sjwright

For those who don’t know, Tom Holman is the TH in THX. He was also involved with the inception of Audyssey Labs and their room calibration technology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_Holman

Your opinion makes a lot of sense now that you've analogised rape situations to a lucid, rules-based sparring competition. If I were to grant that rather weird analogy as valid, you would be completely right and I would most certainly be wrong.

> I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but when you say “weak” are you still speaking in the physical sense?

Obviously I was not—otherwise I would have been entertaining a direct logical contradiction.

I am speaking in the terms offered by the user klipt earlier in this conversation tree. This is how dangerous rhetoric is formed. To call someone "weak", no matter how much you qualify its meaning, inevitably leads to many other subjective connotations that I do not agree with.

> To not seems to be the type of wordsmithing used to avoid precise use of language.

On the contrary, it's the type of wordsmithing used to avoid intentional misapplication of language.

> I think the BJJ argument can actually be dangerous. Yes, it’s good for anyone to know self defense. But the vast majority of women won’t become skillful enough to overcome the (statistical) innate size/strength disadvantage, particularly any man with training. They can if dedicated enough, but if they don’t it can lead to false confidence.

I think it's borderline offensive to assume that the "vast majority of women" won't become "skillful enough".

I think it's borderline offensive to suggest that building up confidence is a dangerous idea. Even "false confidence" can increase one's actual physical power. And to say that a policy is dangerous because it won't be effective in all encounters is ridiculous.

It seems you misunderstand the purpose of having broad BJJ training. It's not just about increasing skill. It's not just about increasing confidence (which for many women might be itself sufficient to stop an attack). Rather it's about the culture that would arise among MEN in response to a society where women have more confidence—whether objectively justified or not.

> you instead advocated for a double standard...

I did no such thing and I consider it highly offensive for you to imply that I did.

Did I say that slavery was the only reason? No.

Did I say racism is only historical? No.

Having words put in one's mouth makes conversation deeply uninteresting. Thus I shall end my contributions here.

Men are, as a statistical average, physically stronger. Men are statistically far more likely to rape a woman than the other way around. Setting aside any legal/criminal consequences, rape has substantially higher risk of long term, life altering consequences for the woman than for the man.

Now of course the better solution for this disparity would be to empower women with physical defence skills, e.g. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. And to somehow exorcise the male erotic fantasy out of mainstream female fashion/culture. But as desirable as those solutions are, we can't rely upon top-down social engineering being effective.

It's also important to point out that men being (on average) physically stronger doesn't equate to women being "weak". And having objectively more at risk does not make one "need protecting" in any special way. Such twisting of language is political gamesplaying—and not healthy discourse.

> Poverty amplifies the problem of racism. But racism is what caused that poverty in the first place.

I partly agree, but I’d argue that it’s less complicated. I would rephrase thusly: Poverty IS the problem. And historical racism is the cause of a lot of that poverty.

> even if you removed racism completely, African-Americans would still be stuck with being poor, simply for historical reasons.

I agree in principle. The question is how you solve for systemic poverty. I think the first, most obvious step is to enact a very steep inheritance tax. That would be the most effective way to dampen generational capital inequality.

The second thing you could do is a generous UBI because that would dramatically benefit the systemically poor. The most effective way to lower income inequality is to raise the floor.

Indeed, though in some instances that’s as it should be. There are objectively rational reasons why women should have optional access to male-free spaces. There no objectively rational reasons for the converse.

(That said, I’m all for making all such restricted spaces as rare as possible. Any structural division, no matter how well intended, has a cost to society.)

Historical racism, especially slavery.

Completely agree. Most racism in the USA can be explained by poverty—of which "POC" are disproportionately represented. America's systemic racism is better described as systemic poverty combined abuse of the poor.

You can dismantle privilege by tearing down existing systems or by building greater inclusivity into them. "Dismantling the systems of white privilege" is too vague to disambiguate this semantic dispute.

By analogy, you can force male-only clubs to close and you can force male-only clubs to be inviting to women. Either action would dismantle the systems of male privilege.

