According to wikipedia, Nissan has existed since 1914 and began operating under that name in 1934. At that time "computers" were not even a piece of technology, but persons whose job was to sit around all day doing math by hand. So, I'm fairly sure that Nissan Motors has existed before the entire internet and, therefore, any domain registration.
Odd... I seem to remember what happened when a Model S caught on fire once after running over a piece of metal that punctured the battery pack.
I seem to remember Tesla releasing a temporary software patch, remotely, to cars "in the field" that adjusted the suspensions of the cars so that they would ride higher on the road; making it unlikely that there would be a repeat of the incident while they worked out a permanent solution: a titanium shield that they fitted to the bottom of the sled... free of charge... when they cycled in for their maintenance intervals.
To me, as a "consumer", having the "vendor" do that seems like its a lot easier then *pulling* from github and compiling.
But you so cleverly "Newsflash"ed me that that would be "hard". I guess the whole thing must be just a figment of my imagination.
> Even if they had chips that were 100% compatible in > hardware and software but with a new more secure > algorithm, the cost to replace all of the chips in every > car and every key (and to program the cars and keys > with the correct secrets so that the right keys will > open the right cars) would be astronomical.
So what? They released a defective product. The onus is on them to make things right. Their "shoot the messenger" approach is wholly unacceptable.
I'm sure Honda, Toyota, and so on are are spending a good hunk of money to replace all of defective airbags they built into their cars. Hell, I had a car once that was subject to a recall... and fixed at the manufacturer's expense... because it was sold to me with a faulty oxygen sensor. And the only repercussion of leaving it unfixed would have been marginally more emissions (Nitric oxide, IIRC.), only during winter, only if I lived somewhere with sub-freezing overnights, and only for fifteen minutes or so until the car warmed up.
Multiple government officials here... including at least one who is currently running for president and another who was previously a vice-presidential nominee... have publicly called for Assange to be kidnapped and/or murdered. We have a recent history of "extraordinary rendition": ie. kidnapping people we don't like and sending them off to third-world crapholes to be tortured and murdered by the CIA so it doesn't technically happen on our own soil. And we operate our own modern gulag in Cuba, also so that technically holding people indefinitely with no trial or other due process isn't happening on our own soil.
I agree that he *shouldn't* have to be worried about being extradited to the US. But there are more shenanigans available than extradition.
Two years? That's outrageous. Any vendor that takes that long to patch their holes *deserves* to get zero-day'd.
Things like this, and that nonsense that the court in Boston pulled wrt/ to the researchers and their DEFCON presentation, really sour me on the idea of "responsible disclosure." If the result of my courtesy is going to be a lawsuit and a gag order, I'd not be particularly inclined to offer vendors the courtesy in the first place.
Maybe there's a place for a network of "vulnerability escrow" services. Submit the vulnerability simultaneously to the vendor and the service, which would have to reside outside of the terrirory of whatever court system has jurisdiction over the researchers, and a stick 30-day timer starts, after which the data is automatically and immediately released.
I'll disagree with you on one thing. While no ISP or OS vendor should be the one making and imposing the choice to block on behalf of the customers; in the case of a company, said company IS the customer and has every right and, I'd argue, responsibility to block ads.
In a company environment, the bandwidth doesn't belong to the users, nor does the equipment. It belongs to the company. And remember, web ads are a fairly common vector for malware infection. They can also be bandwidth and CPU hogs. As such, it is a fairly responsible practice to block them with a proxy or at the gateway, even if you're otherwise pretty liberal about what you allow your users to do online. Hardly anyone will miss them. And if some users do have a legitimate business need to view the unfiltered web, advertising, tracking cookies, malware, and all; accommodations can be made in those cases.
One of my biggest peeves these days is the imposition of artificial pagination upon the reader as though the web were some nasty old newspaper or an elementary-school slideshow... just to artificially jack up the fucking ad impressions that much more. Combine that with the stupid javascript and HTML5 tricks that are en vogue these days and many sites are all but unusable on mobile browsers.
I too actually never minded banner ads at the top or bottom of the page. I do understand that content has to be paid for. Hell, I don't even mind targeted advertising, so long as it's well-targetd, not insulting (Looking at you, Facebook, on this one for continuing to suggest that I should like things like bill gates, samsung, and walmart.), and not obnoxious... so basically... Google AdSense.
