If he had acted with more tact, he could have avoided the outcry. His presentation was not at the right time nor place. Then going public (although he's not the only one at fault here) made things worst. You cannot do science in the public sphere. It speaks for itself that he was quickly embraced by anti-intellectual political factions.
>There's a difference between being anti-immigrant and being anti-illegal-immigrant.
I used to think that too. I don't anymore. People are anti-immigrant.
The law determines whether the immigrant is legal or not, but that does not matter to the anti-immigrant.
Let us be generous and say the anti-immigrant is so because of economic reasons, depression of wages and what not.
Then does it matter that the immigrant is here legally?
No. He is nonetheless contributing to the depression of wages (ex. H1-b).
And then maybe if the economy is super healthy and there is labour shortage, would it then matter if the now desired immigrant is legal or not? No.
People are anti-immigrant because they see immigrants are others, as competition who has no right to compete with them, or similarly, they seem them as another people encroaching on their territory. Issues of legality concern the state but they do not concern the individual anti-immigrant.
Basically what the article is getting at, is that climate change is not really a tragedy of the commons, because we already had/have institutions meant to regulate the commons and avoid the tragedy.
The real tragedy is that these institutions were corrupted and rendered ineffective.
You have to be careful not to burden yourself with unnecessary ideology.
It is fine to notice the patterns in society and ask questions, but incels and MRAs come with their own unsubstantiated explanations for why this is, and what to do about it. This is not fine. They are basically cults.
Moreover, they are constantly being infiltrated and hijacked by political propagandists to leverage the built up anger for unrelated political purposes.
Plus, you have to be careful not to get dragged into a spiral of depressive pessimism.
Plus, if all of that was not bad enough, there are trolls on those forums egging people on and taking pleasure in the desperation of others.
I am European, but I understand why America is the way it is. America is a country of strangers trying to coexist. They cannot agree on what way of life is the best so they cannot have strong convictions, and thus they cannot have government programs as intrusive as countries in Europe.
All the good things in our European countries come at the cost of choice.
Yes, we have universal healthcare, but it is mandatory and you have no say in the matter. This is fine if everyone is convinced that it is the best solution, but what if they are not?
Why are you taking his word at face value? What he really wants is to spread his propaganda. He is just trying to use reverse psychology to make you do just that.
"Ownership" is meaningless. Each region of Europe have their own laws regarding what you can and cannot do with the land you "own" and what duties and rights you get by owning it.
For example, you might buy one of these houses but the building codes mandate that you renovate and preserve the exterior.
Heck, in some countries you are not allowed to even live in structures outside the habitable region.
m00t had taken action when it was necessary in the past. m00t had already banned the offending parties once. Then he reinstated them and gave them a containment board. In retrospect this did not work so well. The containment board became an ever radicalized echo chamber and worst, it did not contain anything. Since Hiro took over it seems like he has ignored the issue.
This was pre-neonazi days. /news/ and /pol/ were not so bad back then. None of those users back then would have overtly supported nazism.
That is not as big of a problem. The problem is primarily recruitment, not the content itself. Recruitment happens on centralized platforms where susceptible people can be reached and brainwashed.
I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. There is a big difference between allowing non-PC talk and allowing outright neonazi/terrorist propaganda. Besides, it is ruining the experience on all boards for all people.
I found this book a bit too informal. A very easy introduction to Knot Theory, that is still mathematically rigorous is Cromwell's, one of the few books written explicitly for undergraduates. After you are about 1/3 of the way through, you can start using Lickorish. Combined they make the best introduction, by far.
There are technological solutions that could maximize privacy but they are not in use because the private service provider needs to snoop in on your conversations to build a profile of your life.
With a public service we could have a system engineered to maximize privacy. Not to mention real transparency and oversight that is no possible with private services.
Most universities have their syllabus freely available on their websites. For example here is the one from Cambridge University:
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/study/
It is not just that. Some people in this field just have questionable ethics, unfortunately.
Some are just childish and have this close minded ignorant macho attitude that though men, as they style themselves, should not care about ethics.
Then there others who just don't care either way as long as they get paid to play with their toys.
This debate is needlessly muddled by this fuzzy notion that because it is "the Internet" therefore something different needs to be done, that this is somehow a new situation. But it is not.
If it was the 1970s and people were told to sign a contract to allow a company to physically track every single event in their lives, they would not consent to it.
If it was the 1970s and some company tried to get exclusive access to people's TV and radio to bombard them with bespoke advertisement and propaganda, they would not consent to it.
So then what is so different? Nothing much. What Facebook and Google and others are currently doing is way beyond what a sane society would allow. It is just that people are confused because it is done through a new medium, but nothing much is different.
>What would be the fastest and the most effective way to code a website?
Why don't you pay a more experienced webdev to just build it for you and show you the ropes at the same time? That's what I would do. I'd go to a few of those local meetups for devs and try to meet someone. The project itself is fun enough and many people will be thrilled to tutor someone so you can negotiate a reasonable $/hour.
> How much more does Bill Gates really consume than your 'average Joe'?
A lot. Just consider his preventative health care. I would bet it runs in the millions per year. Then consider the education and opportunities that he and his children got.
And then consider that normal people cannot have those same things precisely because Bill Gates and his ilk lobby against any measures that might put some of the country's wealth towards those goals.
>Speaking furthermore, I do find it highly concerning just how much of an echo chamber this place is in regards to this notion of "Chinese colonialism" and Chinese "debt - traps".
Western media should not be trusted to report accurately about foreign non-western countries. They almost never do.
What you say is entirely correct. People need to take a step back and see it for what it really is. In our economy people often get rewarded handsomely for causing harm.
I have a conspiracy theory: they track the persistence level of the user and if the user is very persistent then there is no harm is giving them a few extra puzzles to solve right? I honestly think this might be the case.
Everyone is very aware of private mass surveillance now. Everyone knows that they are being tracked in their daily lives by Google and Facebook and they know in which way the are being tracked too. So maybe, not much changed in terms of laws but people are significantly more aware now. What used to be conspiracy theory is now accepted fact. Stallman is no longer the butt of the joke. Technologists that used to dismiss privacy concerns can no longer do so.
The rise of outspoken fascists and racists is precisely what makes me question whether "free speech at all costs" is a wise political stance, especially when it is patently obvious that the creators of that content are not everyday people, but an entity intent on inciting hatred and violence.
None the less I do recognize the danger of limiting free speech.
Labour is a socialist worker's party. The LibDems exist. Why don't you join them? Why do you want to disenfranchise the socialists and take over the party?