lightgreen

Problems with homeless is deeper than finding a place to sleep. For example, some homeless people voluntarily choose to sleep on the street even when they have homes (like one man I knew who refused to go home after his wife death after many years of struggling with cancer). Some people would destroy that property that would be given to them, and will be thrown out by the building administration. Homelessness is partially mental health problem, it cannot be solved just by handing out free apartments.

> Yes, since you only seem to know what right wing media tells you.

You cannot seriously believe he was not a criminal and a junkie.

Here the left wing sources about his criminal history: https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-who-is.html

Here is left wing source about his drug use: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/08/us/derek-chauvin-trial-ge...

> Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.

Many criminals junkies walk free regardless of their skin color. George Floyd was just too unlucky to be high on several drugs, committed crime and resisted arrest on the same day. This combo could not end well.

> This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.

I'm not a racist, and I don't talk with people who throw insults, and generally don't talk to people who cannot conduct a constructive dialogue.

So this is my last reply to you. You may reply, and I'll read that reply, but I won't reply to you again. It was an interesting conversation. Thanks!

> I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi.

I was speaking figuratively. It just happens way to often by left wing people. In fact, you just called me racist in the same message. There's irony in that.

> If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights.

I must say, you don't understand the modern meaning of human rights. Even criminals have these rights. Like UN requires it, all of the western countries signed it, most of the world countries signed it. It is universally agreed on in the western society. Well, I thought so, until I read your comment, and was quite disappointed. I thought better of left-wing people.

> Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok

So it's OK to rape the rapist, I got it. And I already replied to that: fortunately eye for an eye was abandoned by the western civilization, but unfortunately left-wing people are pulling civilization back to the dark ages.

> “Junkie criminal” as if you knew him personally

I did not get that. Do I need to know him personally to know that he has junkie and a criminal?

> And to think the protests were about a single person

Sure protests were for all good and against all bad.

But there were too many posters about George Floyd and other black criminals, there was too many lies in crime statistics posted by left-wing media supporting these protests, so let's say these protesters were misinformed at best.

> clearly you don’t care enough to be informed.

Well, you have formed your opinion about what I know and what I don't (not the first time in this thread). It's not my job to convince you otherwise. Continue living in an imaginary world where everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.

> I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever.

Thank you for your opinion, but I'm not on the side of nazis. I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.

> Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part

I'm not "siding" with these people. I try protect their rights and freedom as well as rights and freedoms of anyone else.

I'll try to explain the difference, but it is so obvious, so explanation might be hard.

There are two reasons: humanist and practical.

First, even serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.

Second, if society today decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists, day after tomorrow you won't be able to talk freely. It happened too often throughout history, even in modern times, literally in the last decade (I'm not talking about the US, but it applies to the US to some degree).

> People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments

No, I referred to people who were looting and rioting.

Also, it was not murder. George Floyd case was manslaughter at best. I think it is not even manslaughter, but I'm not a lawyer. Again, as I said before, it's hard to talk to people who redefine words for their advantage.

> along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!

It is called deplatforming, not cancelling. If that's true, shame on them! Show me the proof, I'm condemn both of these platforms.

> If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose.

Yes. But if you dig 10 years old tweet, and then demand a company to fire an employee, and gather a big crowd, that is cancelling.

By the way, my personal policy is to ignore companies which participate in any political activity, whether they support gay rights, christian rights, nazi rights, black rights, human rights, animal rights or whatever, I don't care, I would pick a company which just sells a product. Simply because dividing society is bad, and I support companies which do not do that.

> Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire"

Technically it does limit free speech. And limiting free speech is sometimes acceptable, when it is universally acceptable. Only a dozen of knuckleheads would support freedom to shout "fire" in a theater.

> do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?

It is not freedom of speech issue for several reasons: they are not monopoly, their resource is limited, there are children who watch TV etc.

> I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing

Technically it was never? just because they are left wing, US has so many laws, there's a law to harass anyone. Ruby Ridge was one of many case where right-leaning people were harassed by the government. But I agree, until recently, left wing were harassed by the government more often.

That statement of yours looks like you are willing to retaliate against rights for injustices of the past. This is very shortsighted, let alone inhumane. Those FBI/CIA agents and their bosses are long dead. Don't punish children for the sins of their fathers.

> Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech?

I can tell you my story, and there are unpleasant parts in it, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. But that story is not for this website, we can continue in e-mail if you wish. farright@altmails.com is a redirect e-mail.

Anyway, I'm always on the side of those oppressed. When free speech is restricted for someone, I'm all for them regardless of their political views, lefts, rights, jews, arabs, blacks, whites, gays, christians, nazis, doesn't matter. When peaceful protesters get arrested, again, they have my full support regardless of their views. But when people start burning buildings because of police incident resulting in non-intentional killing of junkie criminal resisting arrest, they have no my support.

> Take the hint dude, a lot of people think you're wrong, a lot.

The orange website is quite left-leaning, and there's nothing racist in my comments. Your opinion is understandable, but it doesn't mean I'm "wrong".

And no, I'm not going to bend to groupthink. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is a greatest achievement of western civilization, and I'm going to use it despite of increasing number of attempts of left-leaning activists to shut it down.

> Maybe reflect on your opinions a bit and reconsider a few of them?

Believe me, I do it, when I learn something new. But only then, but not when I'm downvoted/flagged or told I'm wrong or racist.

I see, thanks.