I even whitelist some sites I do want to support. But the first time I see shenanigans... flash, java, pop-ups, pop-unders, overlays, interstitials, sounds, auto-playing video, or the aforementioned stupid javascript or HTML5 tricks... I have zero qualms whatsoever about immediately going back to blocking everything.
Even if malware weren't a concern, advertisers of late have been using obnoxious javascript and HTML5 tricks that make some sites effectively unreadable, especially on mobile devices. And then there are the "sign in with your Facebook account to continue reading" ones, and the sites that artificially drive up their hit counts by pretending that the pages or slideshow paradigms should still exist on the web, instead of letting me just scroll down.
I do occasionally whitelist sites I want to support. But I'm very intolerant of shenanigans, and have no qualms about removing the whitelist entry. Respect (or the lack thereof) goes both ways, after all.
If you google for "taxi medallion cost", the first line from the first hit specifies that the average cost has fallen to $872,000, down 17% from their peak price in 2013. Add that 17% back in, and the average is back over a million. And since the $872K figure is an average, it's not unreasonable to conclude that they still go for over a million in some cases, unless the standard deviation is really small.
So, the GP's statement may have been a bit out-of-date; but it's hardly the weasel words of a zealot.
What really needs to happen is for the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA to be re-written to have some teeth in the case of false claims.
If a good-sized assortment of executives, lawyers, and clerks at Columbia and Entura were to find themselves locked away for a year at San Quentin, Folsom State, or Pelican Bay over this; I bet they'd not pull the stunt again.
Is there no equivalent to Transition, Equinox, and Experian in Europe?
No company in the US that's in the business of offering up (legitimate) credit is just going to randomly google your name and see if anything comes up. They're going to pull a credit report from one or more of the three credit bureaus. In many cases, they're not even going to look at the details if your FICO score is good.
Considering that the finance industry... and even some individual banks... in Europe predates the *existance* of the United States, I have a hard time believing that they don't have some system in place for judging credit-worthiness that's much more sophisticated than: "Google the person's name".
It's absolutely unreasonable to demand that Google, or any other search engine, take down these listings... or any listing at all... whether it's in.fr.com.uk.co or anywhere else.
If the content is libelous, defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the proper legal steps should be followed to have said content taken down at the source. And the next time the Google runs its spider, it will vanish from the index. What France is trying to do is shuffle the responsibilities of its own courts off onto Google and demanding that they perform those services for free an ineffectively (Since the banned content is still there.) And that's aside from the fact that in many cases, they're demanding that Google delist content that is not, in fact, libel or defamation.
At current exchange rates 50gbp is 78usd. In San Francisco, that's seven cocktails at an average bar, or a $20 cover plus three or four drinks at a place that's slightly on the fancy side.
How do you go from a fairly trivial fine for a quality-of-life infraction that is both unsanitary and disgusting to hanging? I'm not sure if that's a strawman or a slippery slope, but it's pretty far out there.
Its replacement, the Magic Mouse, supports right-click and replaces the trackball functions by making the entire top surface a trackpad. The Magic Trackpad, and all MacBook trackpads last support right-click; either by tapping with two fingers instead of one, or by clicking in the right-bottom corner instead of the left.
I think it's well past time to stop pretending that there's some special purity in these competitions, "athletic" or gaming or whatever, and acknowledge them as what they are: entertainment. And the competitors are entertainers. Their job is not so much to win the race or Starcraft match, or to put the ball through the hoop or into the end zone or whatever. Their job is to put butts in stadium seats and eyeballs on the TV.
We don't drug test Lady Gaga, and take away her Grammy when she tests positive for pot. Robin Williams gets to keep his Golden Globe awards for Mork & Mindy, despite being hopped up on cocaine half the time. And we don't drug test the Rolling Stones before they go on tour and suspend Keith Richards from the first 10 shows when he tests positive for... probably just about everything.
So really... What's do special about Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds or some Adderall-popping gamer that makes their brand of entertainment any more "pure" than any other?
Nice. But narcotics are not generally used for ADHD. The big two (Ritalin and Adderall) are stimulants. In fact, there aren't even any narcotics in the non-stimulant or other medications lists on WebMD:
Most consumer drones are pretty small and lightweight. It's a good bet that the stream from the fire hose would be effective for the purpose. I suspect that they're also not waterproof.
