cf141q5325

>I wasn't talking about international law.

I know, I was. I dont care much for the semantics of how warcrimes are tried to be painted as "the right thing to do".

> War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

If you forgo international law in favor of might is right what you do is cultivating terrorism as the victims get radicalized and have no other way to left to respond. And thats not a new insight. Al Quaida was rather vocal about drone strikes and the atrocities in Abu-Ghuraib and Guantanamo being the best recruitment tools they could have ever asked for. And lets also not forget that the war on terror only recently cumulated into the emergence of ISIS, with the rank and file of Saddams dismantled army being there for the creation. People cant be so thick that they believe the phrase "They hate us for our Freedom". "They" hate us for invading their countries with our politicians and soldiers acting with impunity. I mean the US even sanctioned the ICC for gods sake. All those "necessary evils" breaking international law are only making the situation worse.

>In reality there is a large international consensus that Iran must not get nukes

As long as its not based on a resolution of the UN security council that means nothing. Might makes right isnt part of international law of war. Just because we have actors who cant be held responsible for their illegal behavior at the moment doesnt mean we should just ignore international law altogether. Starting a war of aggression is still wrong and voters shouldnt be complicit in such actions by authorizing politicians to do so. Our continuous failure to do so in democracys sets an absolute horrible precedent, in which the voting population of a country is responsible for warcrimes. Might I remind everyone that that was the pretext for atrocities like the British punitive bombardments of German cities during WW2 or, since we had the anniversary last week, al Quaidas pretext for 9/11?

Ignoring international law sets a horrible precedent. If your side isnt adhering to it, the opposite side will neither. This warmongering risks yet again the few achievements we as humanity have made in the last century. I myself really dont want to see a future where i have to worry about state sponsored bio terrorism in response to a neocolonial might is right approach of my government.

Israel has to do nothing of the sort, they have more then enough submarines carrying nuclear weapons to scare off any first strike. Its the sole reason why Germany sold them at a highly subsidized price in the first place. Neither does the US have to support yet another war of aggression. The only thing nuclear weapons for Iran would change is that they wont be the victim of yet another illegal "intervention" in the region. Northkorea showed that rather clearly. Looking at the despots, warcriminals and aggressors in the region who openly talk about annihilating Iran, not forgetting the attrocities of the Irak Iran war, its a rather reasonable idea.

Lets please not sugarcoat or justify warcrimes and remember that a lot of the people at Nurnberg were there for starting a war of aggression.

And to gather support for a war against Iran.

In Europe you can see some "forests" which are devoid of any life. I lived near one as a kid. They are simply not functioning ecosystems but dead silent wood plantations.

>Given the super low price of smaller window A/C units, you'd think they'd install a few more of those, maybe it's impractical for some reason.

In Europe you generally have another kind of window, which you tilt.

https://www.bew24-fenster.de/media/catalog/category/Kat_Kuns...

https://www.plejadium.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kippfens...

Given the construction, you cant conveniently seal an AC in there. Due to the houses being made from stone, you cant easily replace the type of windows. People also generally rent in the cities, so you would have to convince your landlord to let you screw with his outer wall, which is a big no no. Some countries like Germany also dont allow renters to change the outer appearance of a house. This mostly means no satellite dishes hung out of the window, but also no bulky ACs.

I cant really answer that, as i never had any contact with an US curriculum.

The introduction of the ECTS was however highly controversial at least in Germany. Before the Bologna Process German universities had the "Diplom" taking no less then 4,5 years for CS. The introduction of the bachelor with down to only 180ects, so only 3 years, was seen as cheapening the education severely. Universities generally dont see themselves as preparing you for the job market, but instead provide you with the prerequisites to enable you to contribute novel ideas to your field in form of a doctoral degree. That almost every CS job requires at least a bachelor degree is just an side effect from the point of view of the university. An often mentioned criticism was the government selling out the education system so companies could quicker get new employees. Quantity over quality. As a result, you still find a high percentage of students automatically adding a masters to get the equivalent of a "real degree", with some universities not changing much in the structure of their diplom curriculum, awarding you a bachelors degree after 3 years but expecting you to finish the rest.

There is however also the opposite in the form of an (payed, but badly payed) 3 year apprenticeship training after school. You can become an "IT specialist" without going to university and even without the prerequisite school years to start university (normally successfully finishing grade 13 and thus getting your "Abitur"). You can start the training once you successfully finished your 10th schoolyear and thus getting your "Realschulabschluss". The 3 years are 50/50 professional school and working in a company. Looking at the curriculum of one of the first schools in google, they have in total between 880 and 960 school hours. Depending on your focus, 300-400 hours of "Information and telecommunication systems", 200-300 hours of application development, 200 hours of econ and business processes and ,due to accepting people who finished with 10th grade, 60-100 hours of English lessons. IT specialist here means either becoming a sysadmin or a coder.

