1,045 karma · joined November 30, 2016
Seems like they prefer google prompt, then SMS, then the actually secure stuff.
Also, Computer Science is a much broader field than what this website addresses including very little science but actually a mixture of math (e.g. P vs NP stuff) and engineering (both hardware and software), this website addressing a subset of the engineering part.
[ $X == "hello" ]
example.sh: line 5: [: ==: unary operator expected
[ x$X == x"hello" ]
[ "$X" == "hello" ]If it's at risk, I can still be motivated to do something to save it.
"Even if the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement are achieved, coral reefs are likely to decline by 70–90% relative to their current abundance by midcentury."
"Although alarming, coral communities that survive will play a key role in the regeneration of reefs by mid-to-late century. Here, we argue for a coordinated, global coral reef conservation strategy that is centred on 50 large (500 km2) regions that are the least vulnerable to climate change and which are positioned to facilitate future coral reef regeneration."
They are not "doomed" they are "at risk".
https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy...
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has stated that, “Insufficient sleep is a public health epidemic.”
Ira Hunt (CIA chief technology officer) said in 2014 something like "we like the fitbit because it doesn't have a ... it doesn't ... well I can't say but we like the fitbit."
Sometimes I get the vibe that all our systems are already breached by multiple state actors, and I imagine them having their little digital wars inside obscure chips on our motherboards and none of us being the wiser.
The reasonable means of storage are hydroelectric (via water) and offsetting usage of fuels (coal/natural gas/oil/wood/biogas/nuclear). I'm pro-hydro because it is reliable (24h/day) throttable, significant, non-emitting, renewable, and behaves like a battery. The downside is that locals will lose their precious local ecosystem under the reservior. Some costs are worth paying. There has been concern that reservoirs emit methane - this is easily solvable by evacuating the plant material and topsoil ahead of time. As for the concrete issue, I don't have any good answers.
If you really want solar/wind at 4x demand capacity, then the hydro reservoirs could be refilled by pumping water from a lower reservoir. But I think a better mix is just more hydro: use wind/solar when you have it, hydro when you don't.
To back up my battery point, I'll quote Bill Gate's new book: "How many batteries would they need in order to power Tokyo for three days, until the storm passes and they can turn the turbines back on? The answer is more than 14 million [1kwh thought experiment varity $100] batteries. That's more storage capacity than the world produces in a decade."
Of course you are correct, but that doesn't make me factually wrong. You are talking about publishing illegal content. But (c)(1) "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
And I missed DMCA takedowns.
Let me give this a shot. There are two types of content that need to be removed: (1) spammy content that readers themselves don't want to see, and (2) illegal content that society doesn't want anybody to see. I think these two need to be addressed separately.
Illegal content includes copyright infringement, violations of NDAs, libel, slander, perverting the course of justice (violations of court orders), incitements to violence, consipracy to commit a crime, exposing troop movements, and in general anything that directly causes damages which could be assessed and recovered in a court of law. Racism, sexism, homophobia, "hate speech", advocacy of violence, falsehoods, trickery, promoting very dangerous ideas, lying about (or being incorrect about) vaccines, lying (or being incorrect) about who won an election, offensive speech, and jokes of all kinds are, at least in America, all forms of protected speech.
Illegal content must be taken down when ordered by a court to do so. AFAIK the platform isn't responsible to take anything down unless ordered by a court to do so, but I'm probably just ignorant -- PLEASE dont take legal advice from some random armchair pontificator on the internet like myself. Section 230(c)(1) protects the platform as they are not deemed to be the speaker.
Most people are terrible judges of whether something is illegal or not. For example, many congresspeople think Trump's Jan 6 speech was illegal (it wasn't) because it incited violence (it didn't). It didn't even advocate for violence. The idea that it was illegal is so far beyond Brandenberg to be laughable if it wasn't so serious... but back to the point... Attempts to proactively take down illegal content will invariably take down some legal content, probably lots of legal content, which is why a true "ideal" free speech platform would not attempt to do this... one must have humility and recognize one's near utter inability to determine what is and what is not illegal to any reasonable degree of accuracy during times of political strife like we find ourselves in today. The popular opinion right now is that all of us should enact justice upon each other according to our own personal interpretation of justice... which is just nuts when you think about it. Let's leave law enforcement up to the law enforcement professionals.
The first issue, the spammy content, would then be handled the same way we handle email spam. Plug into the spam filtering service of your choice, subscribe to rulesets, or write your own. I don't know of any platform that lets you plug in your own moderation, and so that's where I think they've all gone wrong - they either get flooded with spam or antisemites and become nearly useless to nearly everybody, or else some moderation team thinks it is their role to filter spam on behalf of the community and the community gets pissy that they filtered the wrong things. These two extremes are both wrong. Users can filter their own content if given the right tools. BTW, Section 230(d) requires providers notify their customers that parental control protections are commercially available... it puts the onus on the users to solve this for themselves... even way back when that law was written.
I'm going to add a third issue, flooding. That has a content neutral solution: throttling.
I see it clearly, and I'm only 10km from Palmerston North which puts out a lot of light.
I've seen it from remote ocean, and more remote parts of NZ, and it never looks like those colorful long exposure photographs. Instead it barely has any color, but certainly has billows of tiny black clouds obscuring uncountable infinitely close stars that look like milk.