> People are so weird about food some times. I can > mention liking veggie burgers in here, and some folk > go nuts, like I'm a radical vegan.
This. I've never understood what it is with people obsessing over other peoples' dietary preferences and trying to impose their own or convince the other that they're wrong.
When I was vegetarian, I got grief from both meat eaters (Oh noes... how will I get all the right proteins?) and vegans (Don't you know that by eating cheese, you're still supporting the meat-industrial complex?). Plain old ova-lacto vegetarians are pretty chill now that I eat meat again. Vegans are still vegans. But now the "paleo" crowd attacks normal omnivorous people for not being level-20 prestige-class meat-eaters. And now there's the gluten-is-poison thing.
It's a frikkin meal plan, not a religion. Stop preaching at me.
Likewise. I learned a fair bit of my early programming (And a good bit of math too. Though I guess you can argue that programming is math. But they're still separate skills in my head.) from opening up Apple ][ game files and modifying the code to cheat too. And not just games. I also knocked up programs to open up the data files from some of those educational programs they used in school and pull the answers to the math and english quizzes they made us take. Sorry Mrs. Brown. But those quiz programs you thought were challenging problems were weak sauce compared to Rocky's Boots and Robot Odyssey.
I wonder how many kids are losing out in these days of developers' policies that: "Our code is ours, now and forever. You may never look upon it or change the way it runs in any manner whatsoever. And by virtue of that code, we may also screw with your hardware or online accounts.". Mess with their precious code, and Valve will flag your account as abusive and lock you out of some games. Microsoft will brick your xBox. Some companies (Sony, for one.) will actually sue you. It's pretty sad. I'm far from being an RMS acolyte. I don't think of "free software" as some kind of moral imperative. But does really bug me when corporations actively attack people for tinkering with the hardware or software they paid for.
I don't know if that's realistic or necessary. There's a lot to be said for being able to skip the hassle of driving, parking and etc. I'd even be fine with a 20% time penalty vs. driving. More than that, though, and the car really starts to look preferable.
> 2) Convenient public transportation
This. Plus, it needs to be convenient for all of my travel needs, not just going to and from a job downtown (For which it works fine for me.) It also needs to be able to get me to and from the supermarket and run often enough that there's room for me to bring two grocery bags home with me. Otherwise, car. Likewise for other errands and transit needs.
I'll throw in a third requirement:
3) Accurate timetables that are adhered to. A big problem here in San Francisco is that MUNI operators/drivers consider the published timetable to be somewhere between merely a suggestion and an open joke; and their union is so strong it's basically impossible to punish them for failing to adhere to it. So on-time performance is appalling on most routes, meaning that you can't count on items 1 or 2.
> Otherwise, you need to start imposing costs on > using the car - as in expensive parking.
This is what San Francisco is trying. They're taking away parking and raising prices on what's left. They tried charging on Sundays, but that caused much outrage and got canned. And they're taking away traffic lanes on many roads. City Hall *claims* to be practicing a "transit first" policy. But what they are NOT doing is reforming and rebuilding MUNI into a service that people would happily choose to use.
> WTF happened to the basic American principle of > dying for the right of the offensive to be offensive... > not just when we don't agree but especially when we > don't agree??
That's not really relevant. Your right to free and offensive speech does not impose on anyone else, person or corporation, an obligation to provide you with a platform for said speech.
What I have to wonder, though, is when in the history of the internet has this sort of thing actually worked? Every example I can recall of a site or service that established itself as a seedy, politically incorrect, or overly juvenile corner of the internet, that has then tried to sanitize itself and purge the trolls, douchebags and irreverent, and make itself all family-friendly and leave-it-to-beaver-ish, has wound up eventually collapsing and fading into obscurity. Indeed, It already looks like an exodus from reddit to voat has already begun.
To be fair this was Canada. And while I'm not 100% up to speed on their police procedures; the impression I get from the news media that trickles down south of the border is that their police are not so much the thuggish, trigger-happy, militarized loonies that go into the house with guns blazing and dropping flash-bangs into babies' cribs (Yes, the police actually do that here in the US.) as our own.
Slashdot Mirror
According to wikipedia, Nissan has existed since 1914 and began operating under that name in 1934. At that time "computers" were not even a piece of technology, but persons whose job was to sit around all day doing math by hand. So, I'm fairly sure that Nissan Motors has existed before the entire internet and, therefore, any domain registration.
