> if I say "fuck you" it's not really freedom of speech. I directly insulted you, I didn't even want a conversation, I directly harmed you.
But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.
#SticksAndStones
That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.
Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.
> Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech.
But who should be held accountable for those consequences?
For example, what about a woman who's struck by a visibly drunk man after telling him to "fuck off"? Should she be held accountable because she should have known better? Should the man be held accountable for his actions regardless of what she said? What about when the consequences of a statement are entirely unintended and unpredictable, which is happening more and more often these days? What about when a joke between friends becomes a public relations nightmare when overheard outside the necessary context?
This is such a meaningless slogan I don't know where to begin. Nobody expects their speech to be free of consequence, otherwise they'd never say anything in the first place. What they want is speech which achieves their intent, which is rapidly becoming all but impossible. It's like coding, only without the pair programming, test driven development, and strong typing.
You know, I have to agree. My gut reaction is "blame the policy not the technology", but after looking closely, I'm struggling to see how this feature could ever be applied towards the user's best interests.
I can say with absolute certainty that (at least in America) reinstalling Windows does NOT void your warranty (despite what any rep may tell you), and selling you a device with a problem they assured you didn't exist is fraud.
I would return the laptop for a refund (regardless of how long you've had it), and if they refuse to take it back (which they likely will), file a small claims case in NC (I know, not necessarily an option depending on where you are). They may try to argue that you 'agreed' to arbitration, but because they misrepresented the quality of the device, you can argue that agreement was 'signed' under false pretenses, and isn't legally binding.
I'd also post recordings of your support calls online if you have them, or call back and record new ones if you don't. Posting those online does not run afoul of the broadcast laws which apply to phone recordings, and recording calls with only one party aware is legal in all but 11 states, and everywhere once they tell you they're recording the call.
I'm doing the same damn thing with the tech companies that screwed me over, so I made sure to do my homework.
> Am I the only one that really hates the carpenter analogy?
Apparently not, but the analogy is completely valid for what is being compared. A chair is designed for a specific purpose, so imagine if it kept changing in ways which were out of your control and either unrelated to, or made it less fit for, that purpose.
The problem I have is with how the article is using the term 'finished' to mean 'functionally complete', which is causing unnecessary confusion. Porting to new platforms and fixing security issues should not alter how functionally complete an app is, only address problems which either interfere with that purpose, or with the purpose of other apps running on the same system.
Even then, the article still isn't about functional completeness, but feature creep, and perhaps in the process the dangers of not using the right words for what you mean.
> A finished project is a dead project. If it isn't improving, it's dying.
Define 'improving', because there have been quite a few major projects that have been getting 'worse' (slower, buggier, less secure, more bloated, breaking changes, feature creep, inconsistent documentation) as time goes on. So what exactly are we prioritizing?
Wintel conquered the world by maintaining backwards compatibility. These days the majority of 'improving' seems to be for getting around breaking changes introduced by others and making unnecessary UI changes. Reliability and consistency is not a priority anymore. Instead no software can ever truly be finished because the assumptions under which it operates change unpredictably and inconsistently.
I mean really, once you finish something like a file renaming utility, what else is there to do? If it stops working due to changes made by someone else, then it needs to be updated, but that isn't improvement. If on the other hand it's working as intended, then the only way to further improve it is by changing priorities. Engineering is all about tradeoffs, but priorities are now being driven almost entirely by cultural forces, and I've seen this render working software inoperable for no other reason than it didn't fit the fashion of the time.
Reality doesn't change to the point that a chair, or even a microprocessor, stops working. Software on the other hand does, and if the platform you're targeting isn't stable, then you can never finish a project, let alone improve it. And this 'no updates' = 'dying project' philosophy is a big part of the problem, because it forces developers to unnecessarily update a project just so people believe it's relevant, while the only metric we should be using is that the software is fit for the purpose we use it for.
I started frequenting HN because I kept encountering these kinds of problems everywhere else. Certain subjects just have more gravity as it were, and when present will inevitably take up all the oxygen in a room. The only way I know to manage it is to isolate it in sub-fora, and be very strict about containment.
An important difference between HN and other fourms I frequent(ed) however is that instead of taking offense and going on the defensive when 'attacked' by 4chan, they recognize the joke and find it funny. That alone puts HN lightyears ahead of those other organizations.
And regardless of why, it's exactly this kind of self-awareness and identity that enables people to discuss ideas without feeling threatened by them, something which has held back both social and scientific progress in the past.
Well, if the mysterious sdfghjkl34567 is to be believed, then you don't get to decide what neoreactionary means, and so don't get to decide if you are one or not as far as others are concerned.
On the other hand you did start a petition to turn over government rule to Google, and believe the bottom 1/3 of the population should be live in servants to the top 1/3. What this has to do with neoreactionarism I have no idea, but apparently many people think it's associated.
P.S. I'm still not convinced that you're not a troll, but then again I'm not sure if this is not exactly the kind of $#@% that needs to be stirred up.
Perhaps they sold it, but I can also see how adding special exceptions to their algorithm and policy would be more expensive and error prone than just paying Mr. Lush for new marketing materials. We just don't know.
