Defletter

You seem to have vastly misread his comment in your defensiveness: 1) his comment is not a concealment or a justification, it's an elaboration. This is more than mere semantic nitpick: he doesn't need to justify anything to you or conceal anything from you; he is not seeking your approval. Similarly 2) nor did he say it's "not a political statement", he said it "isn't some hypothetical political agenda", which to me has the extremely obvious meaning that it's not a virtue signal or other ulterior motive, that he may actually be dead by next week. If anything, he's confirming without a doubt that he included politics in his devlog, not denying it. Did his inclusion of "Abolish ICE" at the very bottom of his devlog really put you so off-kilter? Good grief, go outside.

Since you're so eager to construe his support for peaceful protest as support for civil unrest, I therefore think it's fair if I construe your defence of ICE to mean support for their extrajudicial executions and the people who dress up as ICE (ie: masked men dragging people at gunpoint into unmarked vans) to kidnap and rape people.

> D has a GC and it’s optional.

This is only true in the most technical sense: you can easily opt-out of the GC, but you will struggle with the standard library, and probably most third-party libraries too. It's the baseline assumption after all, hence why it's opt-out, not opt-in. There was a DConf talk about the future of Phobos which indicated increased support for @nogc, but this is a ways away, and even then. If you're opting-out of the GC, you are giving up a lot. And honestly, if you really don't want the GC, you may be better off with Zig.

Socialists governments do have taxes, yes, but to suggest that tax rate alone can define socialism implies to me a deeply misinformed understanding of what socialism even is.

> Elections really do happen in the UK and really do determine who is Prime Minister.

Different person, but while this is true, it's also true that the Prime Minister is not elected: they [ordinarily] emerge as being the leader of whichever party commands a majority in Parliament. It's how we've had so much Prime-Minister turnover since the Brexit referendum: those didn't happen because the electorate "determined" it.

BREAKING NEWS: conservative blames "socialism" for the ills caused by conservatism

People thinking that New Labour is left wing is both frustrating and amusing. There's constant in-fighting in the Labour party for a reason. Thatcher supposedly thought one of her greatest achievements was making the Labour Party agree on the economy. Labour is increasingly socially regressive. Mrs. Snooper's Charter herself became Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative Party and brought in a ton of state surveillance and new terrorism laws. I'm genuinely baffled as to what you think "socialism" even is or what you think it's to blame for here.

This kind of stuff is fascinating because it's the state interacting with itself. The Queen was powerless to reject his request, he being the leader of the government who governed in her name, whose prorogation was overturned by judges she appointed. She ultimately did not need to act because she had an army of people who acted on her behalf. This is not to say that every misuse of power is always caught, but rather that the Monarch gets to maintain a facade of impartiality because all the partiality is being done by their institutions instead.

Surely there has to be some level of "getting stuff done"/"achieving a goal" when /making/ things, otherwise you'd be foregoing for-loops because writing each iteration manually is more fun.

I yearn for the mindset where I actively choose to accomplish comparatively little in the brief spells I have to myself, and remain motivated. Part of what makes programming fun for me is actually achieving something. Which is not to say you have to use AI to be productive, or that you aren't achieving anything, but this is not the antithesis of what makes programming fun, only what makes it fun for you.

With all due respect, all you're doing here is presenting me with even more implication and innuendo. You are making a claim, you should be able to substantiate it, otherwise just be transparent about it being an opinion. You originally replied to me asking about whether stating something factual can run afoul of hate speech laws and now the goalposts have moved to whether in some alternative universe without hate speech laws it'd be more or less likely there would've been a whistleblower in this specific instance. How is anyone supposed to answer that? It's pure innuendo and doesn't merit a response. Unless you have anything substantive to provide, I think I'm going to leave it here.

Yeah, I'm failing to see how this is an example of "people [wanting] to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of [hate speech laws]". The article makes no mention of hate speech laws or anyone being prosecuted under them for discussing the representation of various ethnicities in sexual-assault statistics.

What the article does mention is that local officials and other agencies were "wary of identifying ethnic origins for fear of upsetting community cohesion, or being seen as racist", which is mere cowardice. In fact, I am somewhat surprised you are not using this to argue that government officials are too scared of free speech to do their job: that the implied threat of some people using their free speech to call the local government racist is enough to paralyse its function.

