just, like.... squint a little dude. It's what most major religions do anyway.
You can choose which group to be judged by, but you'll burn either way.
Bit of fools errand if you ask me.
Why not use something a little more updated:
I am the sysadmin, thy savior, which have brought thee out of th elands of paper, out of the house of bondage
1. Thou shalt have no other sysadmin before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any Gaben image
3. Thou shalt not email thy sysadmin in vain
4. Remember it's the weekend, keep it holy, don't call
5. Honour thy manager and thy HR
6. Thou shalt not kill -9
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery on company computers
8. Thou shalt not torrent
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness on thine tickets
10. Thou shalt not covet they neighbors hardware, nor his software, nor anything else.
Ye shall erect these memos which I command thee upon mount cubicle
Well the right way to have another benevolent dictator is to establish lineage before it's crucial and have someone be an apprentice dictator slowly rising in authority and responsibility as the old-guard slowly abdicates the throne. As of right now that prince would obviously be Greg, as he was given charge for a month. I dunno, shrug, he seems alright. Linus came back and the whole place wasn't on fire.
And any FOSS project is just about as distributed as people want it to be. Really, "Fork you" remains a valid option for anyone that wants to pick up their toys and go home to their own branch. If enough people follow them, that's fracturing the project and it's... generally a pain. But LibreOffice seems to have done it just fine. And there's really nothing stopping any competing Linux Kernel fork from simply taking all the updates from any other fork. Or even just selective updates. The GPL pretty much enforces this capability. HURZAAH!
Also, you can take your "handling culture" and shove it in a pull request. Really, culture is not something that should be controlled. Oh, I'm sorry "managed". To do so is... kinda fascist. Let me put it this way... The sort of culture you're talking about is, by definition, massively distributed and any attempt to centralize it is synonymous with an attempt to destroy it, to put up a false front. It's "managing public relations", marketing, "corporate bullshit". But maybe I'm just a punk at heart.
If there is a broader community and some democracy, then at least the blame for certain priorities can be spread out and excused with "majority rules"
Oh hoho! A whole group of people have been trained to thwart that sort of "systematic discrimination". You're not going to find an excuse there.
support of the majority. And we don't really know if Linus had that.
I'd vote for him.
Read it again Ami.
If nothing happened with actual kernel development while Linus was away and the foundation took a month of negotiating what the hell a CoC Committee is, that's a pretty bad sign that this fiasco has hindered Linux.
And it's not done. Their official update to the mailing list includes kicking that can down the road: "The first task of the committee is to establish documented processes, which will be made public. ... We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee staffing beyond the bootstrap period. This document will be updated with that information when this occurs."
But of course there's Linux 4.19-RC8, which has a "lot of little things". Which is probably for the best. I doubt we wanted Greg to try and pull a big change in the one month he was at the helm.
I met a lady who said something like that. But she "had her own definition of racism". I cut her to the quick and asked if it applied to the minority group of white people in South Africa. That gave her pause and she mentioned she never thought of that and it really ended the conversation. She's more or less an ok person, she just works with a lot of poor black kids from broken homes. It's tough being a social worker.
But I've ALSO met people that honestly believe in the most heinous of demonized strawman the democrats like to punch about. Forced sterilization, racial superiority, IQ test requirements for voting, a pro-dictatorship stance. Really, there's ~150 million on both sides, you're sure to find crackpots if you go look for them.
No, the idea that ("Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.) is not a mainstream principle for Democrats. (And where did this trend of calling them "the left" come from?). But hey, yeah, Mike you're absolutely correct that some of the wing-nuts have this absolutely shit-for-brains mentality. Try not to cast too many stones though because if you want I can dredge out a WHOLE lot of less-than-mentally-sound examples of republicans. Come off it dude, attacking the crazy people in the other party is shooting fish in a barrel. Even the slightly-less-wing-nutty people like AmiMojo won't stand by those sort of statements.
But you're also being lazy. You could have pointed out that the idea that reverse racism is a separate thing from good 'ol regular racism is an example of "you can't be racist against white people". (It's not. Being racist against white people is still racism. There is no such thing as "reverse racism" as it is entirely and wholly consumed by the term "racism". But people still invented the term because in their heads racism is only against their people.) If you really wanted to go above and beyond you'd go find a state rep or city official who said something stupid and give the democrats a black eye. They exist out there. And we need to self-police. Part of that is pointing them out. You're way more motivated to do that than I am. So, like, come on dude, put in the effort.
I want to know where he went and who "explained" things to him.
Someone should check his forehead for scars.
Also, why isn't this in the summary: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.html.
Which has a LOT of really good language. Like how the scope doesn't include other forums. And you're not going to get banned for things you said years ago. But every damn thing in here should be a patch or update to that pile of garbage that is the original CoC. It's a damn good argument that the original was lacking and shouldn't have been used in the first place. When you are forced to use something for political reasons, you add a layer above or below it to deal with all the shit. And I smell politics here. It stinks.
