feurio

I suspect that this was a playful take on the notoriously dishonest character of the ex-Prime Minister :-)

Grant Shapps had an interesting take on it:

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/161277296322435891...

I've had real issues with Azure. The (opaque, non JWT) refresh token seems to expire well before the access token is due to expire.

Unless I force the access token to be refreshed 20 or 30 minutes before the stated expiry time then the session gets killed off.

It works now, but there was a lot of head scratching and trail-and-error before I found out what was going on.

If it doesn't require you to prove your identity with a gov issued document then you'll be able to create a new account. My FB account certainly doesn't have my real name.

If it does require you to do so then run away from that platform very fast.

Yeah, a Million Man Meme is going to be so effective ... BLM & Antfi seem to have no problems organising themselves anyway and apparently they are practically terrorists according to the alt-right.

If you want a way to "fix it" then vote for someone who will bring in regulation to crack down on the powers that tech companies have.

And if you don't want to do that because you're a libertarian fan of light touch regulation of business, then you probably need to have word with yourself.

If you get banned, just create another account and then don't do the thing that got you banned.

It's really not that difficult.

In a similar vein, Maglev hashing has a more uniform distribution and decent reshuffling. I couldn't get my head around the explainaions that I had seen until I read this one:

https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/conference/protec...

Given that the risk of myocarditis after covid 19 infection is six times worse than after vaccination [1] this is just a cost of doing business.

(where "cost of doing business" is defined as "not dying from a disease which is easily preventable in the vast majority of cases")

[1] - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocardi...

How did it work out for Prussia?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Absolutely no idea that you were not a native English speaker - as far as I recall it's been impecable. Genuinely, hand on heart mean that (although the following sentence will be tongue in cheek).

However, if you're looking for offence where none was intended ... doesn't that mean that you're woke? That's what they do, right?

Let's just ... Finish.

(And the Italian guy, I wasn't mocking - certainly not his English - I found the first message difficult to undertand what he meant, so wanted to make sure that he was referring to what I thought he was before contining. God knows his English is better than my Itaian. Or Finnish).

Clearly it's not just pronouns that the anti-woke have a problem with, it's also proper nouns.

Ahh, the capitals are important - they help you not to conflate things.

I might not support Antifa beause of (some of) their activities. But I'm anti-fascist because I'm not fascist.

I might not support BLM (although I'd struggle to see why) - I don't support them financially, if that counts. The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater.

There is no Woke. There is only woke.

Continue to vote for the Leopards Eating Faces party, and blame "woke" when leapords eat your face. As the LEF party encourages you to.

> Fine, here's how I would define woke: a political movement focusing on issues related to racial and social justice.

> Are you happy with this definition? How does this help in any way?

Absolutely happy. It helps because now that I know that if someone says that they are anti-woke then by definition they are anti racial and social justice. Kind of what I suspected, but good to have it confirmed.

Look, I'm a middle aged, middle class, white, straight, cisgendered (whatever that means) male. It makes no difference to me. But I know that I'm not anti-woke.

> Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just resort to a whataboutism argument every time somebody points out something wrong your camp has done.

It's not whataboutery, it's just an explanation. If you don't want people to be fired from a job for specious reasons then don't don't vote for those who want lax labour laws which allow people to be fired for specious reasons (or no reason at all - which is likely far more common than anything to do with white power signs, but doesn't make the news).

If the people who don't want stronger protections for employees also happen to be the ones who are telling you that woke is the problem (definitely not the lack of rights for employees!), then maybe recalibrate your bullshit detector.

If they are also the same people who are discouraging you from getting vaccinated or maybe bleach will cure covid then run like hell - they are the real sociopaths.

If you think that woke is problem, you're being gaslit.

With respect, I haven't asked for an essay, just an update to the definition. Simply amend the following line from Merriam Webster:

chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

In terms of concrete examples, going back over the thread so far all I can find (if I missed any please correct me):

) SDG&E driver.

) Boeing comms director.

*) Grievance studies affair

For the SDG&E driver, if he was performing some kind of white power salute in clearly marked company vehicle (and, let's be honest, nobody really knows if he did or not except him) then some kind of disciplinary action at work would be appropriate - it's pretty dispicable (unless you're a keen racist) and it brings the company into disrepute. A final written warning or something. But because we don't know if he did or not, a less severe meeting with HR, being reminded of the need not to bring any bad publicity to the company, we believe you are acting in good faith, but please don't do this knuckle cracking thing again - it looks bad.

What amazes me about it is that the labour laws are so lax that people can be summarily sacked without any due process. I understand that this is common practice in the US and happens all of the time. Seems to me that solution to this is to campaign for stronger employee rights. You can't uninvent smartphone cameras, and you can't stop people from posting things on twitter, but you can strengthen labour laws. This isn't a problem with woke, it's a problem with lax regulations.

As for the comms director, he resigned. That's just what comms directors do if they become the story. He wasn't sacked. If behind the scenes he was forced to resign then see previous point about labour laws and he should take them to an employment tribunal.