What I do know is what I get from a Google search for 'lush':
1) www.lushusa.com
2) www.lush.com
3) www.youtube.com/user/lush (this is Mr. Lush's channel)
www.youtube.com/lush was not on either the 1st or 2nd page of web results, or even the 1st page of video results. Google seems to be indexing based on the 'user' addresses.
And if the URL change is due to an algorithm, then Lush Cosmetics can't do anything about it either, which hurts their brand too as many people now believe they deliberately stole an address from someone else and refuse to give it back.
This is why it's important to have your own domain name, if for no other reason than to redirect traffic to your youtube channel.
The trouble with democracy is that it's not a system of government where everyone has their say, but one where the majority rules. A democracy does not protect individual rights, but the 'rights' of the majority. And members are not required to have any skills or qualifications before making an impact on how the government is run. Democracy is NOT an ideal, there's a lot to criticize, and even the founders of the United States understood this. But all these excluded middle thinkers think that if you're critical of democracy, then you're pro communist/socialist/monarchist/etc, which is nonsense.
Here's a relevant example of where relying on democracy would have compromised citizens constitutional rights.
> His view on gender 'roles' is also dangerously close to hate speech
Then you really have no idea what hate speech is, and should ask someone who survived the holocaust or had a cross burning in their front yard.
> and before any of you calls me an islamophobic: as a non-muslim white male he has no cultural heritage that could justify his opinion, so it's different.
When the hell did islamophobia enter the picture?!? Regardless, you don't need 'cultural heritage' to 'justify' an opinion. You do however need facts to support a conclusion. Are you saying that certain conclusions can only be made by those with a specific cultural heritage, regardless of the facts?
> In the meantime, if it's possible to make fascist programmers afraid for their careers, that's great for me. It means fascist movements are disrupted before they can even form. God knows leftists have been afraid for long enough.
Disrupting fascist movements sounds like a great idea, but is that really your intent?
> But if I could flip a switch and make every man feel the persistent, gnawing fear that a woman has of men, I would in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even consider whether the consequences were strategic, I would just do it.
Because it seems your intent is to make others as afraid as you are regardless of the consequences. Unless it's not, in which case things would probably be a lot more clear if you stopped flip flopping and refusing to define the words you use.
> I'm overjoyed that, as you put it, a climate of fear exists for fascists, misogynists, racists, and similar. I hope that this continues and only worsens for these people.
That 'climate of fear' also exists for those people who don't fall into such cleanly vilifiable categories, and yet occasionally engage in language and behavior that could be categorized as such, often unknowingly because those definitions seem to depend on contexts they cannot determine, have different meanings for each individual, and are rapidly being expanded to encompass broader categories of thought and behavior.
> I'm happy for many reasons. The first is that it has, as you've said, made privileged people afraid. I think this is only the beginning. Privilege creates safety, and as it is removed, I think the unsafety of the oppressed will in part come to the currently privileged classes. But if I could flip a switch and make every man feel the persistent, gnawing fear that a woman has of men, I would in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even consider whether the consequences were strategic, I would just do it.
One thing I've noticed about the fearful is that they tend to resent the fearless, and want everyone to live under the same fears they do. It's a very primal thing, as people who fear the same things are part of the same tribe. These fears are not used to achieve anything strategic, but to define the very culture members exist in, and so are vigorously spread and defended regardless of any practical value they may have. In such a culture you will never get beyond that fear. You can see this most readily in religious sects, but many political movements are little other than that.
And regardless of the 'harm' fear prevents, it is still the antithesis of knowledge, and a society ruled by fear cannot be ruled by knowledge. In such a society knowledge itself is a threat, and the only people willing to discuss controversial ideas will either be the ones courageous enough to question or hateful enough not to care. The fearful of course will not be able to tell the difference.
Personally, that is not a price I am willing to pay for a 'safe' society. That doesn't mean such a system is right or wrong, only that it doesn't align with my values. But regardless of differing values, it still troubles me that anyone would take such joy in other people's fear and unsafety, and I don't think any good can come of that.
> So if discourse is permanently removed as a tactical and strategic option for future leftists, I'll consider it a victory.
And yet here you are, using a throwaway account to engage in tactically and strategically driven discourse.
Um, as far as I understand, he wasn't banned from attending StrangeLoop, just that he had his talk pulled.
Given that, could we please either clarify this with Alex, or stop claiming this as it just further distorts the truth and politically weaponizes this situation even further?
But I would (and have) based on their political actions.
Regardless of how you feel about Yarvin's politics, he's not trying to force them on you. He's not trying to change the way you run your business or conference. On the contrary.
I can't say the same for his opponents however, who as well meaning as they are are too dogmatically driven to notice how nuanced this issue really is. If people like this join a group, they will either try to modify its politics and excise the members who don't fit the new order, or destroy it completely, driven by a belief that they have the moral high ground. And since they primarily work in the realms of words, their primary tactics tend to be in changing and obliterating the meanings of words to control what is being said. They'll alternatively go from claiming that words have no inherent meaning to attempting to redefine existing terms to mean different things to change what other people were trying to say.