Odd... I seem to remember what happened when a Model S caught on fire once after running over a piece of metal that punctured the battery pack.
I seem to remember Tesla releasing a temporary software patch, remotely, to cars "in the field" that adjusted the suspensions of the cars so that they would ride higher on the road; making it unlikely that there would be a repeat of the incident while they worked out a permanent solution: a titanium shield that they fitted to the bottom of the sled... free of charge... when they cycled in for their maintenance intervals.
To me, as a "consumer", having the "vendor" do that seems like its a lot easier then *pulling* from github and compiling.
But you so cleverly "Newsflash"ed me that that would be "hard". I guess the whole thing must be just a figment of my imagination.
> Even if they had chips that were 100% compatible in
> hardware and software but with a new more secure
> algorithm, the cost to replace all of the chips in every
> car and every key (and to program the cars and keys
> with the correct secrets so that the right keys will
> open the right cars) would be astronomical.
So what? They released a defective product. The onus is on them to make things right. Their "shoot the messenger" approach is wholly unacceptable.
I'm sure Honda, Toyota, and so on are are spending a good hunk of money to replace all of defective airbags they built into their cars. Hell, I had a car once that was subject to a recall... and fixed at the manufacturer's expense... because it was sold to me with a faulty oxygen sensor. And the only repercussion of leaving it unfixed would have been marginally more emissions (Nitric oxide, IIRC.), only during winter, only if I lived somewhere with sub-freezing overnights, and only for fifteen minutes or so until the car warmed up.
Multiple government officials here... including at least one who is currently running for president and another who was previously a vice-presidential nominee... have publicly called for Assange to be kidnapped and/or murdered. We have a recent history of "extraordinary rendition": ie. kidnapping people we don't like and sending them off to third-world crapholes to be tortured and murdered by the CIA so it doesn't technically happen on our own soil. And we operate our own modern gulag in Cuba, also so that technically holding people indefinitely with no trial or other due process isn't happening on our own soil.
I agree that he *shouldn't* have to be worried about being extradited to the US. But there are more shenanigans available than extradition.
Two years? That's outrageous. Any vendor that takes that long to patch their holes *deserves* to get zero-day'd.
Things like this, and that nonsense that the court in Boston pulled wrt/ to the researchers and their DEFCON presentation, really sour me on the idea of "responsible disclosure." If the result of my courtesy is going to be a lawsuit and a gag order, I'd not be particularly inclined to offer vendors the courtesy in the first place.
Maybe there's a place for a network of "vulnerability escrow" services. Submit the vulnerability simultaneously to the vendor and the service, which would have to reside outside of the terrirory of whatever court system has jurisdiction over the researchers, and a stick 30-day timer starts, after which the data is automatically and immediately released.
I'll disagree with you on one thing. While no ISP or OS vendor should be the one making and imposing the choice to block on behalf of the customers; in the case of a company, said company IS the customer and has every right and, I'd argue, responsibility to block ads.
In a company environment, the bandwidth doesn't belong to the users, nor does the equipment. It belongs to the company. And remember, web ads are a fairly common vector for malware infection. They can also be bandwidth and CPU hogs. As such, it is a fairly responsible practice to block them with a proxy or at the gateway, even if you're otherwise pretty liberal about what you allow your users to do online. Hardly anyone will miss them. And if some users do have a legitimate business need to view the unfiltered web, advertising, tracking cookies, malware, and all; accommodations can be made in those cases.
One of my biggest peeves these days is the imposition of artificial pagination upon the reader as though the web were some nasty old newspaper or an elementary-school slideshow... just to artificially jack up the fucking ad impressions that much more. Combine that with the stupid javascript and HTML5 tricks that are en vogue these days and many sites are all but unusable on mobile browsers.
I too actually never minded banner ads at the top or bottom of the page. I do understand that content has to be paid for. Hell, I don't even mind targeted advertising, so long as it's well-targetd, not insulting (Looking at you, Facebook, on this one for continuing to suggest that I should like things like bill gates, samsung, and walmart.), and not obnoxious... so basically... Google AdSense.
I even whitelist some sites I do want to support. But the first time I see shenanigans... flash, java, pop-ups, pop-unders, overlays, interstitials, sounds, auto-playing video, or the aforementioned stupid javascript or HTML5 tricks... I have zero qualms whatsoever about immediately going back to blocking everything.
