brigandish

A dystopian state?

It does on my balcony where the fan pumps to, which has made doing any gardening difficult, but to the overall outside temperature it's just a drop in the ocean.

Yes, by giving hints it verifies the test because if it can't find it with hints then it shouldn't find it without hints, else there is some other mechanism at work (which would also be useful to know, like access to other tools).

They are told outside the test because if they can't find it when given hints then it's safe to assume it won't find it given no hints. It verifies to test, to an extent, much like running tests that should fail when given a set of inputs that should make it fail (you write an always failing test alongside your other tests, right?;)

> Pedantic bootlicker

Please, try harder to raise the level of debate.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

I'm not sure HN is for you.

> That's not being a "free speech" absolutist.

One doesn't need to be a free speech absolutist to not be a fascist, far from it; and the exceptions prove the rule - those examples are the definition of exceptional. "10 times…" I can remember people getting banned en masse for changing their profile pic to an NPC character. The difference is night and day.

> i'm sure your reply will be pedantic

Have you heard of the term "bad faith argument"? That's a good example.

> - Opposition to political and cultural liberalism

> Yes, banned speech on twitter that trans people use.

I had to check this one. I found two stories. [1] shows that people were warned about speech (e.g. using the term cisgender) but were still able to post without problems. [2] showed that X's rules were updated to prevent harassment in the form of deadnaming or misgendering. I doubt that either supports your assertion to be true.

As to the rest of your answers, you seem to have given away that you didn't read the Britannica article at all:

> - Education as character building

> what

You should know, right? You read the article and made the accusation. You've done this several times:

> - The leadership principle

> idk what this is

> - The “new man”

> or this

There's not really a need for me to be pedantic in the face of such slipshod work, but then again, perhaps you think that not being slipshod is being pedantic. Which would also be wrong, but telling.

Try learning about what fascism is, that would be my suggestion. With a book, while putting your phone away.

[1] https://www.them.us/story/elon-musk-x-ban-users-cisgender-sl...

[2] https://www.advocate.com/news/x-bans-deadnaming-misgendering

That's not a rebuttal. Claiming to support is not support.

Is Musk wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that he disagrees with is suppressed, e.g. on college campuses?

Fascists don't support free speech. Please, learn what that word means[0] and then use it responsibly. We're already seeing the effects of misusing and overusing several other important words for political/societal discourse, and this is one of them. It's entirely unhelpful and lowers the quality of conversation here.

[0] The Doctrine of Fascism is available, for free, in several places. Start there.

> That's the whole point of the conversation lol

> It's like you're side stepping the entire discourse.

No, they addressed that with:

> The only thing that would be non-consensual would be obligating the employer to redistribute her profit over and above what had already been negotiated.

Which would be truly immoral.

"lol"

> AOC also doesn't say anything about "moral", etc.

She says you can't earn it and then gives several examples in a row of immoral and/or rentier economic practices. At no point does she give any example that is what most people would call moral behaviour. She does not give the example pg gives, of simply working hard for it. The implication is that it is impossible to earn that level of wealth morally.

Earn is already defined in the dictionary in both ways perfectly well, and she is using the sense of deserved. pg clearly knows she's using it that way, and his argument is:

1. You can make a billion dollars

2. You can do it by making something people want

That deals with both senses of earn because none of AOC's examples apply and he adds that:

> The reason her startup was growing so fast was that she and her cofounder had been working their asses off to make their users happy

How is that immoral? How is that unearned? If you think it's unearned then you've failed to understand the maths he elucidates in the article, or you've taken a position that earning large amounts of money by any means is immoral (or, like AOC, wish to present the straw man that it's only possible through immoral means).

Which Linux are you using for that?

> Why is social media so different?

Because of what that ban entails that the others don't.

Baseball was invented in Britain.

Isn't the contention that, because football is pay to play in the US, the US isn't that good compared to places that it isn't pay to play?

Baseball, basketball, American football are all sports with much less international participation, and generally require pay to play elsewhere at around the same level as in the US, because of the way the sports are. There's no refutation possible from that.

My mate broke someone's arm bowling at him. Cricket always has an element of danger, for both the fielders and the batters.

I encourage you to look in to how risk is calculated. There are several ways, and all of them - excepting layman's attempts and Claude Haiku responses - are on a spectrum, not a binary. They do not resemble what you have provided.

If someone in your presence were to say "Fuck Willy_k" then I'm sure you'd take that as an aggression, as would any other normal person. It doesn't need HR to know that.

I quoted the straw man, so there's no mistake (on my part), and I would advise you to take a look at the HN guidelines before writing more comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

You don't need to imagine any, I provided one already.

Common law has dealt with this for nigh on a thousand years. If you put a person in reasonable fear that your behaviour may lead to them harming you, then they are threatening you.

The captain and established protocol follow what has been found to be useful and reasonable when on an aeroplane, not teenagers, jokers, or l33t haxx0rs, and asking people to turn off their bluetooth is reasonable, as is turning a plane around when they won't.

Your first two statements are a straw man and thus, become a non-sequitur.

> As soon as you declare the possible effect to be effectively infinite in magnitude, you can justify any level of response to any level of risk.

The possible effect is not effectively infinite in magnitude, and no, it does not justify any level of response. Even if a rogue state decided to bomb a plane, that would not justify a nuclear strike in response.

The common sense that you urge is already being applied, and based on well established, well tested protocol. It's not authoritarian to tell someone to turn off their bluetooth on an aeroplane because they named it in an offensive way. That's common sense.

Risk is not a synonym for the likelihood of something happening, but the likelihood and its possible effect.

For example, the risk of not wearing your seatbelt on the motorway is high because, even though most journeys will not require a seatbelt to stop any negative effects, if something bad happens it will become very high risk without the seatbelt.

Without the negative effect there is no risk, so it's not just probability.

> explicitly not a threat

I don't see that as necessarily true. I can imagine many situations where F INSERT NAME OF ENTITY would be considered threatening. If they had F the captain of this plane, would the captain be wrong to feel threatened at all?

> If you can't know whether something is a threat or not, the only reasonable response is to treat it as a non-threat.

To someone whose primary consideration is safety, like the captain of an aeroplane, your logic is entirely nonsensical.

That is covered in the article:

> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.

If you write your own songs, you'll realise that they are infinitely surprising to you, much like one's own children. Just endlessly fascinating. I sing my own songs all the time, probably more than other people's.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't want to listen to new music by other people, or create more of my own. I'm simply sharing what it is to experience songs written by yourself. I saw Sting the other day talking about the very same thing to Rick Beato regarding songs he wrote 40 years ago, and I remember Brett Anderson of Suede saying that he loved listening to his own music. In fact, wouldn't it be weird if you didn't want to?

It doesn't have to be controlled in such a way that it produces monopolies or enables surveillance.

I have decided that if they'll play dirty then I will. If someone says "protect the children" then I smear those saying it, e.g.

Kier Starmer wants to protect children? He put Mandelson into government even though he was mates with Epstein. Doesn't sound like someone who cares about protecting children to me.

Rinse and repeat for any politician or political side, they are all only a step or two away from someone who's done something horrible to children. It doesn't matter to me whether I really think it's true or not (though in the example I've used, that is my opinion, who employs someone like that and really cares about children?) but *it does not matter*. This is an us versus them situation, and they are making proponents of freedom out to be criminals at best, paedos at worst. They can take some of their own medicine, and anyone who parrots their line. If ad hominem is the name of the game then let's play, I'm on firmer ground than they are.