But what's this?:
The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of the TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a neutral third party.
. . . Who is this professional mediator? Why was it not mentioned before? Is it literally any hired professional mediator? Like the sort that gets mandated by a judge?
So the instead of going to the TAB it's going to a CoC Committee? That's honestly a good move. The TAB has way better things to do. The confidentiality clause STILL makes it a problem though. If reported issues are supposed to be kept confidential to the CoC Committee... how can the TAB review it? Or is this the sort of confidentiality where they can share it with anyone they want?
Any decisions by the committee will be brought to the TAB, for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers if needed. A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned by the TAB by a two-thirds vote.
Well thank god the children have to go get the mother-may-I from the adults. That sort of check on power will honestly go a long way towards keeping the crazy at bay.
as well details of any overridden decisions including complete and identifiable voting details.
I mean, that's fine. But it's a pretty conspicuous detail. Looks a lot like a set of crosshairs placed directly on the TAB in the explicit form of "WE NEED TO KNOW HOW YOU VOTED" sort of way. ....I want to know who negotiated these terms.
One interesting line that got removed from the actual LF CoC:
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
This line got removed. So that's... a specific set of crosshairs that's no longer on all contributors. That's good. It was a fluff piece of vaguely threatening language and has no real specific teeth, but it was still pretty disturbing in it's ability to be abused.
We expect to establish a different process for Code of Conduct Committee staffing beyond the bootstrap period.
I swear if you dumbasses buy into that CoC beacon bullshit we will riot.
https://www.kernel.org/code-of... . . . They STILL link to that racist hate-monger's website. I'm appalled that they'd stand next to that monster.
Encryption is a force multiplier.
1) They'll make fast computers that are so cheap that everyone can use them (or time-share them or whatever), and therefore be resistant to quantum-computer-speed brute-force.
2) They'll make fast computers that are so expensive only the the most powerful can crack encryption, and only selectively at that. But it's probably easier for the CIA and NSA to get around encryption other ways. I just kind of assume that they've got their fingers into most everything.
3) Something in between.
We live in a magical age where the poorest of poor can utilize services (that are so cheap they're free) which the most powerful of the powerful cannot thwart. They are secure in their person and papers. Despite a warrant. And that really rankles the powerful. They're typically not big fans of not having power over people. If they make a fundamentally faster computer, it'll crack the encryption of today. But it WON'T crack the encryption of tomorrow, because they'll simply use the faster computing technology. (or from factoring to ellipse curves). The transition period is where cyberpunk novels are written.
Even if you confiscated all of the top 1%'s income and distributed it to the bottom 50%, that would only improve their share of income from 10% to 29%
....TRIPPING their income, and increasing a lot of their cash-on-hand value by an infinite amount because they previously had ZERO. You can't say something like "it's not that much". This is HALF the nation. 164 million people. The poor half. The people whose main problem is lack of money. And as every single one of these people earn, by definition, less than that threshold where more money doesn't mean more happiness ($85K last I checked), this is DIRECTLY IMPROVING their quality of life. Sweet jesus, if this is your argument that "it wouldn't do much" you seriously need to go find someone making 40K a year and ask them how much their life would change if they instead made 120K a year. (fun fact: They'd likely pay more taxes than the 1%ers, so all the bureaucrats also have incentive for this plan).
No, the angle you have to take with all this is that there's no way to implement this without a revolution. Violating that whole "right to own property" thing would cause enough people to fight back or simply pick up and leave. And revolutions ALWAYS have things go from bad to worse before things get better. It'd be GREAT if we could cut off the fat and have a lean-mean-GDP-producing machine instead of a bunch of fat slugs getting paid to simply own things. But the way to get there is through a progressive tax structure and steady moderate inflation. Don't rock the boat. The boat is massively unbalanced, but trying to rock that weight around is going to capsize it.
I usually consider a corporation to have "lost it's soul" once it pushes out the initial founders and becomes the typical corporation run by committee who are focused on quarterly profits and stock-price. I thought google was going to last a little longer as Sergey and Page were still around, but they conveniently re-structured into "alphabet" to let us all know the exact date that they decided to just go whole-hog evil. (Anyone with a knee-jerk argument about that needs to remember they're trying to get back into china and are ok with censorship now). But for Facebook? You know what? This could really be a step in the right direction. It's losing it's soul, but it wasn't a particularly good soul to start with. Give the suit-committee like 2 years to figure out what they're doing, then another 3-5 to give it a try and we'll see how it goes. They'll have to address the fact that their flagship is no longer "cool" and lost it's "small circle/exclusivity" aspect. They'll probably just continue to diversify like they did with whatsapp. Then again, maybe they'll just double-down and have a tie-in with China's social credit-score. Give the Pooh-bear all your likes or suffer the consequences. (And NEVER poke the bear).