Even if malware weren't a concern, advertisers of late have been using obnoxious javascript and HTML5 tricks that make some sites effectively unreadable, especially on mobile devices. And then there are the "sign in with your Facebook account to continue reading" ones, and the sites that artificially drive up their hit counts by pretending that the pages or slideshow paradigms should still exist on the web, instead of letting me just scroll down.
I do occasionally whitelist sites I want to support. But I'm very intolerant of shenanigans, and have no qualms about removing the whitelist entry. Respect (or the lack thereof) goes both ways, after all.
If you google for "taxi medallion cost", the first line from the first hit specifies that the average cost has fallen to $872,000, down 17% from their peak price in 2013. Add that 17% back in, and the average is back over a million. And since the $872K figure is an average, it's not unreasonable to conclude that they still go for over a million in some cases, unless the standard deviation is really small.
So, the GP's statement may have been a bit out-of-date; but it's hardly the weasel words of a zealot.
What really needs to happen is for the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA to be re-written to have some teeth in the case of false claims.
If a good-sized assortment of executives, lawyers, and clerks at Columbia and Entura were to find themselves locked away for a year at San Quentin, Folsom State, or Pelican Bay over this; I bet they'd not pull the stunt again.
"Amazon rainforest, Australia, Middle East, Somalia, Baltimore"
Fixed that for you.
Is there no equivalent to Transition, Equinox, and Experian in Europe?
No company in the US that's in the business of offering up (legitimate) credit is just going to randomly google your name and see if anything comes up. They're going to pull a credit report from one or more of the three credit bureaus. In many cases, they're not even going to look at the details if your FICO score is good.
Considering that the finance industry... and even some individual banks... in Europe predates the *existance* of the United States, I have a hard time believing that they don't have some system in place for judging credit-worthiness that's much more sophisticated than: "Google the person's name".
It's absolutely unreasonable to demand that Google, or any other search engine, take down these listings... or any listing at all... whether it's in .fr .com .uk.co or anywhere else.
If the content is libelous, defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the proper legal steps should be followed to have said content taken down at the source. And the next time the Google runs its spider, it will vanish from the index. What France is trying to do is shuffle the responsibilities of its own courts off onto Google and demanding that they perform those services for free an ineffectively (Since the banned content is still there.) And that's aside from the fact that in many cases, they're demanding that Google delist content that is not, in fact, libel or defamation.
At current exchange rates 50gbp is 78usd. In San Francisco, that's seven cocktails at an average bar, or a $20 cover plus three or four drinks at a place that's slightly on the fancy side.
How do you go from a fairly trivial fine for a quality-of-life infraction that is both unsanitary and disgusting to hanging? I'm not sure if that's a strawman or a slippery slope, but it's pretty far out there.
It's really not that difficult, so long as you present yourself well and are willing to not behave like a scumbag.
That hasn't been true for almost a decade now. Apple began shipping the multiple-button Mighty Mouse with all new Macs in October 2005:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Its replacement, the Magic Mouse, supports right-click and replaces the trackball functions by making the entire top surface a trackpad. The Magic Trackpad, and all MacBook trackpads last support right-click; either by tapping with two fingers instead of one, or by clicking in the right-bottom corner instead of the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why bother in the first place? Seriously.
I think it's well past time to stop pretending that there's some special purity in these competitions, "athletic" or gaming or whatever, and acknowledge them as what they are: entertainment. And the competitors are entertainers. Their job is not so much to win the race or Starcraft match, or to put the ball through the hoop or into the end zone or whatever. Their job is to put butts in stadium seats and eyeballs on the TV.
We don't drug test Lady Gaga, and take away her Grammy when she tests positive for pot. Robin Williams gets to keep his Golden Globe awards for Mork & Mindy, despite being hopped up on cocaine half the time. And we don't drug test the Rolling Stones before they go on tour and suspend Keith Richards from the first 10 shows when he tests positive for... probably just about everything.
So really... What's do special about Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds or some Adderall-popping gamer that makes their brand of entertainment any more "pure" than any other?
> Else every Tour de France rider would have a TUE
> for Clenbuterol.
Well, if they're all on it, then no one has an advantage. So what's the problem?
Nice. But narcotics are not generally used for ADHD. The big two (Ritalin and Adderall) are stimulants. In fact, there aren't even any narcotics in the non-stimulant or other medications lists on WebMD:
http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/...
