>[...] the vast majority of people who have disputed travel and appeal to the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program are not on the terrorist watchlist. Most people on the terrorist watchlist are still able to fly within the U.S. A very small subset of people on this list are on the “No Fly” list.

[...]

>The No Fly List is a small subset of the U.S. government Terrorist Screening Database (also known as the terrorist watchlist) that contains the identity information of known or suspected terrorists. This database is maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center.

So, shouldn't this list be public information anyway? It's not even suspicious people they're watching, by the sound of it the no fly list is only for people they have concrete evidence of terrorist activity for. Imo the public has a right to know those identities.

[1]: https://alunr.com/excel-csv-import-returns-an-sylk-file-form...

Some planning, some building out new stuff (usually clean work), some repairing active geysers of partially processed data that's getting all over the place fouling up the works.

  A,B,Alice "Mallory" Bob,123

So the following Excel export I just did will parse perfect fine with your CSV parser but give you completely the wrong thing:

  1;2,3;3,3
  2;7,3;9,3
  3;4,5;7,5

But that doesn't extend to using backslash escapes in something that's legitimately trying to be CSV. That's someone getting confused and implementing a mix of data formats, or trying to be clever and making an extended CSV format.

That, in turn, means you almost cannot use CSV in any robust solution. Even if, today, your input doesn’t have commas, quotes or newlines, can you guarantee it won’t tomorrow, next year, etc?

But... but those are the ones I listed as real special characters, unlike backslash. I don't understand the question.

There were also prod AWS credentials in the files exposed in Jenkins.

Oof the international politics always come out in things like this. Twitter also publicizes all of its suspensions and bans. There's a Wikipedia article with a list of all the notable suspensions since 2010. It's interesting to see that, contrary to popular narratives, many of the international groups banned were actually far-left aligned.

The list gets really boring the more you scroll down however. The last notable ban was Paul Graham for simply sharing their Mastodon handle. A boring dystopia indeed

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

Paul Graham is a man, not a plural entity.

People once walketh befide their mules, but now we gots lambos

Your comment is non sequitor

In English the word can be used as a singular pronoun

Right, so if you change it, then it's changed and it's different.

Appreciate the clarification

The list that Wikipedia determines "notable suspensions" is probably not the best gauge to counter "popular narratives". What Wikipedia chooses to highlight is often the sum of actual popular narratives - not simply popular protests [2]- which is sourced almost entirely from the media and then filtered through the culture found among Wikipedia power users.

A raw database of suspensions and their rationale [1] would probably be the only useful analysis.

[1] recent leaks show that that the US state/federal gov employees (and other well connected power players) often sent lists of tens/hundreds of accounts to be banned and Twitter employees often retroactively found reasons to do so when the given reason wasn't justified. So both the rationale and "notable" part both have questionable value for general analysis

[2] The people most often protesting bans aren't always the people getting the most media-sourceable attention for their bans

That said, I also see bans of accounts with few followers regularly being far-right (white supremacist jokes for instance). They may just not be able to gather large followings at this point and / or be on alternative platforms.

Massachusetts state police posted a photo on twitter from inside one of the emergency management command post whatever facilities.

In the background was a projector screen showing a web browser and in the toolbar was at least one link to a facebook group for one of the occupy movements.

Of course, no visible bookmarks to any of the state's numerous white supremacist or far right groups.

Those polo-shirt-and-khaki wearing clowns? From numerous accounts by witnesses, reporters, and photos on twitter they received what amounted to a police escort from the public transit station where they all parked, all the way into the city...and then from the transit station to their protest site. And then back again.

See: FBI report from a decade or two ago citing the huge problem with white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement.

Offtopicness is fine when it's fresh and whimsical but not when a thread gets sucked into old/repetitive arguments.

A list that details primarily terrorists having terrorists listed on it. Colour me surprised.

However are his actions of downloading the no fly list and offering to share with journalists legal? Or does that cross into overreach and criminal activity?

And particularly for "it" and other objectifying language, it has the huge problem that it makes other people uncomfortable. Especially those who overhear without being aware of your preference (imagine sending an email to a new client with text like "in my absence, contact my colleague X, it will assist you, it is an expert").

I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though, as there are some connotations with that :-/

This would indicate that maia wants to be referred to as "it" as the subject of a clause and "she" otherwise.

“they/he” and “it/she” indicate alternatives, whereas “she/her” indicates different cases.

Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple" you'd say "it's she apple"?

Correct; it is massively ungrammatical.

> Do you mean that instead of saying "it's her apple" you'd say "it's she apple"?

No possessive form is indicated. But instead of saying "I gave it a dress", you would say "I gave she a dress".

Edit: looking at other comments, it seems like it might not be the correct explanation after all?

Some people desire a single set of pronouns, and indicate this using the nominative/accusative pair (she/her, they/them, ze/zer).

Other people accept either of two different sets of pronouns, and indicate this preference using the two nominative forms separated by a slash (she/they, they/he, and apparently, it/she).

> This person is female and I'm not comfortable referring to her as 'it' because females are 'she'

and

> This person is a human being, and 'it' is used to refer to objects. It's demeaning to call a human being 'it' and makes me uncomfortable

The later is, at least imo, much more defensible.

I also feel uncomfortable using "it" as a pronoun, luckily this person seems comfortable with "she/her" as well so we can just use those instead.

