Layke1123

Ahh so now what about banning child pedophilia in holy books? How do you feel about religions texts the promote that particular viewpoint?

Oh, we were actively trying to not drop napalm in Vietnam? If only we could have been a little faster in not dropping napalm. Dratz!

Oh absolutely. I loved it. Just wanted to make sure anyone else who read it was unsure that my comment would remove all doubt.

What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that?

What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples?

I'm curious if you can draw the lines on those or if that's harder to say "this is clearly allowed".

If no one operates in X, X feels pressure to either compete themselves with subpar service as you have said, or they lose out on revenue by opening up for free trade and no longer restricting access on search engines to politics.

If you are asking how best to help their population in general, there are a lot better things you could do to help their people out. At a minimum, you could start your own private search business that refuses to limit your searches and fill in a niche and make an even better search algorithm rather than dictate what you think a private business should be able to do with their platform.

If this were a public right or utility, then you have an argument maybe, but last time I checked, private businesses aren't in the business of serving a public right, only try to make a profit.

But his point is exactly that those were not his ideals, but just pleasant rhetoric to invoke the action of those beneath his position to benefit him. It's not a criticism of the idea that "all men are created equal". It's a criticism of Jefferson's actual belief in said ideals.

Here! I support this! If it makes you want to use a different service and are critical of the giant platform that Apple and Google have, good!

The other positive here is that one less religion in the world is promoted as being equal to all others. I'd rather only have to deal with 4 mass delusions than 5.

Not operate in those spaces?

What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"? Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?

Absolutely. Free speech means your default position is that you can say whatever you want, and then the court can determine if it violates the spirit of the law.

The flip side to this is that you can absolutely be given a sentence in other countries without free speech and have to litigate or violently overthrow the regime that denies you due process.

But in neither society should something like racism be tolerated. There is no good that can come from saying white people are better than black people simple because they are black. It is not a useful metric at all when evaluating people. MLK really said it best. Do not judge based on the color of his children's skin but the content of their character.

I suspect it's likely to promote a certain viewpoint. Hacker News has a vested interest in not questioning a system that it benefits from.

For instance, anyone who might be critical of a US historical policy typically has "no business" here because politics cause ideological flame wars, or some other half baked reasoning.

While it is very encouraging at fostering dialogue on tech, once the dialogue goes against Hacker News's ultimate purpose, to make money, that's where you start to see weird accounts and strangely offensive comments questioning the act of questioning.

I upvoted you, but I want to make sure my reasons for doing so are accurate. This was sarcasm, yes? It might not be so obvious if others read through this so just want to clarify.

So you are saying that foreign powers had no influence whatsoever on the internal political situations in Russia, or that is was a mix of factors? You do admit that they helped Lenin get back to Russia at least. If Lenin never helps get back, does he ever rise to that level of power?

Does that also apply when Capitalist policies have inevitably failed and murdered millions? The civil war actually was the bloodiest war in the US's history no? Was that not a failure of capitalism? Was the great depression not a failure of capitalism?

I have repeatedly told you. The direct answer is that the US is directly responsible for meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign state repeatedly causing political turmoil and economic disaster. Do you disagree with this statement? I'd love for you to prove the US had no involvement in fighting against the USSR to varying levels of success.

To our fellow readers on HN: notice how alentist himself cannot answer a question asked back, even though I have given him the answer to his question directly multiple times. It is his attempt to save his narrowly constructed world view that he is right, America has never committed atrocities against its own people and others, and you should accept his point of view matter of factly without questioning! Notice how he acts more like the places he criticizes than I do simply for questioning his assertions?

Where did I ever name call you? My position is if you have thoughts to carry out murder and actually show actions that indicate your thoughts might become reality, they can absolutely be used as evidence in the court to convict you of conspiracy to convict murder without ever having to have actually committed murder.

By your whole argument, this person shouldn't be held criminally responsible UNTIL murder has actually occurred.

