jeremyfranco
Anyway, I had to login with my phone to comment and read the dead comment, at work I go through a corporate firewall that strips all the unnecessary headers, so I can't stay logged in on HN and I can't read dead comments.
So maybe that you should have been an "I".
I'm not an anonymous reader, but during the day I'm forced to be one.
BTW anonymous readers are probably not an irrelevant number, they still are users and they still count.
Your answer was not entirely wrong, but it was incomplete, hence not true or false.
Don't take it personally.
It's like assuming that everybody speaks a perfect English, it's false.
Not even native English speakers are immune to errors.
https://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/mix-otp/docs-tests-a...
I simply noticed that it took literally a single search on Google to get to know about it.
Not trying to defend the OP.
> But this article isn't evidence of Google having a liberal orthodoxy
Or the opposite, if literally members of unpopular party work there and have that kind of power.
It supports the poster thesis (phrased in a provocative way) that this kind of issues are not unknown at Google, either one way or the other.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crenshaw-calls-googl...
I guess the part of the original comment (now dead) that says (quoting)
> That one guy: what a relief, because I’m literally a Nazi.
> Everybody: no. Leave that part at home.
> Guy: my rights are being trampled by a liberal conspiracy!
is exposed here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-sued-bias-clai...
A generous billionaire.
Those that don't are just greedy billionaires.
How does this fit in the narrative, when the ones speaking up (right or wrong, that's not the issue here) are being fired?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/technology/Google-union-c...
The data shows they do not.
Google Is Fined $57 Million Under Europe’s Data Privacy Law: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/technology/google-europe-...
Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...
There is even a Wikipedia page about Google VS users privacy
Privacy concerns regarding Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo...
It is impossible for anonymous readers to open dead comments.
If it is not, please explain me how to do it
https://www.wired.com/story/the-dirty-war-over-diversity-ins...
It is also plausible.
Burying the head in the sand to avoid getting political is part of the problem, not of the solution.
consistency
Not in Europe, since "Dei delitti e delle pene" (On Crimes and Punishments ) from Cesare Beccaria.
It was 1764, we were already aware of that.
Justice is not a way to inflict punishment, the sentence, as Beccaria put it "should be in degree to the severity of the crime" and should work as deterrent, not as retribution (which is usually the case in US especially the death penalty, that have the purpose of giving "an eye for an eye" to the victim's family).
> Humans have a strong natural instinct towards justice
No, they don't.
Homō hominī lupus, men are very social animals, it doesn't mean they lean naturally towards justice, they just defend their communities against other communities.
> This worked pretty well for thousands of years
It didn't actually.
That's why we constantly reformed our justice system.
Think about the code of Ammurabi, does this work in your opinion?
"If the wife of a man has been caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the waters. If the owner of the wife would save his wife then in turn the king could save his servant."
It never really worked, especially for the regular folks, still today has a lot of flaws let alone thousands of years ago. In Italy it was legal to kill the wife that cheated (but not the husband who did the same), it was called "honor killing" and it was abolished only in 1981.
So, no.
> The right to revenge is one of the most important human rights of all
It is its greatest fault indeed.
And it is what makes USA a country where the risk of being killed by a stranger is 10 times higher than in Italy (5.63/100,000 vs 0.55/100.000), it is higher than many third world countries or countries that are at war like Sudan, Kenya, Niger, Libya, Syria or Iran.
Justice system in Europe is not a business, like it is in US, or a way to inflict a punishment, it is a rehabilitation process: if you prove you have changed, you can benefit from reduced sentences, furlough for good behavior and/or early releases.
If you haven't, you stay in jail.
Think about the U.S. system where people can be taken to custody for murder but can bail out, is that better in your opinion?
In Italy, for example, to keep mob affiliates in jail in solitary confinement, so they can't speak with the outside, they had to make a specific law, otherwise it would not be possible within the Italian prison system.
Vengeance has never been a pathway to justice, kamikazes go to die because their families are compensated or because their families are threatened or because they are radicalized in other ways, there's no connection between bombings and suicide bombers, in fact you don't see fathers or mothers do it, you see young males do it (85% of all suicide bombers are man).
Radical organizations use bombers as weapons, they need them to be reliable (as reliable as possible) you can't just count on the momentary lapse of reason that could bring a father to hope to kill his son's killers.
Hamas, for example, was against using women as suicide bombers, but in 2004 they changed idea, after the first woman was used, they said “this is a significant evolution in our fight. The male fighters face many obstacles... Women are like the reserve army―when there is a necessity, we use them.” [1]
[1] https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf [PDF]
"The facts of this case, leave no question as to what constituted national defense information. Appellant's training and experience indicate, without any doubt, she was on notice and understood the nature of the information she was disclosing and how its disclosure could negatively affect national defense."
Manning, the judges ruled, "had no First Amendment right to make the disclosures—doing so not only violated the nondisclosure agreements she signed, but also jeopardized national security."
apparently they did stick.
The freedom of the people to chose their own representatives and leaders, something U.S. agency CIA has tempered with many times, especially in South America.
> I assume they do it because they hate American freedom.
Or is the CIA that hates other countries freedom to not agree with them?
Maybe other countries created their agencies to defend them from CIA.
There are always two sides in a story.
They use any definition their law uses to define rape.
If it is rape for them and you do it in their country, it is rape.
> which is exactly why Stallman and I are against using terms like rape to describe a much less serious
I don't think you and Stallman agreee at all.
Stallman was against using "sexual assault", because it can be conflated with opinions like "assault means using violence" while it's not necessary to be sexual assault.
Stallman was in fact in favour of using "statutory rape" which is not ambiguous.
Deep throat identity has been a very well kept secret for over 30 years, Manning and Snowden have been exposed merely weeks after the material was published.
It looks to me that Wikileaks is the real paper-thinly veil.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that wikileaks was created exactly with the purpose of exposing whistleblowers.