I find the Grievance studies thing hilarious. Clearly it is a wonderful hoax, and calls into question the quality of the review process at the journals and maybe the utility of social science (I've alwayss been a bit sceptical of calling it science, tbh). But seeing as it was a hoax and not really not a controlled experiment you can't really take away many conlcusions from it.

How anyone can read a title like "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" or "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use" without pissing themselves laughing is beyond me. I would certainly resign if I'd have waved that through without going back to the submitter and saying WTF is this.

If these are your "concrete examples of the destruction woke has caused to society", I just don't see it. An example of how lax labour laws are a bad thing, certainly. An example of calling (some) social sciences a science being a bit silly, yes.

But just look at the people crying woke all of the time, the likes of Fox and talk radio. The same people who want lax labour laws. The same people who undermine the science about vaccinations and have lead to tens (possibly hundreds?) of thousands of uneccessary deaths of people who would have survived had they got vaccinated. That is very real and raw destruction of human lives and society.

I really am genuinely trying to understand how woke has become the bogeyman du nos jour. It's become a hysteria - say something is woke and you ascribe some mythical attributes to it that cause people to fall into paroxisms.

Same as a bunch of strange crazes that have cropped up over the years; witch trials, spanish inquisition, mccarthayism, 80s satanic child-abuse.

Say something or someone is woke and it's like yelling "communist" in the 50s.

It's a fantastic distraction mechanism for anyone wishing to deploy it and I'm just staggered that seemingly intelligent people go into a Pavlov's dog response as soon as they hear it.

The amazing thing what I've found is practially no-one can actually put into words what they think it means.

> This is textbook example of a "whataboutism" argument. I point out one group of people who have done something wrong, and you point out another group of people who have (arguably) also done something wrong, as if it is some kind of justification. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Oh, it's realy not - you presented an experiment (Grievance studies affair) as an example of "how wokes are corrupting science in order to advance their political agenda".

But what you cite is a terrible, deeply flawed experiment which proves no such thing.

So in answer to your question if it wasn't obvious; no, it's not sufficient.

OK, I dont think that I concur with your taking of the temperature of jingoism - cerainly here, but different countries maybe.

> As to the woke, whose self-definitions you seem to be taking at face value. (Why?)

Because practially everyone I know, I would not consider "anti-woke". They are reasonable, not vindictive, anti-racist, feminist. I don't know if they would consider themselves woke, but certainly anyone who deploys woke as a pejorative would consider them woke. Woke has become the go-to term to demonise anything that you disagree with. the right wing headbangers in the UK will refer to our PM as woke. He really is not woke. At all. He literally has ministers out waging a "war on woke". It's a meaningless culture wars smoke screen to distract from the latest scandals and incompetence.

If you are a comms director and you become the story, it's generally accepted that you resign. He wasn't fired. Given that the role is now vacant again for the fourth time in three years it suggests that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Given the 737 MAX crisis I would not be at all suprised if he was looking for a way out anyway.

More sympathy for the driver. Seems like a conditional warning ("if you did do it for that reason we take a dim view - please don't do it again for any reason") would have been more than sufficient. Of course, I'm sure that you'll agree that better employment rights for US workers would help to prevent summary dismissals like this, which can happen any time for any reason.

OK. So what better way to hightlight the corrupting of science than by citing an unethical experiment that ignores all the rules of science?!

This is a bit like the group at MIT sending deliberately vulnerable patches into the linux kernel. It doesn't indiate that the reviewer is malicious, just that the peer review process is lacking. Clearly the papers are obvious spoofs - I doubt that they were read. This is why you need the control group.

I think that it's common knowledge that there is a bit of a crisis with peer review and reproducibility in science in general, and humanities/social science in particular. If sure that the follow-up studies which were properly conducted and controlled will confirm your suspicions. There are properly conducted follow-up studies, right? Right?

I shouldn't be churlish though; let's put prank papers about, eg., <checks notes> butt-plugs, on the board for now. Lord know's it the only thing we have so far.

If this is what keeps you up at night, rather than, say, a president who lost a democratic election whipping up a violent mob which stormed the seat of goverment in an insurrection and called for the hanging of the vice-president, then maybe have a rethink.

It's a bit disappointing, though. I've been promised supression of news stories, people being banned, censored, fired, muted, offed from platforms, the end of freedom of speech, killing, incarceration (I can provide quotes). This is pretty weak sauce by comparison.

The whole thing just smacks of McCarthayism, or the satanic child-abuse hysteria of the 80s.

No doubt that there is a kook somewhere demanding paid hibernation leave for Furries, or some such nonsense, but if you claim that a weird outlier is actually representative of reality will have you finding reds under the bed everwhere and grotesque caricatures of "woke" in every wallpaper pattern you see. It is hysteria.

You may have hit on something about "their political agenda", though - that sounds like something which we should be able to enumerate, perhaps providing us wih a summary of the woke ideology that we hear about. Perhaps then we can synthesize a revisionist definition of "woke"?

So, political agenda - what do "they" want? Shoot!

What is disingenuous about saying that the literal definition of woke seems like a good thing?

I said nothing about Antifa - why are you creating a straw man? Stick to woke.