For comparison last winter 13,000 died of influenza in France

https://www.connexionfrance.com/Practical/Health/Flu-killed-...

Looking at the discussion here, i think there might be a problem regarding peoples frame of reference and vocabulary. What you describe applies to the US, in Europe your bachelor degree consists of 180 -240 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System), with 60 ECTS being equivalent to a year of full time study. The 180 / 240 ECTS are almost exclusively from your field of study. Unless you have a very specialized degree, you wont have any chemistry in your CS degree. The only exceptions for non-CS material is what fundamentals you need for your degree, so for example the mathematical background or scientific writing.

I dont think they are in a position to be trustworthy enough to offer that. Not after the fiasco with their expired addon certificate sabotaging Tor. I still dont see how the standard practice in Firefox to just silently disable addons is anything but malice.

The criminals doing it took it serious, the atrocities were real and the list of victims whos lives they ruined is rather long. Once people hear MK ULTRA they think about staring at goats and LSD but the darker story behind it is the research on sensory deprivation, on torture to break involuntary subjects more reliably. From the school of Americas to Guantanamo to by now most regimes across the world, they all have to thank those "pioneers" of modern torture. The Canadian Dr Cameron who got the funding for his work on psychic driving through MKUltra isnt mentioned in the article but his work on the subject cant be described as anything but monstrous.

edit: "A Question of Torture" by Alfred W. McCoy is a good book on the subject.

In a democracy we should have a recourse other then creating a new party and becoming the government. With a strong esprit de corps between police and the judiciary this unfortunately isnt the case in a lot of democracies.

One would think that an infamous person would check that box too. The idea seems kind of absurd, either your system knows the difference between Bin Laden and for example a 5 year old kid with the same name or it doesnt.

You also dont have to go far and dont need much cash. In Germany the last generation of the Red Army Faction is still on the run and from time to time makes it into the news for robbing a money courier. The other former members of RAF, RZ and co who were caught a few years ago lived rather ordinary lifes in the French countryside. Once you severed all ties to your former life and your looks changed over time you are good. Bulger was only caught after someone recognized him due to persistent media coverage and alerted the FBI.

If you voluntarily come ill-prepared into a life threatening situation to have fun you are reckless and selfish. It risks not just your life but the lives of the people around you.

Glorifying this sort of behavior is completely irresponsible.

edit: Did you reflect about how some people might take your posts here as a motivation for a grand adventure? Not thinking about it to much and just breaking out of the daily grind and experiencing the magic bus?

edit2: I mean this is really beyond me, if anyone is actually thinking about doing something like this, think for one moment what you would tell the family of a rescuer who might die trying to save you from your own stupidity. That you are sorry?

Except you dont put yourself recklessly in danger on purpose for fun relying on rescue infrastructure meant for accidents. Being reckless is not an accident nor should it be an emergency.

I dont really see a difference to Everest tourism, where people push beyond their limits to reach the top hoping that someone will get them down again. And then there is an outcry when they cant be helped, like the media spectacle around David Sharp. He went up there without oxygen and people saw him dying right on the track unable to get him down.

If you value your life so little its your choice, but please consider what that does to people who have to leave you begging or getting them to gamble their own life to save you.

>You undertake something dangerous, then death is a possibility that is understood. Just accept it.

You dont live in an isolated bubble. You will call for help if lost or injured and it will be up to others to either take on the grueling task of mounting a rescue in such conditions or leaving you for dead while you beg for help on the radio. In reality they will have no choice but to put them self in danger to rescue an adventure tourist. With the given example of the magic bus its volunteer firefights who have to rescue these tourists.

Its volunteer firefighters who are responding to the calls for rescue.

>It's primarily volunteer firefighters that execute these rescues. And there have been numerous rescues.

Getting yourself knowingly in that danger, relying on people having to rescue you if it doesnt pan out seems rather shitty to me.

It does seem quite a bit, furiouspete talked about jobbing as a student in reforestation in Canada (his shrooms video) and apparently if you are quick you go through 4k a day per person a 12h shift.

https://youtu.be/tzHw86XmNgc?t=440

> that it was most likely a political move masquerading as being motivated by theology.

Reminded me a bit of this wonderful conversation on "you are the worst".

> “I was defending our country.” “Oh, please. You weren’t defending anything except for the business interests of evil men.” “Jimmy, our country is the business interests of evil men!”

