lone_haxx0r

> Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.

If someone with bad impulse control kills another person, is it not their fault?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that this is the moral principle being debated here.

I certainly don't know the answer, but we should think about this one a little bit before saying that no one is ever at "fault" for anything.

Impulse control is just another facet of human personality, just like being aggressive, or being a bigot.

I understand that some people are more sensitive than me, and they want to feel protected from the things that trigger them. But sometimes they ask things without taking into consideration how their demands would affect those that aren't like them.

In the same way that each one of your (positive) rights is just someone else's obligation, every case of censorship is someone else's lack of freedom. While YouTube is not a state institution (hence they're not morally obligated to cater to anyone's needs, or be a platform for any kind of video), they want to make money, and if their best way to make money is through automatic recommendations, then I'm afraid that YouTube is not for people that don't like automatic recommendations.

If it's deceitful, I think it's fair to call it dark pattern, even if the deceit is done with good intentions.

And Meetup did nothing to prohibit people from posting advertisements disguised as meetups.

A meetup with Twitter users sounds like a nightmare.

... Or you could waste your time on HN instead.

Of course it is discrimination. Your job is to discriminate.

> Anyway, what I'm trying to say is IQ is bullshit, and discipline, social skills, and connections are priceless.

IQ is not bullshit. It's quite good at what it does: measuring intelligence.

Maybe you were referring to the idea that being smart will inevitably make you successful, which is indeed bullshit.

The investments they've done for something that is their resposibility in the first place.

If I go to a restaurant and the food is rancid, I wouldn't be appeased when the owner tells me "we've made investments to stop the food from going bad, we even bought a refrigerator!".

Wow. Are they fucking serious?

They blame federal law for not prosecuting counterfeiters instead of themselves for allowing them to run rampant on their website? (i.e. They want the federal government to do their house-cleaning for them.)

I never thought I'd read such a dumb excuse from a company this big.

Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs.

9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones.

I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.

1. That line would still be hard to draw

2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized.

While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of doing that, simply because moral issues are some of the most complicated questions in the world.

We would never achieve a consensus about the underlying tolerance/intolerance of ideologies, because if we could do that, we would have already done it and we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line?

Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress.

Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens.

> Of course. She is creating a lot of attention for the mismatch between scientists' (in particular IPCC) insights and recommendations and politicians (in)actions and failure to reach the goals they set themselves.

Is she? I've only watched her "how dare you" speech and have read a couple of hit pieces about how she doesn't like Trump (granted, it's not necessarily her fault that journalists focus on this part), but I haven't been exposed to any actual content about climate change because of her.

Why Twitter sucks

Please, provide a source for your claim of sexual harassment.

(You won't because it's false)

Luckily, lawyers and bureaucrats don't have that much power over this industry, yet.

Regular people don't "have" or control any phone number, telcos do.

> What's your responsibility when you hand someone a loaded gun and it goes off?

Zero, as long as the person:

(1) Knew it was loaded

(2) Voluntarily accepted to receive the gun.

China isn't really capitalist. Industrialized sounds like a better adjective to me.

If it was really capitalist, it would have stopped being cheap long ago.

Straightforward in the same sense that "getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" is "trivial"[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

RISC is a generic term for ISAs with few instructions (in comparison to CISC ISAs).

Using security exploits is non-coercive. Law is coercive.

You go to law school to learn how people convince other people to force other people to do things.

And there's no such thing as a wealthy country, just distributions of wealthy people. Yet we all understand what it means when someone says "wealthy country"

Ok, now make it not shut itself down randomly for updates.

Assuming that they already use a computer and/or a cellphone, sending an email, making a call, or sending an SMS is much easier than creating and maintaining a Facebook account.

I would believe it if someone didn't want to use cellphones at all, for moral reasons, but that person wouldn't have a Facebook account anyway.

I'm rather young, so I might be exactly the kind of person that you were.

I think it's right to shut up when "logic" hurts people's feelings AND there's nothing to gain from saying it, but when there's an injustice and we can at least try to fight back, I think the right thing to do is just saying the "logical" truth, even if people's feelings get hurt.

I don't mean to say that my view is always the correct one, but rather that there's some subjacent right, "logical" system that we should strive to discover and apply. My opinion is simply my best effort at trying to discover that subjacent truth.

For example: Do you think that Cloudflare should have been forced to keep offering its service to 8chan?

Meanwhile, the Linux world is wasting its biggest opportunity to take over the desktop space.

IMO, Unintuitive interfaces (e.g. Gnome shell), forced package management (as opposed to decentralized distribution of apps) and lack of care for graphic design are the biggest things keeping the masses away from the Linux desktop, because in other areas (speed, robustness, privacy, control) it just blows Windows out of the water.

All of these are highly controversial opinions, many Linux advocates think they are not problems, but I think they really are.

For example. Selam G., the author of the article that sparked the controversy said:

""""

[...]

…and then he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”. Let’s also note that he called a group of child sex trafficking victims a ‘harem’, a terrible word choice.

    [>] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
    she presented herself to him as entirely willing.

[...]

""""

The only opinion stated here by Stallman is that "it's the most plausible scenario", but it's an objective truth that it's a possible scenario (even if not the most plausible) for the underage girl to be coerced into presenting herself as willing, given the public knowledge of the situation. Then, Selam gets angry because he stated that possibility.

Note that she doesn't disagree with it being the most plausible scenario, she disagrees with it being a possibility at all (an objective truth, because coercion is a thing), and then she twists Stallman's words (presenting oneself as [something] vs being [something]).