If you would like to propose a new term that encompases the original defintion of woke and something else then feel free - hyer-woke, or something. Why do you want to change the defintion of words?

And, are you a fascist?

There's no "bite" - it's just a genuine question.

Thank you for providing literally the first response with a concrete example.

I shall have a read - its late here and I have to bed down shortly.

Certainly a poor peer review system is an issue that should be addressed.

Also rather worrying is the unethical nature of submitting bogus research, not getting informed consent from those being experimented on and the lack of a control group.

Is this the best example you have?

Indeed. And alive immmediately before 9/11. And in the 90s, and the 80s. And the 70s.

Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away.

And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.

But why would I go onto Twitter and say that, unless I was a massive racist?

And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly.

Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions".

You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have an issue with the definition provided therein. And no examples. Still no examples.

Here's a link for you - about the most sensible thing I can find about woke from Oliver Dowden, Chairman of the UK Conservative party who has been talking to right wing "think tanks" (lobbying groups) in the US this week. Well, actually not him, but it might as well be. I particularly like the bit where he refuses to define what woke is - seems to be all the range. Enjoy:

https://twitter.com/mattgreencomedy/status/14936111188996956...

Neither is it exclusive to the woke, or anyone else.

What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims.

"Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood"

"I see, proceed with your evidence"

"Meh, go find it for yourself."

> I was not on Twitter before the explosion of woke culture, but every now and then I go to read without an account and there's a lot of verbal violence

Wait, what?! "verbal violence" - I thought you were the defender of freedom of speech? Have we switched and you're now the woke-ist snowflake who is scared of words?

I'm sure you're aware that the next bit is practically the defintion of the slippery-slope fallacy. Given that we have:

* Brazil - Bolsonaro (not woke) * USA - Trump (not woke) until recently and the house likely to turn to the GoP (not woke) soon * UK - Boris Johnson (about as woke as Rip Van Winkle) * Russia - Putin (about as woke as Trump)

I dont think that we're in dange of falling into some Woke World Order anytime soon!

Can you give one soitary example (preferably your best) of a "woke" law being passed, please?

I've invited you to give me an alternative definition - can you just tack on an extra sentence to the Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster or Goole definitions please? Once you have defined what woke is then you can talk about what they do. Wanting people banned, censored, fired are actions that can be carried out by anyone. Vladimir Putin has people banned, censored, fired (and worse), but he's not woke, is he?

We're having a converstion, but for you to make a valid point that people are doing these thing then you need to present examples.

You couldn't/wouldn't present an example of the newspaper wokeness that you suggest is happening.

Give me just one (your best) concrete example of this woke culture in action and you'll have made a point, otherwise this is all just angels dancing on the head of pin territory.

I don't have to talk to anyone - hey have their freedom of speech, and I have the freedom not to listen to their nonsense. Would you force me to

Has a "woke" person killed someone now? Incarcerated them? Examples, please! I mean, I know that in Germany you might get in trouble for holocaust denial, but they kind of have had some major problems with that whole area, so I have some sympathy.

> this thing about freedom of speech and governments is like one of your(theirs?) preferred point, but who cares?

Anyone who cares about reality? Because that's all freedom of speech is. If you break ToS, tough.

I don't follow the coffee machine bit, sorry.

> also yeah Twitter can do whatever it wants, I needed a mainstream platform which helped alienating people towards their circle

Glad you agree that Twitter can do whatever it wants. Maybe it sucks, but that's a free market for you!

Can I take it that you were banned from Twitter? If so, why?

OK, the actual definition on that page is:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE).

Google says: adjective: woke; comparative adjective: woker; superlative adjective: wokest

    alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
    "we need to stay angry, and stay woke"

Merriam Webster: chiefly US slang : aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

So, that seems to be the accepted defintion. I can't really copypasta the whole Wikipedia page now, can I.

The last sentence was not a personal attack, it was merely the logical conclusion his own appraisal of himself; "I am an anti-woke"

If you have an alterative defintion that would refute the conclusion then I'm all ears.

I don't think so. I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing. If you would like to explain why it is, please do.

I don't think that I am oversimplifying anything.

Why are you conflating freedom of speech, moderation and censorship?

Freedom of speech means the government won't come and arrest you for saying something. That's got nothing to do with wokeness or Twitter.

Twitter (et al) are commercial businesses. They have terms of service and if you don't abide to them you get kicked. It's very simple. You're not paying for it - you're not the customer.

If a pig farm discovers that some pigs have started tail-biting and annoyng the other pigs then they'll take 'em out back. Letting a minority annoy the other pigs, resulting in a less valuable product doesn't benefit them. Twitter users are the pigs, not the supermarket. it's just good business.

I'll defend to the death your right to your freedom of speech even though don't agree with it, but I'm damned if I'm going to lend you a megaphone to express it. Particularly if you're going to, say, deny the holocaust and my granparents were exterminated in it.

And as for the idea that racists are going to stop being racists if theyre not on Twitter for people tell them that they are wrong, well bless your heart.

> now that Trump is banned from Twitter, he is still growing his user base, away, unmoderated, and without the opportunity to discuss

I thought that you were against moderation?