There was no quantification in the signal chain, so no.

This is false, albeit depending on how broadly you define “personal information”. Regardless, the effect of the law has been clear.

Effective privacy protection means that app developers need strong incentives to follow strict rules. I for one appreciate that Apple’s approach of enforcing strict rules is a choice available to me as a consumer.

Apple apps don’t do what Apple is restricting other developers from doing here, so any claim that these restrictions aren’t applied to their own apps is moot.

That makes no sense. Apple is guilty for doing the right thing?

If you want to demonstrate market dominance, write a clear definition into the law and enact it.

Apple sees privacy as a marketable point of differentiation to its competitors. I for one appreciate that Apple’s approach is a choice available to me as a consumer.

Meanwhile, the arc of Google’s Android platform has been steadily bending away from open source, not towards it.

"Regulation" mandated stupid cookie consent overlays on every damn European website. Thanks, regulation.

That's the AGPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

What is the "fair share" payment for ElasticSearch under its Apache license? I'm not a lawyer but it appears to be $0. Meanwhile, how come everyone showing sympathy for Elastic's position doesn't seem to be showing equal sympathy for Apache Lucene? Surely Lucene is deserving of at least as much credit as Elastic.

Other people have chosen to license their own work with the license of their choice. The license is being complied with by AWS in fact and in spirit.

If you don't agree with the spirit of the Apache license terms, that's fine. You can draft an Apache-for-everyone-except-AWS license and lobby for its use by others.

Just because something was designed for a specific purpose a few hundred years ago doesn't mean it serves that same purpose today. Situations change. The Constitution was designed to be amended.

> , it just shows a childish attitude

So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.

This is both correct and incorrect.

This is correct if you refer to how early versions of the Mac OS X installer was packaged. The Classic environment framework was always installed but a copy of Mac OS 9 was also required to be installed on the system volume as well—and this wasn't included when installing a fresh copy of Mac OS X from a CD.

There was a limited period of time when Apple shipped and installed both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X on Macs—so for those people, the Classic environment was "effectively" installed by default. Though to reproduce this you'd need to run the Mac OS X and Mac OS 9 installers from their respective CDs.

Increases compliance rate, reduces losses from non-compliance, improves monitoring/statistics around non-compliance.

Perhaps you could make it mandatory for a voucher good for 1 year of license to be sold alongside every TV. You can then credit that voucher to your household account.

(If you bought more than one new TV per year, your TV license account would be in perpetual credit. I don't see that as a problem.)

> FWIW, advertising and to a larger extent advocacy in 1988 and what is today are entirety different animals.

There certainly are more forms and techniques of advertising, but if you teach the fundamentals sufficiently well, the critical thinking skill set can adapt as advertising adapts.

An important fundamental is to recognise that you have a desire for a product or service and to know to be conscious of the chain of events that have led to that desire.

College degrees are not a relevant metric. What percentage of the population are being taught fundamental critical thinking skills? How many are taught how to evaluate the quality of data and the quality of sources? How many people have a good grounding of statistics? Or civics? Or logical fallacies? How many people can describe the scientific method?

I don't have many vivid memories of my primary school education but one of them was being taught how to be suspicious of claims made in advertisements. That one class stuck with me for a long time. (This was in Melbourne, Australia sometime around 1988.)

Given that Apple has explicitly stated this benefit and given that Apple has explicitly utilised these exact benefits in the real world on multiple occasions, it's rather bold to propose that it might not be factually true.

Obviously it's not the only reason that Apple does things the way they do. It's probably not even the number one reason. But it's certainly one significant reason which seems to fit the objective criteria of being factually true.

(To be clear, I am stating no personal opinion about whether Apple's approach is "good" by any criteria.)

Based entirely on their MX-30 car design, I'd believe it. It's a fairly stupid design that slavishly mimics many aspects of the much and controversial older BMW i3.

Flaky network stacks aren't rare. I've experienced plenty of consumer-facing operating systems that will freeze on boot for 10 to 60 seconds if the network interface is up but DHCP is unreachable.