1) It is a false statement by google themselves (so no §230 protection) that caused material damage and is thus libelous 2) It is an opinion protected under free speech, and the free behavior of a private company, and the words like "may have" show it is not a statement of fact, and "deceptive" is just an opinion.
Yet it feels very wrong and definately Google's fault, and Google should be responsible for the damages, morally speaking.
It's more than just a false statement, the pop-up is keeping users from visiting the website. However, Google doesn't intend to harm these companies in order to gain competitive advantage, it just harms them accidently, so the monopoly argument also has problems.
It seems to me that we need a new law, or that current jurisprudence has let this one slip through and perhaps there will (in America) never be a proper crime for this situation due to divergent jurisprudence in this space that left open this gap.
I would like to know whether it has been tested in court, or if anyone is in process of doing so.
1) The story is true but not meant for our eyes, 2) The story is true and meant for our eyes, but they can't officially say so or haven't yet prepared their statement, 3) The story is false and meant for our eyes as a form of propaganda, 4) ... other options
I think the best course of action is to treat the story as if it never happened. I'm utterly exhausted by what appears to be repeated propaganda via the US news media, covering their asses with this very tired "anonymous source" trick. If the source is anonymous it garners zero trust, and you just fool yourself if you think otherwise and choose to believe it because it is exciting/scary/wishful/etc... unless you trust these particular media sources (I don't). I'm fairly sure that most of the anonymous leaks during the Russia Collusion investigation turned out to be false propaganda.
If the government wants to warn us of something, they have to actually do that -- they can't play these games and presume we are going to react (if option 2) because we are exhausted by manipulation. I will take it seriously as soon as (and only if) the FBI takes communicating it seriously.
Just FYI, some countries have made it a protected class, e.g.: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/... (see 21(1)(j))
If my FALSEHOOD had been censored, I would still be walking around with a dumb idea in my head.
In this particular case, I would quickly argue "Hell no, storming the US Capital is illegal for good cause, and I will never condone such acts of violence." But I would allow the discussion. We have to allow the discussion. Because if you draw a line here, then you will be censored when you argue for things like marijuana legalisation and gay marraige while they are still illegal as McCarthyites will censor you based on inciting people to break the law.
This is why 'incitement' has such a high bar.
I could be wrong. Maybe "praise and support for /storming/" is incitement to violence. I'm glad I'm not a judge that has to make that call. So long as the line isn't drawn on the wrong side of the points I argued above.
But it also makes sense evolutionarily. People who suffer depression may survive periods in their life when they would otherwise commit suicide, and people who don't exit life early, meaning that depression is naturally selected.
Most insitutions of public influence lean left by a large amount, and that lean is getting more and more extreme according to the researchers I've paid atttention to. Conservatives prefer roles in business and industry which are quite a bit less about influence. Conservative news media is an exception here, but the situation is not symmetrical: right-wing media has been utterly rejected by progressives right from the start and so nobody on the left feels betrayed by the news media like the right does. But is right wing media complicit in leading their own further astray? Absolutely.
Science is hopefully mostly populated by people much less tribal and much more skeptical than the average person. But few people get their science from scientists directly. The mostly leftwing media stands in between scientists and the populous. Science coming through a media that conservatives don't trust gets automatically binned along with everything else coming through that media. But rather than ignore it, they go hard opposite... I think it's actually to the point where reverse psychology would work very well.
Putting both of those wackadoodle groups aside, the core issue in America is a lack of trust between the major political camps. This lack of trust is unfortunately justified, as both camps often show a willingness to act in bad faith, to do "whatever it takes", ignoring the long term effects (of erosion of trust in the institutions of society).
Dr Fauci said masks didn't work in order to prevent a run on masks. Unfortunatly in the current environment the cost of that decision is very steep. The news media ran with the Russian Collusion narrative with far too much certainty. The cost of that decision, a near utter lack of trust from conservatives, is far too much. Lies about Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation... a blatant revolving door between the CIA propagandists and the media... social media banning or automatically editoralizing many widespread conservative opinions... and more trust evaporates. Trust is easily squandered and hard to regain. A media telling folks to shelter indoors due to COVID-19, and then immediately praising street rioting exacerbated an already near utter collapse in trust.
If American conservatives refuse to believe that COVID-19 is serious, or that lockdowns can work, or that climate change is a serious issue... the American progressives need to take some large measure of responsibility for that. They taught them time and time again "you cannot trust us" while saying "the most trusted source in news." Liberal/progressive institutions shirked their societal duty to actually be fair, balanced, cautious, do investigative research, and for God's sake to tell the truth rather than trying to manipulate votes.
The end does not justify the means, in no small part because few are bright enough to see the more complete set of ends.
To restore trust you must first start with respect. Allow the wingnut ideas to be spoken and spread. Put forth counternarratives and reasoned arugments rather than silencing "misinformation" (silencing alienates and drives deeper tribalism). Don't fall into the trap of believing that arguments never convince anybody -- they don't seem to because few people openly admit to being wrong or having been changed -- but they do have an effect. Respect the people while arguing the ideas. And that's just the first step. If you can't take this first step of showing respect by cherishing free speech again, America will just sink deeper into tribalism and all that it breeds.
Full disclosure: I write from New Zealand, consider myself classical liberal centrist and atheist, believe in lockdowns and socially distance, and take personal action to do my part to slow down climate change.