Not telling the user is also problematic. If your false positive rate isnt 0% you are seriously messing with some people. The same issue exist with shadowbanning, you can make an argument to shadowban trolls who dont follow the rules of a given environment on purpose, but shadowbanning a random user is just really ugly. Wasting someones lifetime like that for no reason is just wrong.

Where did you hear that? Their push to get Professors using their pay walled online services as mandatory coursework looks like quite the opposite.

The university doesnt have to use online material from the publisher. Its as much their decision as what books are in the library in which volumes.

I think we might be talking past each other. The procedural concern you mentioned is an ethical concern, a departure from the procedure is the unethical part.

Just having an ethical consideration doesnt preempt the conclusion of that consideration. I am talking ethical consideration not ethical statement. The consideration part might be summarized like you did here

> How do we quantify harm induced by a change regarding LinkedIn ad-density?

For the consideration what negative effects there are, there are ethic boards, as its generally considered unethical to make that consideration alone as a stakeholder. Forgoing the conclusion of that consideration doesnt mean we didnt need an ethics board in the first place.

There are two distinct questions here, what are the ethical concerns for the study and should there be an ethics board involved in finding an answer to the first question. Since we are talking about long term impact on peoples behavior, i think you can make a case that not considering the ethical aspects of that impact on unknowing test subjects is generally unethical?

No idea why this is downvoted, same thing here.

Ripping off students through overpriced mandatory textbooks is not a worldwide phenomena. Through CS Bachelor and Master I too have never had to buy a coursebook. The few books that were needed for extremely standardized courses like math 1-3 were available in sufficient numbers in the library.

It takes two to force students to spend so much on books, a publisher can price their books anyway they like if there isnt a university forcing their students to use them. That for profit universities dont have a problem with that is not surprising.

No its an ethical concern. To the degree, that some countries have legal frameworks to make sure that unethical studies dont take place.

Conducting a study on unknowing testsubjects which aims to influence the subject is an ethical question. Picture for example the nocebo effect, there are only limited studies on humans, as inducing these negative effects on unknowing subjects is extremely unethical. An ethics board has to, among other things, evaluate if your study will induce any negative effects in the participants. While negative effects can be accepted, its extremely unlikely for unknowing testsubjects which didnt give meaningful consent.

Great example of how to encourage piracy.

The attacks on firefighters and medics have been increasing at least in Germany, though finding reporting about it is a bit difficult since politicians used it a s a pretext to change the level of penalty for attacks on medics and firefighters and included cops in the category. Especially including the last group but not doctors and nurses in clinics makes it look more like another law and order push then anything else. As such statistics often tend to group together cops with first responders, which makes any comparison useless.

This is especially problematic since its a historical logical loop in Germany to charge people getting beaten up by cops for attacking a police officer. If they hadnt attacked a police officer it would have been illegal for the cop to beat them up and the prosecutor would be forced to charge the officer for assault. If there is however a open case against the victim, the charges will get dropped most of the time or at least paused in especially controversial cases till after the trial is over. As such you are highly incentivized to never report a cop for assault, especially as even statements of singular police officers get routinely valued higher then reports from multiple bystanders who dont know the victim. If you dont have a tape of what happened your chances of going to jail are high. This isnt something limited to protests and other large public events, there is an infamous case where police officers mixed up a 60yo translator assigned to a suspect with being connected to the accused and she ended beaten up in a police station and charged with attacking police officers. She was lucky that the judge believed her medical examiner that the reports of the cops at the station couldnt be true given the evidence. The other witnesses disagreeing with that story would have likely not been enough. The charges for assault against the cops were however dropped as usual.

German source: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/prozess-um-gewalt-auf-d...

You can find statistics about attacks on firefighters and medics (and not police officers) here for Bavaria (in German though but just scroll to the first graph)

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/gewalt-gegen-rettungskr...

It is more problematic then the shown increase from 250/265 to 327 since medics and firefighter representatives mention a high number of unreported cases. The article mentions a survey among 800 of them had 92% reporting getting insulted or threatened and 1/4 getting physically attacked during the last 12 month. Link to the study in the article is unfortunately down.

I know its a joke, but you are never testing stuff on wild specimens. Labrats are standardized inbred strains like BALB/c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BALB/c

I didnt think i had to mention how incredibly distasteful it is to compare combating malaria and other deadly diseases through pest control with the holocaust.

The method is not the important aspect for an ethical consideration, its the subject. Its like saying that a butcher is just a small step away from being a cannibalistic serial killer.

The problem starts once you no longer have "any human" as the subject of ethical considerations but start to define subgroups.