Anyway, it does not disprove my point about countries which became dependent on US, and civil wars where one party is supported by the US.

> USA took Iranian independence

Iran problems began with islamic revolution, and USA had nothing to do with it, no?

> Afghanistan was better of before US took it

Which conflict you are talking about? War in Afghanistan started almost 50 years ago.

> now Taliban controls more territory then they did before US came in

Yeah, the US need to finish what it started. I think Trump decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was a mistake.

No I haven't been to Vietnam specifically, but I've been to other countries.

Also, you don't need to visit a country to learn what it's GDP per capita compared to other countries in the region. And you don't need to visit the country to learn that it's citizen are used as a source of cheap unskilled labour, in the country and abroad.

Vietnam is not doing too bad though, they are gradually switching to proper market economy.

> didn't reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable

I suspect this article (or at this part of the article) is bs.

Non-native speakers know highly industry-specific words very well, because it is the words they are using every day. Moreover, industry-specific words in business correspondence rarely have double meaning unlike everyday words.

> Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer

likely made up this story to get some publicity, but could not find a good simple example.

This symbol is (probably) mostly used by certain small group of right wing people, but it is not used for self identification (unlike swastika by nazi).

So swastika is a nazi symbol, but pepe is not.

Or another example: Star of David is often used by ZOG conspiracy theorists, but it does not make Star of David ZOG symbol.

Even if only right wing used that symbol it would not make the symbol itself right wing.

Like sigma letter is used mostly by statisticians, but the sigma is not a symbol of statistics.

Why it is here? HN is a political news website now?

> Not sure why people are opposed to measures that increase privacy?

Because small increased of privacy should not result in huge usability decrease.

Just create second account. This feature you describe is needed like to one in a million users.

There was no barrier between USSR and Britain nations, the barrier was between USSR government and democratic world.

Don’t blame Google for that. It’s Mozilla management failure.

> 1. Picking who is worthy of living in San Francisco as determined by the City and County of San Francisco

No it is decided by the free market.

> 2. Removing current residents that don’t fit the criteria

Only those who rent. People who own property can continue to live there as long as they wish.

> racist applications of eminent domain used to remove "undesirable" (a euphemism for black) neighborhoods

I'm sure white trash neighbourhoods were not welcome there as well.

Anyway, I'm not ready to continue conversation where everything is considered racist, sorry.

> this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause

There's a lot of places where very few people can afford to live. Like Manhattan for example.

> Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants.

If native own property they can continue living there as long as they wish.

> reduce the market and therefore increase prices

Why is that a problem?

> if you start limiting the people, the ones remaining will most likely be the rich

Why is that a problem?

> I never got a straight answer whenever I pointed out the problems

What are the problems?

Good videos which end terribly are exceptionally rare.

Dislike mobs do more harm. They probably ignore dislikes already.

> Like/Dislike ratio can also express approval and disapproval for the subject itself, which is also valuable.

No it is not. It only causes unnecessary frustration for content creators. Some of them may give up instead of trying again.

And for viewers, their recommender is likely already good enough to recommend good videos ignoring dislikes signal.

Comparison of likes to views works well enough. Actually, they don't even need likes, they can understand good and bad videos just by analysing how long viewers spent viewing the video.

Likes (and dislikes) are needed mostly for viewers who might want to feel helpful.

In this particular case, the company is interested in more content production. Who are disincentivized by downvotes.

"When reading a text about AI, replace AI with matrix multiplication, it will make much more sense"

It is not necessarily your bias against women. It is equally possible that the woman is not self-confident enough to interrupt you more often.

Recently I had a zoom meeting with two women. One of them was a bit shy and quiet, and the other one constantly interrupted me and the other woman. There was nothing gender-specific in that encounter.

Similarly, in other meetings there are often some men who stay quiet (but obvs nobody cares about them).

Possibly we should let shy people talk more. Regardless of whether they are women, men, black, gay or whatever.

Or maybe not. Maybe you need to be self-confident and a bit bold to lead, because if you don't, you won't be a good leader anyways even if you were given time to speak regardless of your sex. I don't know.

Don't look for sexism in every encounter.

> 6% is within the margin of error.

No it’s not. The article has confidence intervals and findings are statistically significant.

Unless you have some nonstandard definition of “margin of error”.

While I generally I agree with you, let’s not come to correct conclusion using incorrect premises, this approach won’t help anyone.

> Is it? Because most of Wales is mountainous

It's hard to me to say right now mountainousness of these two countries compare (but looking at the map, looks like Scotland has more and higher mountains https://maps-for-free.com/).

But Wales population density is three times as low as in Wales.

So even if mountain availability would be the same (which I claim it is not), then hydro power capacity is three times lower in Wales.

> Still confused about why the population distribution is important

Distribution is not important, density is.

> per-capita is ultimately meaningless unless both declare independence and sever that grid connection

If it was meaningless, we would not discuss the BBC article in the first place.

> it'd be damn hard to find one that has geography that prevents any hydro capacity

Well, technically one can build hydro power plant virtually everywhere where there are rivers, but in many places (with only few mountains) building hydro power plants is prohibitively expensive and leads to too much land wasted for water storage.

> TBH, I'm confused about what you were trying to say.

Amount of hydro power capacity per capita in Scotland is much higher than say in Wales.

> pretty much every country has some geography conducive to hydro

This is simply not true. Availability of hydro in Switzerland is much better than for example in Lithuania.