danlitt

I have had hundreds of tabs open for many months in the past. The bottleneck is usually the OS crashing rather than firefox.

Ridiculous comment. People should not have to choose between functionality and privacy.

Rewriting the URL sounds like it would also allow hitting a dummy server in tests. But how does the rewrite actually happen? If you have the literal URL in your code, then fine, but what if you don't?

It may not work for you, I don't know. But it absolutely does work in general!

This just means the surfaces are dry. The commenter said the air is not dry.

Zero on all metrics. Phew!

This is lovely, but I think falls down the moment you want any generated content (table of contents being a typical first example).

but at some point someone should bring some evidence, or the exchange is pointless.

Is the scraping code available? (in order to regenerate the dataset later)

The 5th amendment only protects citizens, and we are only talking about visiting (as far as I can tell).

Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.

Speaking of being disingenuous, when you say "Police can search phones to counteract human traffickers", did you think critically about that at all before writing it? Given one of the stated justifications is "preventing terrorism", and the UK has been illegally arresting Palestine Action supporters as terrorists for over a year, this seems a little naive at least.

Not addressing your main point, magistrates and judges are not the same thing. It would be much worse if it were at the discretion of a magistrate.

I do agree with your conclusion, but the catalog in most online shops is certainly not impartial. Amazon sells the entire first page of search placement, for example.

The opposite? Literally any justification would be "opposite". Any justification is better than no justification!

> I am excruciatingly aware of the difference between a copyleft license and the public domain.

Then why did you say "no harm was caused"? Clearly the harm of "using our copylefted work to create proprietary software" was caused. Do you just mean economic harm? If so, I think that's where the parent comments confusion originates.

Yes, he seems like a psycho.

The quoted text describes separate comments from different police officers. It's also reported by a third party, is a paraphrase rather than a quote, and isn't bragging.

Are you sure about that? Police brutality has been reported as a huge issue in the US since at least the 60s. If anything, from the outside it looks like it's got better since Iraq.

> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.

What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not the default! If you mean to say something like "it's not likely" or "they're not doing it in unreasonable cases" then your anecdote is not relevant.

> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

Several reasons, which would be obvious if you tried to think of them. Most knife-wielding maniacs are, well, maniacs, and aren't fully in control of their actions. Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns accidentally or inappropriately (in fact, even police are frequently killed this way). People are routinely misidentified by police as carrying weapons when they aren't. Police often give misleading or unclear instructions while trying to de-escalate, and with a gun drawn, failure to comply can and does result in the suspect being shot.

Bear in mind that what you are excusing is essentially a (substantially increased likelihood of) extrajudicial execution. It should be a last resort. It's not enough to say "well he's clearly a bad guy, why give him the benefit of the doubt?".

What does this actually have to do with agents? What does the protocol include that makes this useful with AI rather than just a boring old program?

I actually agree with you that it is working exactly as designed. It is starting wars, separating families, sending citizens to foreign prisons to be tortured, and establishing concentration camps on American soil. The system is working :-(

I grant you that it is different, but you kind of left totally unaddressed the fact that it is not very powerful at the moment. The US is in far more danger than Canada.

> We own and operate our proprietary platform, but we do not own, control or store customer data or the underlying data maintained by independent data sources.

This seems like a critical sentence. Is this database actually operated by IDMerit, or someone else? If so, who?

Most countries already have whistleblower laws. If you are living somewhere that has any kind of "wrongful termination" legislation, an employer asking you to commit a crime is an open and shut case. I would guess that all of the USA and Europe would have existing sufficient protections, for example (although the US never ceases to surprise me).

There is in fact nothing wrong with a middle man who provides a service, as long as their power over you is limited to the provision of the service. The "tech platforms" are not middle men in this sense. They don't just provide a service, they also own aspects of your personal life.

"extremely successful business decision" and "inherently disliked" can both be true. Increasing fees quite often works out for the business too, but consumers don't generally like it.

ok, I'll stop. I am not the only person who suspected you!

Sorry, you are wasting your time arguing, I am pretty sure this "user" is an LLM.

edit: Apparently not!

I found this comment because I was wondering the same thing on a completely unrelated thread. I strongly suspect this is a bot.

> What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary.

Sufficient is not a "subset of necessary". "Sufficient" in this context means a reason that voiding terms is justified. There being a power imbalance does not mean that the terms should be voided. If the more powerful party stipulates "You may not continue to use the service if you use it to commit a crime", then nobody would argue that the term must be voided just because the more powerful party stipulated it. That is why when you say "the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?" this is neither a reductio ad absurdum nor logically valid. Nobody said or implied that any part of the process should be "void the terms if the parties are not equally powerful". You just made that up.

What they did imply was "if the terms are otherwise not justified, and the parties are not equally powerful, you may have to void the terms". In other words, it would be necessary to void the terms.

> What is ridiculous is that you're pretending not to recognize a reductio ad absurdum

It isn't a reductio ad absurdum, because you took the argument "all TOS terms except these 3 categories should be unenforceable" to the logical extreme of "there should be a state-appointed adjudicator who reviews every contract". I am simply advocating for a particular law that should be published.

> OP made a claim about what terms were "justified" and I'm trying to find out the basis for them.

The background reasoning is that service providers should not be able to dictate your behaviour unless it is behaviour that directly affects the service - either because you're using the service in an unethical way, or you're making the service unreasonably hard to provide, or whatever. It happens to be the case I can only think of a handful of terms that have this property. Maybe there are more.

> It isn't, you're just unable to address it.

I think we agree, I am unable to address such titanic arguments as "many people are subservient". I will meditate on these words.