I have responded to your misleading comment elsewhere, but in fact the commonly accepted definition of free will as known to the general English speaking population is that free will is not an illusion of choices but a direct ability to influence the world without prior cause, something that is IMPOSSIBLE according to the know laws of physics, both quantum mechanics and general relativity. Even the Copenhagen interpretation permits the universe is infinitely "splitting" to handle different "choices" or "events" happening.

As for your blatant attempt to misrepresent the cognitive science communities belief on the subject, again, put up or shut up by linking to anything that backs up your claim that current cognitive scientists support your point of view. I know for a FACT, that you can't because papers and talks on the subject are FREELY available to watch and/or read!

What do you mean by it? The browser itself? In that case, everything done in the browser could theoretically be pushed down a level from user space into kernel space, potentially saving a lot of overhead, no? The only trade of I imagine is the context switch you hit from doing everything in userspace, but as far as I'm aware, even browsers have to eventually hit the kernel for at least raw input output on the network.

Why not let the OS do more and more of the complicated technical stuff, simplifying the deployment of web apps because now we don't have to know a thousand different bloated libraries, just a slowly updating set of OS APIs.

Say not browsers, but linux becomes the dominant OS in existence on all platforms, not just embedded and server. Does that move the most targetable platform back to the OS level instead of the browser level if we are going off the metric that human interaction and ease of use is more heavily weighted than all possible machine interactions?

Right, but you could implement all of that at the OS level too, which to a large part of my understanding is what things like docker is built on. Changes to the kernel to allow sandboxing at the kernel level for instance versus doing it in user space (which browsers could theoretically implement with syscalls now?), and would reduce a lot of overhead no? Or are browsers faster because they stay in user space and avoid context switching?

Is there a specific advantage to running in the browser versus running in everything at the OS level? I've always been a little confused why are abstractions went all the way up to the browsers. It seems that you could push a lot of browser functionality down the stack and simplify a lot or architectures and remove a lot of cruft we don't need.

You disagree that forcing people to get vaccines is not in the best course of action?

What is invalid about them? You claim free will exists. Yet if you admit "free will" is simply believing you have a choice when the underlying reality is that you don't actually have a choice, only the illusion of it, you are intentionally not admitting the truth which is your definition of free will is a LIE!

At any point you could link to any scientific study that established the rigor of your arguments. The fact that you do not indicates you are unable to, or you are aware of the latest scientific evidence that shows contradictory evidence to your claims.

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will

It is not laughable. EVERY point you have tried to make has been demonstrated to be false or misleading.

If the brain is physical, and you think it doesn't entirely determines your actions, then we disagree on the point it makes to say the brain is physical, as a lot of people reading this think there is something extraphysical about what our brains do.

As for Nazi Germany, all those Germans chose to either resist or go along with putting millions of people into concentration camps because they were enemies of their goals. That was there choice to see others as inferior to them. They still believed Jews had free will, and they most certainly all Christians, which it's fundamental tenants are about free will. You choose to accept Jesus as your saviour. Also, I'm pretty sure their industries were privately owned, ala capitalism. Or are you trying to redefine what terms mean again?

Oh, so it's only OK to talk about the death and destruction left in the wake of other countries you paint as the bad guy, but anyone mentions the atrocities committed by systems you taut as superior rubs you the wrong way? Do you even begin to understand how brainwashed you are? You can't even contemplate the evils your world views have perpetuated on societies as you pretend to claim the moral high ground.

The wealthy can't convince you they deserve wealth if they are dead. Does that make more sense now? The idea is that all the words in the world can't hide the truth of a situation and what ends up happening as a result of said situation.

See how well, "Why don't they just eat cake?" turned out.

No, my comment agreed with the idea that the US is the most significant factor responsible for what happened in the USSR.

The US fought an actual civil war over the right to OWN people. How is capitalism, THE economic system the US has used since it's inception, not responsible for that, as well as the current demand for slave labor that exists today? I will answer your question when you can answer that one honestly.

Because you keep referring to choice and free will in a completely different definition than anyone coming along and reading this conversation understand it to me. It's intellectually dishonest and preys on minds that won't be able to distinguish the subtly and instead just see, "pdonis mention free will, me likely, updoot."