No, to me, what this article shows is how unfettered speech actually functions: a foreign billionaire with the loudest megaphone in history is dredging up a decade-old stain in our country's criminal history to aid and abet our domestic right and far-right political parties. And I think the fact that those parties immediately jumped on this in the media shows that it's very much not something that'll get you thrown in the gulag for discussing.

> How long have some people wanted to discuss the over representation of some ethnicities in sexual assault clusters, but couldn't because of these laws?

I don't know, perhaps you should give some examples of this actually happening rather than relying solely on implication.

Alas, the distraction continues.

Do you also insist that we treat with proper decorum those who throw out assertions that jetfuel cannot melt steel beams? I notice you have yet to criticise them for posting what is at best misguided and unsubstantiated misinformation, and at worst disinformation. Hardly decorum on their part, is it? Instead, you are hyperfocusing on my "freeze peach", disregarding everything else I said in my comment. I find this to be a boring distraction from the topic at hand.

Okay, so just to be clear, you don't have even a single example of someone being prosecuted under hate speech laws for stating facts in the 40-odd years since its passage? Why is this not just concern trolling?

As to the general question, no, a statement being true does not immunise it from an accusation of it being used to stir up or incite hatred, or at the very least such a defence is not defined within the Public Order Act 1986. We do have the Human Rights Act which protects Freedom of Expression, but whether you could use it or other defences is pure speculation on my part: I would need to see some actual caselaw.

I've attempted my own searches but have only encountered the usual suspects: holocaust deniers and their ilk. Please let me know if you find such a case because I genuinely think that would be interesting to debate, but debating over pure speculation and innuendo is very boring.

> surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.

Oh we were already at that level by that time: the comment mine responds to makes the claim that "it is really difficult to define what hate speech is" (untrue); that "more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition" (unsubstantiated); and claims that the UK government's intentions match that of Iran and Russia (untrue).

For some reason, so many people seem to tolerate outright disinformation but draw the line at mild childishness. It's bewildering.

Do you have any examples of people being prosecuted for hate speech by stating nothing but dry facts?

Cool beans

> Interesting that the cases that spring to mind for you are literal neo-Nazis.

If I had a penny for every time this happened....

Yeaaaah, the Communications Act 2003 is not fit for purpose in the modern information age where [seemingly] the vast majority of conversation is taking place in digital spaces. Sidenote, I do think it's amusing how, prior to the Online Safety Act 2023, it was an offence to Cunningham's Law someone (posting a knowingly-false statement online to annoy someone into correcting you). That said, I'm more or less ambivalent about "grossly offensive" speech: most of the examples I find people moaning about are people being gratuitously abhorrent and should have known better. But again, there are examples of police and prosecutors getting it wrong.

But I think the leap from acknowledging that to "speech should never be infringed", as many freeze peachers would advocate, to be infinitely more destructive: just see what it's doing to America. Just look at what the infiltration of American-style freedom of speech principles is doing to this country: we have people defending Lucy Connolly, the woman who publicly advocated for the burning down of hotels housing asylum seekers, calling her a "political prisoner", that the government is "silencing the right".

One part where I agree with you is "From the river to the sea": there are two versions of this (more than two, but they are variations of the same thing), the first being "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and the other "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Guess which one our government finds objectionable. And guess which one is being used to justify a genocide. It does bother me that the government can chill and punish speech that objects to its foreign policy. But I feel as if (this is just vibes, feel free to correct me) the most harm being done is through anti-protest laws, not grossly offensive digital communications: I personally know of multiple people who regularly post abrasive, if not downright virulent "silence is violence" type content online, but do not go to protests because they fear arrest, detention, and being fired.

What a shining example of freedom of speech, right here. Bravo.

> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is

It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark contrast to the common strawman touted by freeze peach types of "are you just going to compile a list of 'bad words'?!" Hate speech is not magic: you're not casting the self-incriminatus spell by saying the bad word.

That said, I wont pretend like that aren't misuses of police powers in regard to speech, and expression more generally. We've seen a crackdown on protests over the past few years which is more than a little frightening. That said, it's become a pattern that anytime I encounter a discussion online about the UK trampling on freedom of speech or whatever, it always comes back to hate speech. It's almost never about protest or expression. I think that's interesting.

