zohch

I hope GitLab will make a commitment to cut economic ties with countries from which they will accept "refugees", something which Europe generally does not seem to have the courage to do.

Apologies for that. The point is I guess that there is production in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and India.

> So is your PlayStation, your Nintendo Switch, your Surface Laptop, your Lenovo desktop, your Pixel phone…

Not things I own. There are other places that manufacture electronics than China. And "everyone does it" does not a justification for being complicit in genocide.

Here are good places to start looking:

- https://notmadeinchina.directory/

- https://chinanever.com/

- https://bestfreereviews.com/best-laptops-not-made-in-china/

- https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/gadgets/non-ch...

Maybe if Europe stopped colluding and glad handing with Tyrannical governments like China and Russia they too could offer up some alternatives. Doubtful though, Germany is all about double speak, saying that they are against genocide while doing everything in their power to prop up genocidal regimes to maintain their regional hegemony.

I personally would be more concerned that it was made by a company that uses slave labor in collaboration with an authoritarian state that is perpetrating a genocide on a minority religion. But I guess if you are okay with that ... then maybe this will bother you.

This is a link to the full speech: https://youtu.be/O613tUE2X3o?t=630

The video is her speaking about what limitations on political speech is appropriate for Facebook to impose. Facebook is not a government, Facebook is not in a position to make things like violent threats or incitement legal, even if they wanted to.

This is about what legal speech should be allowed on Facebook.

I did read the article, twice. I can't figure it out. That is why I asked.

How is your response polite?

I disagree, I think it is. I don't see what right of anyone is infringed by my exercise of speech.

And even if there was, why would that right be absolute, and not also be balanced by my right to speech?

I'm sorry but my rights don't come from the pontifications of some privileged rich white woman in one of the most privileged nations in the world.

She has no perspective, she can go live in real adversity for some time, know what oppression really feels like, know what it feels like to be denied basic human rights, and then come back and tell us again that what really needs to happen to make the world a better place is that we should accept that the billionaire class dictates our rights to us.

What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? And how would making reach data available make it easier for Facebook to see evil?

Or if Facebook is trying to hide the evil, what evil is it they are trying to hide? What will the reach data reveal that is so evil? And if the evil is manifest without reach data, why does it matter?

They could just use something else, instead of using Facebook while complaining about it all the time how they don't want to use it because it monetizes their eyeballs.

Seems to me like using something else would be easier, or at least make for a happier life.

Like if I don't like spinnach but I really need to get some fiber, it seems like the simpler option is to find another way to get fiber, rather than eating spinnach while constantly moaning to the whole world how spinnach is just the worst.

I agree, but I still don't understand what people who prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized are doing on Facebook.

> Why is that the question?

Because the article is about 2030 and unless the rate of sea level rise accelerates significantly in 9 years that means sea level will be about 36 mm higher in 9 years. And it is hard for me to see how 36 mm higher sea level will flood much of anything, so it seems that the moon wobble will do most of the heavy lifting if we compare the situation today to the predicted situation in 2030.

> Is there any evidence to suggest that the sea level will completely stop rising today?

No.

It was a question as evidenced by the question marks.

Your answer, as far as I can discern, is that it "Of course" it is "fair and reasonable that goods sold in India should be made in India, that movies that show in India should be made in India, that all news consumed in India should be written in India."

That's all there is to it, question asked, and answered.

> If Facebook crashed tomorrow I would need to start emailing a bunch of people to put together contacts but other than that it would be a net benefit.

Why not start today?

> The same way ads work in print media

Do adds in print media not "monetize people's eyeballs" also?

> The publisher doesn't have as detailed targeting info for the advertiser, and presumably would charge less.

Okay but I was responding to a claim about adds not tracking.

> It’s almost as if, given information and a choice, people prefer not to have their eyeballs monetized.

I wonder, are people who use facebook and who would prefer to not have their eyeballs monetized like this not aware of Facebook's business model?

How do they think Facebook will stay operational? I personally think it's best to just drop Facebook, but I'm sure my parents and grandparents would rather have Facebook with adds than no Facebook.

But this is talking about 2030, not 2100. I guess the question is, if sea level rise stopped completely today, would there be no problem in 2030?

What makes it fair and reasonable and does whatever rationale you use here not open up the door to further nativism?

I mean if it is fair and reasonable that Indian transactions should be stored and processed in India, is it not also fair and reasonable that goods sold in India should be made in India, that movies that show in India should be made in India, that all news consumed in India should be written in India?

I get these are not the same, but what is the real difference here? Where does it become unreasonable in my examples and why?

> If I understand correctly it's mainly the effect of the moon's nodal precession [0] in combination with climate-change induced rising sea levels.

Sea level rise since 1995 has averaged 3.4 mm per year[1].

Is there an expectation that this will accelerate significantly? or is a change in 30mm expected to contribute significantly to flooding?

[1]: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Not aware of thins being unique to Netherlands.

Can you explain what limitation in GPL would prevent someone from using it as training data? Also, if you are not allowed to upload GPL to GitHub, seems like the right answer is don't.

> Despite that, I believe Canada will be a major recipient of these climate refugees when places just get too hot to live in.

In what sense would these people be climate refugees rather than infrastructure refugees? What percentage of Canada's population can survive in Canada without canada's infrastructure ?

If you read the article, a major problem the author is complaining about is the infrastructure:

> The electricity problems make it worse. The load-shedding comes during summer months and, these days, often falls in Ramadan, when people can’t drink water.

> This article isn’t about the temperature reaching 44 C for a single day.

Well this is the only actual data point it makes reference to, it links to a study which makes claims about 50 years in the future, which may contain some data, but that is thrice removed if it does.

> And it’s getting worse. Now it goes above 40C on an average day, and the intensity of the heat is different to when I was growing up in the city; the sunlight’s brighter, more piercing.

This links to: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/one-bill...

Titled: One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study

Can't they just link to historical temperature records for Karachi rather?

> they're just saying that 3 people seeing a doctor about flu symptoms at that time of year is not unusual (most Chinese routinely go to hospitals for any medical treatment)

But what evidence is there that this was the case, that they just had normal flu like symptoms, and it was not more serious? What information at all do we have about their cases, and how trustworthy is this information, and why does this have to come out through leaked intelligence reports if China is so sure they have nothing to hide?