You seem eager to reduce this to "just" a pronoun issue, but it's not the same as calling someone "he" or "she", whatever they might prefer.

No one gets to single-handedly (re)define the English language for everyone else. "It" in this usage does not fall in to normal English usage, other than to mock people. That they want to use it nonetheless or whatever reason, that's fine with me. I will always listen to that and do my best to oblige with that within reason. However, radically different meanings for words in common grammatical structures, for me, falls outside of "within reason". Other people may choose different, and that is fine too.

> Who's There?

> It's me, Bill Gates!

> "It" has a pretty clear meaning in English, and it is not as a pronoun for people. Therefore you're not Bill Gates or a person.

Whatever you have to say, say it to my face, and not in third person behind my back.

This isn’t “I don’t want to call her him because he’s a she.” The person you’re replying to has a very valid discomfort with reducing a person to an object’s pronoun. Completely understandable and defensible and beyond the apparent needs of the author.

When English got rid of ‘thou’ and “thine” those were replaced by referring to everyone with the more polite “you“, that surly helped adoption.

> I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though

In Five Children and It (published in 1902), the "It" of the title is a magical creature. However, one of the characters is a human baby who is always referred to with the pronoun "it". I glossed right over that reading the book as a child, but I found it pretty disturbing rereading as an adult.

However, once rereading the book had called the phenomenon to my attention, I noticed that it's not uncommon for me to want to refer to a generic child as "it". I wouldn't refer to a specific child that way.

So referring to a person as "it" is sometimes the normal thing to do. (And, of course, intensely inappropriate at other times.) On the other hand, the intro appears to specify that maia arson crimew wants people to use "she", an exclusively subject pronoun, as the object pronoun for she. That is deeply unnatural and virtually nobody will be able to comply; it's much worse than using "it" for a person.

I guess calling a child "it" is impersonal. Calling it "it" to its face is just strange since "it" is 3rd person.

By 1902, that time was several hundred years in the past.

> Calling [a child] "it" to its face is just strange since "it" is 3rd person.

Sure, but I haven't mentioned any such usage.

While it's uncommon today (and I think uncommon even by the time that book was written), use of 'it' for babies was definitely A Thing at one point.

Claudette Colvin was called it by the police when she was arrested

But I do have a trans friend who prefers it pronouns so that’s a sample size of one in the opposite direction

My native language doesn't have a he/she differentiation..

It's literally identical to the concept of learning someone's name, yet humans largely don't have a problem with that.

The third person pronouns kick in when talking about them, to someone else, almost certainly in their absence.

That may happen in writing.

I thought it was the right that accused the left of being precious snowflakes who aren't able to handle being uncomfortable ever? Why should you being uncomfortable be a blocker to referring to someone as they prefer, right? Being uncomfortable is part of life.

It's not neutral but guys like to pretend it is.

I do wonder what a linguist would suggest about these two uses, though. English is a language in which context often changes outcomes.

If you approach a group and say "How are you guys?" it doesn't imply an all-male group.

If I'm in a mixed group down the pub I won't at all be surprised if somebody (usually female) walks up to the table and says "hey guys" as a greeting, intending to include male, female and enby members of said group.

If I'm on the internet I'm not going to try and use "guys" as gender neutral because I fully expect I'd be misunderstood by a decent percentage of people reading if I did.

So I wouldn't say people are necessarily pretending, it's entirely possible they're just used to it being neutral and forgetting that for a bunch of people it very much isn't.

That's socially though - when talking about people I've slept with, I acknowledge I'd expect people to read 'guys' as only referencing the male-identified ones. Though I'm more likely to use 'dudes' for that purpose myself, because confusion around 'guys' can go in both directions.

There's a difference though between "guys" as an address (which is used by plenty of female-only groups as well) and "guys" as a noun.

When my best friend came out as trans, I struggled to come up with a good way to refer to everyone as a group in a "hey everyone" kind of way. I eventually realized it's a stupid concept all together and walked into the room of my now mixed gendered friends while shouting "SUP CHODES!".

Went over very well. I recommend it.

Trespassing implies a presence, this could be seen as installing some software or code to maintain access on a system.

Now let's imagine the OP went to the airline office and found that the door was open, on a desk there was a printed version of the nofly list, he takes a picture of each page and leaves. He would face 20 times less prison time.

(This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list?

I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre.

Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates.

I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check.

I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan.

He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle.

This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border.

I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?

Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US would fit this criteria.

If the bad person isn't in the US there's no need for US airlines to maintain a list of them which prevents them from getting on a plane, but then just sends them on their way to arrange other travel plans. What we want for really bad people outside of the US who should be arrested on sight at airports are warrants. Signed by judges. Not secret lists with no oversight or transparency, and not sending dangerous people back out into the American population.

Someone who is apparently so bad they can't be allowed through airport security into an aircraft, but only if that aircraft is travelling to or within the US?

Yet someone who is apparently so innocent they can't be arrested/detained/charged with anything, anywhere, and so are free to travel the rest of the world.

It sounds ridiculous even just typing that out.

But then, I am not a Bond-esque criminal organization bent for world domination.

At the very least, I don't think the company was operating like every random developer should have full-access to the no-fly list, which is what they de-facto gave them when they dumped an old copy into the test pipeline.