Most consumer drones are pretty small and lightweight. It's a good bet that the stream from the fire hose would be effective for the purpose. I suspect that they're also not waterproof.
> People are so weird about food some times. I can
> mention liking veggie burgers in here, and some folk
> go nuts, like I'm a radical vegan.
This. I've never understood what it is with people obsessing over other peoples' dietary preferences and trying to impose their own or convince the other that they're wrong.
When I was vegetarian, I got grief from both meat eaters (Oh noes... how will I get all the right proteins?) and vegans (Don't you know that by eating cheese, you're still supporting the meat-industrial complex?). Plain old ova-lacto vegetarians are pretty chill now that I eat meat again. Vegans are still vegans. But now the "paleo" crowd attacks normal omnivorous people for not being level-20 prestige-class meat-eaters. And now there's the gluten-is-poison thing.
It's a frikkin meal plan, not a religion. Stop preaching at me.
Likewise. I learned a fair bit of my early programming (And a good bit of math too. Though I guess you can argue that programming is math. But they're still separate skills in my head.) from opening up Apple ][ game files and modifying the code to cheat too. And not just games. I also knocked up programs to open up the data files from some of those educational programs they used in school and pull the answers to the math and english quizzes they made us take. Sorry Mrs. Brown. But those quiz programs you thought were challenging problems were weak sauce compared to Rocky's Boots and Robot Odyssey.
I wonder how many kids are losing out in these days of developers' policies that: "Our code is ours, now and forever. You may never look upon it or change the way it runs in any manner whatsoever. And by virtue of that code, we may also screw with your hardware or online accounts.". Mess with their precious code, and Valve will flag your account as abusive and lock you out of some games. Microsoft will brick your xBox. Some companies (Sony, for one.) will actually sue you. It's pretty sad. I'm far from being an RMS acolyte. I don't think of "free software" as some kind of moral imperative. But does really bug me when corporations actively attack people for tinkering with the hardware or software they paid for.
> 1) Speed comparable, if not faster than cars.
I don't know if that's realistic or necessary. There's a lot to be said for being able to skip the hassle of driving, parking and etc. I'd even be fine with a 20% time penalty vs. driving. More than that, though, and the car really starts to look preferable.
> 2) Convenient public transportation
This. Plus, it needs to be convenient for all of my travel needs, not just going to and from a job downtown (For which it works fine for me.) It also needs to be able to get me to and from the supermarket and run often enough that there's room for me to bring two grocery bags home with me. Otherwise, car. Likewise for other errands and transit needs.
I'll throw in a third requirement:
3) Accurate timetables that are adhered to. A big problem here in San Francisco is that MUNI operators/drivers consider the published timetable to be somewhere between merely a suggestion and an open joke; and their union is so strong it's basically impossible to punish them for failing to adhere to it. So on-time performance is appalling on most routes, meaning that you can't count on items 1 or 2.
> Otherwise, you need to start imposing costs on
> using the car - as in expensive parking.
This is what San Francisco is trying. They're taking away parking and raising prices on what's left. They tried charging on Sundays, but that caused much outrage and got canned. And they're taking away traffic lanes on many roads. City Hall *claims* to be practicing a "transit first" policy. But what they are NOT doing is reforming and rebuilding MUNI into a service that people would happily choose to use.
> WTF happened to the basic American principle of
> dying for the right of the offensive to be offensive...
> not just when we don't agree but especially when we
> don't agree??
That's not really relevant. Your right to free and offensive speech does not impose on anyone else, person or corporation, an obligation to provide you with a platform for said speech.
What I have to wonder, though, is when in the history of the internet has this sort of thing actually worked? Every example I can recall of a site or service that established itself as a seedy, politically incorrect, or overly juvenile corner of the internet, that has then tried to sanitize itself and purge the trolls, douchebags and irreverent, and make itself all family-friendly and leave-it-to-beaver-ish, has wound up eventually collapsing and fading into obscurity. Indeed, It already looks like an exodus from reddit to voat has already begun.
To be fair this was Canada. And while I'm not 100% up to speed on their police procedures; the impression I get from the news media that trickles down south of the border is that their police are not so much the thuggish, trigger-happy, militarized loonies that go into the house with guns blazing and dropping flash-bangs into babies' cribs (Yes, the police actually do that here in the US.) as our own.