EDIT: Correction, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 did not make stirring up or inciting "homophobic" hatred an offence, but rather hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. So one could get prosecuted for being inciting anti-straight hatred.

Scope guards are neat, particularly since D has had them since 2006! (https://forum.dlang.org/thread/dtr2fg$2vqr$4@digitaldaemon.c...) But they are syntactically confusing since they look like a function invocations with some kind of aliased magic-value passed in.

I think OP is directing their ire towards projects with multiple maintainers, thus is more likely to be hamstrung by consensus building and is thus less productive. It does seem like we've been swamped with drama posts about large open-source projects and their governance, notably with Rust itself, linux incorporating Rust, Pebble, etc. It's not hard to imagine this firehose of dev-drama (that's not even about actual code) overshadowing the fact that the overwhelming majority of code ever written has a benevolent dictator model.

It depends on governance, for want of a better word: if a project has a benevolent dictator then that project will likely be more productive than one that requires consensus building.

Okay, seriously, can we just get one, just ONE document/image spec that doesn't let you embed scripts or remote content? What is with this constant need to put the same exactly vulnerability into EVERYTHING?! Just let me have a spec for completely static documents, jfc!

Figured I'd add that the BBC has had to apologise recently for Question Time posing a question to the panellists about a stat of 1 in 3 children in Glasgow having English as a second language, but the text prompt they showed on screen lied, saying that 1 in 3 children in Glasgow are not fluent in English. That's a pretty substantial change.

It's not very centre-left of the BBC to aid Farage in his racism, and of course there's a Reform politician there to have the first and last words about it. Keep in mind that this is a Scottish episode, with the leader of the Scottish National Party at Westminster, the leader of Scottish Labour, the leader of Scottish Conservatives, a Scottish journalist (there's usually one or two non-politicians on the panel) who did a lot of indyref coverage. And despite Reform not winning a single seat for Scotland in the 2024 General Election, or in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021, they apparently always need to give Reform a voice on everything so they shoehorned him onto this panel.

This all just screams centre-left.

> Second-wave feminism explicitly challenged and rejected biological essentialism

Exactly, hence why JKR's depraved dogma is anti-feminist: the idea that women can be disqualified from their womanhood for not being biologically pure enough is aggressively bio-essentialist. See JKR's disgusting reaction to Imane Khelif where mere rumour was enough for JKR to disqualify her womanhood entirely and call her a "a man beating a women in public for entertainment". And as konmok as said in their comment: you were all too willing to do the same in another comment thread. This is exceedingly cruel, hateful, anti-feminist, and not worthy of respect within a civil and democratic society. I will no longer be responding to this level of inhumanity.

EDIT: Sidenote, you claiming to have been rate-limited despite having a pretty sparse profile is very funny and implies that you're either running multiple accounts (probably to defend JKR and her cronies) or because you're thrumming the API like nobody's business trying to find any criticism of JKR. Or both. It could be both.

Partially correct but you are conflating the movement fighting for biological rights (eg: reproductive rights) as it being bio-essentialist. And there certainly was infighting about trans people within second-wave feminism (eg: feminist sex wars), but then there's also intersex people. Second-wave feminists more generally did not have the kind of one-drop rule towards womanhood as you do, where someone could have lived their entire life as a woman, be perceived as a woman, experienced misogyny as a woman, experience patriarchy as a woman, suffered domestic abuse as a woman, have breasts and a vulva, etc, but once some test determines them to be intersex, you disqualify them from womanhood entirely and cast them as male. Second-wave feminists would not have done this. In fact, I believe even Greer deplored surgeries being performed on infants to make them comply with society's perception of the binary.

Have you never encountered a generalisation in your entire life?

EDIT: Fun tidbits:

- Sheila Jeffreys thinks that "any woman who takes part in a heterosexual couple helps to shore up male supremacy by making its foundations stronger".

- Janice Raymond thinks that "all transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves".

- Germaine Greer published a book of some 200 pictures of young boys "to advance women's reclamation of their capacity for and right to visual pleasure".

Truly the height of second-wave feminism right here.