The reason Yarvin concerns them is because on some level they believe he shares these same motivations and intents. I have no idea if he does, but I sure hope he doesn't.
> The only real argument is that discrete categories do not exist.
And yet they're 'discrete' enough that certain drugs are more effective on specific 'races' (or groups of people who share certain genetic traits if you prefer) than others.
I'm all for equality. I'm all for being judged and identified by your individual traits irrespective of the groups you're a product of. But this race/gender doesn't matter (or even exist) stuff has gotten to the point that it's as bad as the old christian movements when it comes to blocking scientific progress.
> Humans are not dogs, our populations are not strictly controlled for the purposes of winning dog shows. Attempts to do so are racist, in that they are (scientifically misguided) attempts to create or purify a race. Such as when your parents don't want you to marry someone who doesn't look the same.
I consider politics quite the dog show, and people have been self-selecting their mates on the basis of looks, culture, and politics for as long as they've been on this Earth. Seeing if this has resulted in genetic differences is a question of science, but deciding whether this activity is ethical is a question of value.
That's really the heart of the matter. As long as people believe scientific conclusions reflect personal values, we'll never be able to address any of these issues effectively.
> You agree to let us use, display, store, and reproduce the content in your RSS feeds including placing advertising next to or near your content without compensation to you. Don’t worry, we will not put advertising inside your content without your permission.
Other RSS readers display ads near your content, and Google caches RSS feeds. So unless these are unusual use cases, Apple does not need your consent here, as it's implied by creating an RSS feed.
> You confirm that you have all necessary rights to publish your RSS content, and allow Apple to use it for News as we set forth here. You will be responsible for any payments that might be due to any contributors or other third parties for the creation and use of your RSS content.
> If we receive a legal claim about your RSS content, we will tell you so that you can resolve the issue, including indemnifying Apple if Apple is included in the claim.
Apple is saying they're not responsible for any copyright issues involving your RSS feed. This is also reasonable and already assumed to be the case, so they don't need your consent here either.
Now the contentious bits.
> You can remove your RSS feed whenever you want by opting out or changing your settings in News Publisher.
> If you do not want Apple to include your RSS feeds in News, reply NO to this email and we will remove your RSS feeds.
These are just (poorly worded, thanks lawyers) opt out options. There's nothing in this 'contract' which requires your consent or legally binds you in any way beyond what the law already does. Apple is simply offering two methods of opting out, and if anything is giving you MORE control over your feed than other RSS readers do. That is, unless you feel that every RSS reader must get permission from each RSS feed they want to cache and render.
I've dealt with a lot of technology contracts as of late, and this is a storm in a teacup. If you want to go after something that's genuinely harmful, then start with those 'arbitration' clauses that are in damn near every electronics and service contract today.
So on the word of a few individuals he doesn't name, with information he doesn't bother to validate for himself, Alex decides to remove Curtis from the lineup because he might be 'distracting', not because of what he'd say, but just because he'd be present. This implies an environment where we're powerless against unnamed accusers, an authority who is unwilling to evaluate the merits of a case, and a group of people who are so unable to separate technical matters from politics that the mere presence of someone they disagree with makes it impossible to focus.
And you know what? I've seen exactly this sort of behavior from other corporations and both the 'left' and 'right'. It's something all groups naturally default to, and active measures need to be taken in order to avoid it. And while I get why people want to remain anonymous, I also know you cannot have the free flow of ideas when anonymous accusers can cost you your position, by making accusations they never need to verify, over things you never intend to address at a venue.
We need to challenge ideas, not bury them, especially at a conference like Strangeloop. And if the Urbit presentation was deemed good enough to hear before these facts came to light, then it's still good enough to be challenged on that basis.
P.S. By excising Curtis Yarvin in an attempt to avoid "overshadowing the talk and acting as a distraction for launching the conference as a whole", Alex Miller has done just that. And if I were to put on my tinfoil hat and give a bad faith reading of all this, considering the internet savvy are well aware of the Streisand Effect, I'd say this was exactly their intent.
> To be fair, neoreactionaries are mostly notable for their startling lack of real-world achievements.
That's not fair at all. You make a value judgment by referring to (but not defining) 'real-world achievements' and follow it up with an ad hominem, instead of deconstructing the actual ideas involved.
It also makes perfect sense that following any political view radically different from the mainstream will lead to less 'real-world' success, as not only does compromising your politics for success potentially alienate you from your allies, but mainstream society will be actively and deliberately trying to prevent you from achieving that success (and apparently speaking at technical conferences).
For example, I would not have been successful in the Roman Empire, Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany unless I was willing to compromise my politics. I'm not exactly successful now because my politics don't precisely line up with the 'mainstream'. But that still says nothing about how ethical or tenable my political stance is.
> I've helped organize a couple of small regional meetings, and I have literally zero idea what the political leanings of the speakers or attendees were. Nor did I care.
But if you are informed of their political leanings, and then don't take 'appropriate' action, then that says something about YOU, like how you endorse and advocate such politics.
But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.
#SticksAndStones
That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.
Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.