nisuni

Merry Christmas to you! :)

And that’s why I was happier when basic research was mostly being carried out in public institutions.

So, what would be the viable alternative? Selling user data?

Genuine question: are there business that are not viable unless you sell user data?

> Only when I went to college in a college town did people largely seem to want to live and let live.

Well, live and let live sounds pretty ideal, given that in several places across California conservative opinions are not tolerated.

Maybe we agree that a college town in Texas it's a place where opposing viewpoints can still coexist?

DKIM might have non-repudiation as unintended side effect, but I am totally fine with it!

Is this enough to explain not a single woman in the top 100?

Independently of who said what, look at the facts and make up your mind.

What's the current status of Tor? I remember seeing in the past many de-anonymizing attacks against it.

The apps by the same author are very, very interesting: http://www.pixelegg.me

I never said it’s OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn’t explain myself well.

My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.

I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.

But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!

But a country’s policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.

Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.

There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.

Friendly reminder that when what can and cannot be said is chosen by a private company, they will always choose what’s better for their business.

The only way of having some moral (rather than commercial) principles guiding the choice, is to regulate it at government level.

> The reason you should leave your political views at the door because you're trying to pass them off as facts.

Never tried to do so, you must be mistaken.

> That is simply not supported by evidence.

It is.

I never said that the article says that it’s fraud.

I said, taking full responsibility for it, that vote-by-mail is more prone to fraud.

Why should I leave my political views at the door? Is because they don’t align with yours?

I know everyone in certain social circles is pressured into saying that vote-by-mail is the best thing ever, because the Orange Man said that vote-by-mail is bad and you must be on the other side.

However, it’s time to admit that vote-by-mail has huge problems and it’s more prone to fraud.

> It shows whatever your stance on abortion that making it illegal doesn't stop it

That’s not an argument. Making homicide illegal does not stop serial killers, is this a good reason for legalizing homicide?

I am not taking a side on the dispute, but: are you in favor of abortion? Then just say openly that, according to your system of values, a fetus of N months can be rightfully killed, for some value of N.

Completely wrong analogy.

Critical theorists just want to shut down any kind of debate whose conversation does not fit their worldview. I don't think we need examples here.

On the other hand, there are many opponents of critical theory that are genuinely interested in debate, and in comparing their worldview with different ideas.

My thoughts exactly. I plan on checking and maybe using Ceasefire, but if it succeeds the critical theorists will declare it another means of intersectional oppression. And then the mob will start. And then Ceasefire will not be big enough not to bend the knee.

I am not necessarily speaking about human trafficking in theie supply chain.

I am talking about redirecting your efforts towards issues that have a real impact. Does Apple want to do something about slavery, some philanthropic gesture? There are thousands of things that are more effective than replacing a few words in the codebase. But maybe they wouldn't grant as much publicity as this PR stunt does.

There are places in the world where slavery is still a thing, unfortunately, and they clean their conscience by replacing a few words in their codebase.

Slacktivism at its finest!

I have my evidence that Lena is not harmful to women, at least to this woman. It’s one data point, but better than zero.

You are making a much stronger claim without evidence. How is Lena harmful? How many women did Lena drive out of CS?

Do you have some proof, some data, besides neo-Marxist crap such a intersectionalized mysoginistic oppression?

It reminds me of that video that showed that college students are outraged by stereotypical Mexican Halloween costumes, but actual Mexicans are fine with it.

Are you fighting for women, or for your ego?

My point is: people (often, males) like to speak in the name of all women when it comes to Lena.

It’s offensive, it keeps women out of CS, it’s a symbol of the patriarchy, etc...

As woman, I am saying this is not the case, at least not for THIS woman: I’ve never felt excluded because of Lena, my CS studies were not impeded by Lena in any way, I have actually used Lena’s image for a small project.

Of course I would accept someone saying that the image offends someone (better if this point is substantiated by evidence) but I absolutely reject people speaking in the name of all women, an saying that Lena offends all women. This is not true!

Woman here, you are absolutely right, I couldn’t care less about Lena!

As a woman in CS I couldn’t care less about Lena.

Let’s focus on real things, not on this phony issues!

> why

Cancel culture.

People lose jobs for things said 30 years ago, and that were completely acceptable 30 years ago.

> Niel Golightly stepped down after an employee complained about an article he wrote in 1987 that said women should not serve in combat. He said those views do not reflect his opinion today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/business/boeing-resignati...

You want to be insured against that.

Never heard of a stereotype according to which only women are mean.

The First Amendment, as you correctly point out, protects freedom of speech in certain cases that are not really relevant here.

However, people might support a higher standard for freedom of speech, and might wish businesses also concur in protecting it.

This is not in the law, but very often people have moral standards that are stricter than the law.

Therefore, I don’t see any contradiction here.

Myself, I full acknowledge that Facebook is not bound to grant freedom of speech to its users by the First Amendment, but I still wish it did so.

Inverting the Laplace transform is a central problem in computational physics, since it connects imaginary-time results (easier to obtain numerically) to real-time response.

Over the years a number of approaches have been developed for the inverse Laplace transform, such as MaxEnt, GIFT and many others.

I would love to see how this new approach fares against those.

That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job.

That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.

I am sorry for him. I know as a fact that he’s brilliant and fully deserves the position, but given the circumstances (Ohanian resigning and calling for someone black to replace him) he will always have to live with people having the reasonable doubt that he didn’t arrive there for merit alone.