x0137294744532

I would and I am sane of mind.

It is sufficient to delete or anonymize identifying information. For instance, in the case of discord, it is possible to delete only the account information without deleting the chat themselves to comply with GDPR. You can still see the chat messages for the account id 123456789, but you shouldn't be able to associate this account id with an email or other personal information.

> why is extrajudicial punishment allowed?

In some cases it is common sense. For instance: a pedophile shouldn't be allowed to be a school teacher.

Maybe the amount of neurons grows as their "usage percentage" reaches a certain threshold, making the memory capacity unlimited.

You are describing the ethnicity, not the race. Race refers only to the skin color of the person, whereas ethnicity refers to the cultural and lineage aspect of that person.

Both are not mutually exclusive and can be stopped independently from one another.

> There is no text which codifies it, unlike Islam.

Each sect has a different Quran, different Sharia, different precepts. There are massive differences in the way Islam is practiced across the world.

> Unlike religion, its not voluntary.

Imagine then someone who openly claims to be an artist and that creating art is a part of them. Would you say this person culturally associate with a murderer who kills "for art"? Both call themselves and associate with the artistic work.

> I would say a better analogy would be a white man associating himself with black gang culture by getting gold teeth, gold chains, tattoos,etc to a job.

I don't think that it is a good analogy, as that white man associate concretely to black gang culture.

A better analogy would be, a man who associate with black culture in general but gets rejected because his employer consider him to associate with black gang culture although he claims he doesn't.

> Hindus dont have religious literature (and Hindu countries dont have laws) against other religious.

But hindus have the same culture. Going by your logic, every hindu culturally associate with the other hindus.

> but yes, I guess you do culturally associate with all churches if you are openly Christian and wear a cross at work,etc.

Then let me give you a more extreme implication of this logic:

By calling ourself openly human beings, we culturally associate with every other evil man since they are also human beings. Therefore, we are no better than the most evil man on earth.

> He voluntarily associates and culturally identifies with a group of people who are culturally incompatible with the country (Sharia, triple talaq,festivals which involve cutting goats on the road,etc) and are a threat to national security (a lot of terrorist attacks are after all funded by Muslim countries).

According to this logic, by being a conservative american protestant, you culturally associate with westboro baptist church. Also, by being a strong believing hindu, you obviously culturally associate yourself with the massacre of muslims, and vice versa.

This doesn't make sense.

If one can not afford to pay a living wage for these jobs, then these jobs should not have existed in the first place.

According to a poll from Kantor Public onepoint/TF1, of the people who voted Macron, 36% voted to support Macron and 64% voted to prevent Le Pen.

It is safe to say that the conservatives and leftists are more anti-Le Pen than pro-Macron, and they represent about 40% of the population according to the first round of the election.

Considering that Le Pen gained only a few extra votes compared to the first round, it can be said that about 2/3 of Macron's supporters in the second round are not pro-Macron but in fact anti-Le Pen.

> No, nuclear war doesn't count, even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was.

Let's do some math. Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~100,000 people, making it 50,000 per bomb. The US has currently 31,175 nuclear weapons at its disposal. If it were to even use 5% of its arsenal, assuming they have the same power as the bombs from '45 (which they don't), it would amount to 150,000,000 deaths. This is 2.5 times more than the total casualties of ww2, without even accounting for the nuclear weapon use of the opposing side.

> Who's 'she'?

The feral girl.

> Anyway, I think you ought to rethink your claim that Chomsky is the father of cognitive science and of modern linguistics.

He is one of the founders of cognitive science, and a major contributor to linguistics.

So his claim is factually true.

> Well, yeah. The point is neither does Germany today.

According to the definition of the Declaration of Human Rights, they actually do.

> Whereas being arrested, tried and merely jailed for something you say, as happens in Germany (and Austria), is your idea of justice and not being persecuted?

Freedom of speech alone doesn't guarantee freedom, liberty or justice.

> This is solely about the principle of free speech: you either believe in someone's right to say what they want or you don't. You can't just sometimes believe in it.

That's the problem; we have different definition of "freedom of speech". The US interprets "freedom of speech" according to the definition given by the Bill of Rights, while the rest of the world use the definition of Declaration of Human Rights.

> East Germany also had it, so did Nazi Germany.

No, they didn't.

Declaration of Human Rights:

> Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, _in the cases determined by the law_.

In East Germany and Nazi Germany, people were persecuted and killed without being brought to trial and facing justice.

This particular article of the german penal code is a relic of the German Empire (1871). Last December, the government decided to get it removed from the penal code.

> but it fails to give any argument for why that information is valuable.

I often find myself opening several new tabs while browsing, and suddenly wanting to go back to a certain page I've seen.

To do this, I need to search for the tab which contains the page that I want to revisit in its history, which is a pain.

Another option is to look through the browser history, but you loose the navigation process; so if you would like to access the page that you visited after this one (that you opened in a new tab), you will have to go through the history again.

Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body.

If basic human rights aren't guaranteed by the government, citizens may not be able to exercise their power. Other actors may therefore rule and govern.

As such, authoritarian regimes that denies such rights to its citizens can't be called democracies.

> DDG isn't very good at searching

You can use the !g bang to search on google.

> with no visible benefit to my life.

The main advantage I personally see in using DDG is to be able to directly search on sites. For instance:

  * I need to lookup foo on wikipedia: !w foo
  * I need to search for foo on amazon: !a foo
  * I need to lookup a video on foo: !yt foo

> Personal favorite: 8-year-old bug that causes select options to render incosistently if there's a transform anywhere in the DOM above it

How is it critical to apply a transform to a select option? I don't see how this comes even close to the absurd IE bugs.

You can donate hair, milk, sperm or oocytes as frequently as you like without affecting your health. This is not the case for organs or plasma.

> 1. OP said strong indicator. It's by no means the only indicator and a state can be fascist whilst still allowing people to leave.

OP said that:

> If you can freely choose to leave then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.

I'm saying that it isn't an indicator for fascism: there is no country where every person who wants to leave, is unable to (whether it's illegal to leave is another question). Therefore, in all countries, fascist or not, there will be people who can freely choose to leave.

I think that a better indicator would be:

> If no ethnic/religious/politic/whatever group of people are prevented in a legal or physical way to leave the country, then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.

> If you can freely choose to leave then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.

So the people who decided to flee from Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union or North Korea were not fleeing from a fascist country?

Since there are no new posts in the [category 'fundamentals'][1], I assume that there is no part two yet.

[1]: https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/category/fundamenta...

Imagine party A has 23%, party B has 28%, and party C has 49%. Party A and B join forces; they decide per consensus on how they would vote in parliament. Since they have together 51% and vote as one, they don't need to consult party C, even though it's the party with the most votes.

We have again a situation where 51% crushes the 49%.

ipfs.io is simply a public gateway to the ipfs network. If you have the ipfs daemon running, you can fetch the image through the ipfs network like this:

    $ ipfs get QmTf3EquRYzxa4njTRpimp6YEcJJPSUf5pQE9TE54qCa3M

It will download the image per P2P.

IPFS isn't an anonymous network and you don't share files that you didn't download. It works more like a distributed CDN for static files.

> And why is the author talking about "expropriation" instead of "taxing"?

The process of expropriation usually occurs suddenly and forcefully in the name of the public interest and are focused on one specific group. Taxes on the other hand, are taken regularly and are applied to everyone (although at a different rate).

Spy on our country's citizens with deep packet inspection and put anyone on a list that reads anything related to Tor. With HTTPS, the visit of this website would seem 'innocent'.